Is bad grammar a sign of low intelligence

[Jack]

Repetitively asking the same question isn't going to change the answers you've already gotten. You're just fishing for someone to agree with your opinion. That's intellectually dishonest.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: pam699 hey u all say u want take a person seriously if they write in bad grammer we all know you are talking bullsh..t and i will give an example if u lived in stalinist russia and stalin said he will send out a book writen in bad grammer to ever housin your street and in the book was the number of the houses he was going to knock on and if any one was home when he knocked he would shot them i bet you would read that book avidly ploughing througfh the nbad grammer to see if your house was listed so u could make sure u where not home when stalin knocked by hell you would take him and his bad grammer very seruoisly; the point is not many people take most books seriousl;y any way that is why the are obsessed with grammer most books are drivel and rubbish so grammer becomes important but we all know for the realy seruious books -like shapspears plays bad grammmer is not that important we only take the rubbish books seriously with regard to grammer but books like stalins list which are very seruouis we dont care much for grammer

Thankfully, we do not have to read these posts at gunpoint. All of the examples you are using, besides being somewhat inaccurate, are entirely inapplicable to the situation in which you would justify your posting style. Shakespeare did not use poor grammar. He used words that he made up, but that was because the words he needed to express himself and to fit the play's scheme did not exist sometimes. He still made himself very much understood.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: pam699 i am doing this for a point quo but u still would read shakspear even though passages are incomprehensible and parrot the cligue ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh what a great writter WHY and not read bad grammer pams philosophy book if u all say u want take a book in bad grammer seriously so would u nevertheless take shakpsears bad grammer seriously and not mine WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

I find it interesting that you use the word "parrot" so many times. Just a thought.

Shakespeare told stories of the dark side of human nature, the pernicious serendipity, revenge, love, honor, humor and the unlikely end. I know refer to RickSP's comments as a comparison on content.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood Shakespeare used very proper grammar for his time. His contemporaries had no problem understanding his words. This is not true regarding your posts. How do you know what we'd do? Such a book doesn't exist, so I don't see how you can make a prediction based on it. You'd be better off asking how Jabberwocky became a classic poem despite its incomprehensibility. I suggest had not Lewis Carroll written it, it wouldn't have survived in popular literature. Jabberwocky

Perhaps. But I've always liked the poem because it used enough real words for you to know what was going on, and because you could usually figure out the invented words by the sound of them.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: pam699 but my point is which you cant deny without being seen as a leir is quote you all worship reputation and notablity if a writter has these u will read him regardless of his bad grammer but u critices me for bad grammer and would not read any book i wrote -i rest my point grammer dont matter so long as it makes u money or a famous person uses it

I highly doubt that's the case. I rather imagine that most if not all of us have at one time called a notable writer's work drivel. Would you like my list?

[The Dunedan]

I keep finding myself wondering how this individual survived to adulthood. This person presumes to pontificate upon Philosophy, yet seems to think that Elizabethan grammar and vocabulary are "wrong" simply because -they- have a difficult time understanding them. They admit to posting in this idiotic style in order to make a point, yet they have yet to declaim or declare what that point happens to be. They repeatedly harp on Einstein and chicken-thievery, yet provide neither workable rationale for doing so nor any indication of their mutual relevance.

I, therefore, have the answer to the OP.

If a person is writing in this way in order to make a point upon which they refuse to elaborate, they are an Ass.

If a person is writing in this way because they know of no other, despite being surrounded by examples, they are a Fool.

And if a person is writing this way because they cannot be troubled to communicate properly, they are a simultaneous species of Ass and Fool known as the Blithering Idiot.

In none of the above cases do I see any convincing reason why I, or anyone else, should deign to respond any further. And no, I would not read a book nominally authored be Einstein which featured the atrocious spelling, syntax, and style of this individual's posts. The reason is simple: people who write books have editors and proofreaders, publishers and distributors, none of which would distrubute, sell, or even print a book written like that. People who write books generally have the intelligence and presence of mind to recognize this, and format their works accordingly. And people who are in any way worth reading generally have enough respect for their subject material and audience to write or speak in a manner which is easily intelligible, which renders both the ideas of Einstein submitting such a book and the idea of this poster being worthy of response equally absurd.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an over-eloquent way of saying that I refuse to feed this troll any more, and I encourage you all to do the same. If you ignore it, it may go away.

