Somthing else for the spelling police!!!

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:01:03 +0000, Superfly Silverman wrote:

> V. don't let those idiots give you an excuse for being lazy.

He doesn't need an excuse.

> I have to deal with my own issues when I write. Being mildly dexlexic
> I struggle with spelling and grammar.

I've read your posts for ages and I never knew that. I never would have
even guessed.

The fact that your posts give no indication of your condition makes
Varizo's excuses for his spelling even more flimsy.

#Andy#
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

Varizo.. wrote:
> It was on the radio in the week that exsaminers in skools hav got to
> acsept txt message replys

Sadly this comes too late to rescue your aborted career prospects.
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

H Duffy wrote:

> Yep, seems pretty reasonable.
> It all gets a bit complicated when you get into proper nouns ending in "s",
> because then the rules vary partly depending on how many syllables there are
> in the name, and partly, apparently, on where the name comes from; I seem to
> remember that Biblical and Classical names have a different rule from more
> modern names.

It's a matter of taste these days, I believe, but you are supposed to
spell it out how you say it. Bridget Jonesuz Diary, Xerxes favourite
elephant etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

I read through my posts several times to make sure that I worded it
correctly, spell check helps as well. My biggest problem with writing is
the sentence structure, I sometimes write and speak like a Cajun, to a
lesser degree Yoda. I don't make a big deal of it because I dealt with
it before it became popular to have it.

Oh! I spelled it wrong before, it's dyslexia. Didn't run that last
spell check I guess.




ReVulse wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:01:03 +0000, Superfly Silverman wrote:
>
>
>> V. don't let those idiots give you an excuse for being lazy.
>
>
> He doesn't need an excuse.
>
>
>> I have to deal with my own issues when I write. Being mildly dexlexic
>>I struggle with spelling and grammar.
>
>
> I've read your posts for ages and I never knew that. I never would have
> even guessed.
>
> The fact that your posts give no indication of your condition makes
> Varizo's excuses for his spelling even more flimsy.
>
> #Andy#
>
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

H Duffy:
>erithromycin:
>>>H Duffy

>>I am a third year student at a major Scottish university and the other
>>week I had a lesson in which a) the use of the apostrophe was explained to
>>us, and b) we were told that it was based on the saying "John Smith has
>>farm". I objected to both of those.

>And so you should; Tudor documents will often say "John Smith ys farm"; the
>"ys" is possessive, and doesn't mean "has". And really, if they're going to
>explain the use of the apostrophe to you, I'd have thought the first year
>was a better time to do so.

Primary school! That'd be the appropriate time. Though I was ten before I
got formal schooling in components of language, though I did end up able to
conjugate the pluperfect and stuff more or less consciously. It's all gone
now, though. I believe that I will have used up all of those parts of my
brain for drinking before I have attained the age of thirty.

>>There are two rules. The apostrophe indicates
>>removed letters, and, with 's', denotes possession. The first rule takes
>>precedence in similar cases, such that "it is" becomes "it's" while the
>>possessive form of "it" is "its" to avoid confusion.

>Well, more to the point, possessive pronouns don't take an apostrophe;
>yours, his, hers, theirs, whose (not who's!), its. They're not contractions
>originally, they are words in their own right, and therefore don't need
>anything to indicate the missing bit.

I am a moron. It's obvious in retrospect that that's why 'its' doesn't have
an apostrophe, but I forgot that 'its' might have its own reason for
existing because I went apostrophe crazy.

>>Not that I don't mix
>>them up, but there are rules there. Even possessive forms of words ending
>>in 's' follow this rule - when I say these are the ducks' eggs the
>>apostrophe shows possession, but first indicates that there is a letter
>>missing (the 's'). At least, that's how I would explain it.

>Yep, seems pretty reasonable.
>It all gets a bit complicated when you get into proper nouns ending in "s",
>because then the rules vary partly depending on how many syllables there
>are in the name, and partly, apparently, on where the name comes from; I
>seem to remember that Biblical and Classical names have a different rule
>from more modern names.

My theory is that if it sounds silly, don't use it, but that's really
subjective. I'm not sure how you're meant to indicate things that belong to
Metropolis, other than to suggest that they are Metropolitan. If it's big
enough to need a rule of its own for apostrophes, it's big enough to have an
adjectival form that can be used to donate possession in a pinch.
--
erith - .sig
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

well, I agree with reVulse, I never had noticed you were dyslexic!! Well
done!!
I think we can do anything if we really want to :-)
Natascha


"Superfly Silverman" <notreal DeleteThis @spamguard.com> schreef in bericht
news:z1n3h.5634$lx6.3899@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>I read through my posts several times to make sure that I worded it
>correctly, spell check helps as well. My biggest problem with writing is
>the sentence structure, I sometimes write and speak like a Cajun, to a
>lesser degree Yoda. I don't make a big deal of it because I dealt with it
>before it became popular to have it.
>
> Oh! I spelled it wrong before, it's dyslexia. Didn't run that last spell
> check I guess.
>
>
>
>
> ReVulse wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:01:03 +0000, Superfly Silverman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> V. don't let those idiots give you an excuse for being lazy.
>>
>>
>> He doesn't need an excuse.
>>
>>
>>> I have to deal with my own issues when I write. Being mildly dexlexic I
>>> struggle with spelling and grammar.
>>
>>
>> I've read your posts for ages and I never knew that. I never would have
>> even guessed.
>>
>> The fact that your posts give no indication of your condition makes
>> Varizo's excuses for his spelling even more flimsy.
>>
>> #Andy#
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

"erithromycin" <erithromycin.TakeThisOut@ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:4r73baFphi4aU5@individual.net...
>H Duffy:
>>And so you should; Tudor documents will often say "John Smith ys farm";
>>the
>>"ys" is possessive, and doesn't mean "has". And really, if they're going
>>to
>>explain the use of the apostrophe to you, I'd have thought the first year
>>was a better time to do so.
>
> Primary school! That'd be the appropriate time.

Well, true, and Secondary school too; it