[pam699]

but the question is simple
does bad grammer = low intelligence
surely a yes or no want tax your mind to much
the problem is u dont want to upset chris chees and the dyslectics of this world so u cant say yes
but u cant say no because that would mean agreeing with me
simple dillemma u have -i understand

in a bit of a melt down are we all- poor things i must not keep giving you all such a hard time i dont think you are all coping to well
so once agrian for the veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy brave who like to tackle the horns of a dillemma
does bad grammer = low intelligence

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: RickSp That is preposterous. You attempt to make a point by using what appears to be a Middle English translation of an Italian writer writing in French to compare it to certain drivel written on these boards. This is silly on several levels. 1. The writer you quoted had something meaningful to say or else her work would not have survived these six centuries. Obviously, this is not likely of any of the posts within this thread. 2. There is no indication that the original work, in French, or the translation, in Middle English, was in anything other than proper grammatical form when it was published. It seems decidedly odd to use a work which represented proper usage for the period as an example in a discussion of the misuse of language today. The point is, poor communication is poor communication whether it is intentional bad grammar and spelling or the unduly arcane and pointlessly obtuse language of academia.

Your rebuttle is totally out of context and largely irrelevent to the point I was attempting to illuminate.

This is not about the 'worth' of texts such as the 'Fayttes of Armes', or the quality of writting, the validity of feminism in the Late Middle Ages, the nature of chivalry in the medieval period or really making any comparison regarding the nature of the writting, other than to illustrate that even texts written and translated centuries ago (containing very different grammatical rules from the modern day norm) are still readable by the lay of today. That is the point of the excersise; not to suggest that Caxtons translation had 'poor' grammar, or that Pam's posts are as valuable as the writings of Christine de Pizan or any other "point" you feal invalidates the comparison. These points you raise have nothing to do with either my point or the motivation for posting the material.

i thought your original point was that bad grammar wasn't a sign of low intelligence...

A hypothesis I think has veritable mountain of evidence to support it.

[Scribbler1]

Bad grammar + an incomprehensible arrogance = pam699.

I'd like to know what your true mission is here. You couldn't get out of the third grade, or fill out a drivers license application with this kind of command of the language. Unless you are a 9 year-old elementary school dropout you're doing this deliberately. Why not come clean before everyone on this forum puts you on ignore.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Bad grammar + an incomprehensible arrogance = pam699. I'd like to know what your true mission is here. You couldn't get out of the third grade, or fill out a drivers license application with this kind of command of the language. Unless you are a 9 year-old elementary school dropout you're doing this deliberately. Why not come clean before everyone on this forum puts you on ignore.

My guess is that the troll may just wish to see how long she can repeat the same foolish question verbatim and still get a response.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Your rebuttle is totally out of context and largely irrelevent to the point I was attempting to illuminate.

Quoting Middle English in a discussion of modern grammar and spelling strikes me as rather irrelevent and out of context as well. I understand the point that you were trying to make. I just don't think you made it.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: RickSp Quoting Middle English in a discussion of modern grammar and spelling strikes me as rather irrelevent and out of context as well. I understand the point that you were trying to make. I just don't think you made it.

You understood a point I failed to make?

But, leaving aside your somewhat paradoxical review of my point, in what way was it left 'unmade'? Do you not conceed that if you can read an aged piece of literature you can probably manage even a poorly written post on an internet discussion board?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Just being able to manage is not conducive to debate, the clearest communication possible should be strove for. I remind you, your reader is not obligated to read your thoughts, making them as clear as possible can only help you.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Just being able to manage is not conducive to debate, the clearest communication possible should be strove for. I remind you, your reader is not obligated to read your thoughts, making them as clear as possible can only help you.

Absolutely! We don't have the luxury of inflection, verbal emphasis or even hand gestures so it's essential for us to use the written word as effectively as we can.

We have several people from other countries here, and I assume English isn't their native language. If THEY can make themselves clearly understood, someone DEFENDING their horrible language skills is strange at best and utterly idiotic at worst.

[rcne]

Quote by: pam699 but the question is simple does bad grammer = low intelligence surely a yes or no want tax your mind to much the problem is u dont want to upset chris chees and the dyslectics of this world so u cant say yes but u cant say no because that would mean agreeing with me simple dillemma u have -i understand in a bit of a melt down are we all- poor things i must not keep giving you all such a hard time i dont think you are all coping to well so once agrian for the veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy brave who like to tackle the horns of a dillemma does bad grammer = low intelligence

Since you beg the question: yes it does. One aspect of intelligence testing is vocabulary and word comprehension.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Do you not conceed that if you can read an aged piece of literature you can probably manage even a poorly written post on an internet discussion board?

And do you not concede that they two are unrelated? I can also read Spanish with some difficulty but that has as little to do with internet discussion board vernacular gibberish as say, for example, Middle English. I think you chose a very bad example, that all. There is no meaningful way to compare Chaucer to chatboards, and even less reason. Obviously we will differ on this point.

Comparing that sort of linguistic apples and oranges only encourages the outright idiocy expressed by pam when she claimed that Shakespeare used poor grammar or that his language was incomprehensible or in her own inimitable style -"like shapspears plays bad grammmer is not that important" or "u still would read shakspear even though passages are incomprehensible. "

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Chris the Chees You understood a point I failed to make? But, leaving aside your somewhat paradoxical review of my point, in what way was it left 'unmade'? Do you not conceed that if you can read an aged piece of literature you can probably manage even a poorly written post on an internet discussion board?

I also understand the point you failed to make.

Or maybe I or RickSp should say that we understand the point you were intending to make, but it was a failure because it was irrelevant.

Consider the recently popular Cyrus The Great. Bad grammar and language, but I never once perceived Cyrus as unintelligent. Content matters most, and when that content is already questionable to begin with, the label comes out.

Also, there is a difference between spoken and written communications. A mute could post here and we would never know it. So could a deaf person. Just as pam669 could be an incredibly eloquent speaker. But poorly conducting yourself along the proper etiquette in your chosen medium for communicating an idea only serves to diminish your credibility.

[Jack]

Let's not ignore the fact that Pam has shown in other posts that she indeed can type comprehensibly when she either wishes to or when she forgets to be rebellious, I'm not sure which. She has given evidence that she means to be incomprehensible. How I feel about people who can't control their behavior is irrelevant. If someone chooses to be obvious in their nonconformity, they should have a strong enough character to withstand the inevitable reactions. Generally, I admire nonconformists. But not in every part of life. To be nonconformist in the way you communicate to others is an artform. I'd expect it from a wordsmith. I don't expect it, and don't appreciate the obnoxiousness of it, when I encounter it in the course of casual communication and it's being done for no good reason. So when the person doing it invites comments on it, should I lie? Do I have to refrain from having an opinion? I don't think so.

I'm a writer (as is everyone who posts here), so of course I'm going to find fault with this particualr "protest". I respect the power of language. But in the hands of an amatuer, it can be deadly-usually to the writer's self-esteem.

Finally, if I'm distracted by how you say something, I'm quite likely to miss what you said.

[pam699]

well cris chees
we have finally got their answer to the question
does bad grammer =low intelligence
quote
rcne
Since you beg the question: yes it does. One aspect of intelligence testing is vocabulary and word comprehension.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rcne Since you beg the question: yes it does. One aspect of intelligence testing is vocabulary and word comprehension.

Well, since you want to stick yourself out on the firing range, go ahead. I vehemently argue that it is not a sign of a lack of intelligence. Since you say that bad grammar means lack of intelligence, you just said that most Deaf people are unintelligent. Now, do you stick with your answer?

Now, to explain what I said, 90% of Deaf people are born and raised in a hearing family. Citing the head of the TRID (Tennessee Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf) and the TAD (Tennessee Association of the Deaf), the majority are also raised orally, and thus don't form a language base at the same point as most of us do. Instead, some will form a home sign language based on gestures that are very similar to ASL classifiers (which are designed to show the size and shape of an object). This is all they have for a language base. This does not mean they are unintelligent. It just means that they lack two things we have, our hearing (which I think the majority of us hearing here take for granted), and a language base. In a way, they have shown themselves as very intelligent, since they have managed to be able to communicate without a language.

Now, for a side note: If you are a nurse or doctor, NEVER advise to raise a deaf child orally. By doing such, you are stealing a good piece of that child's future from them.

Just wanted to put my two cents in the pot for now. Have fun.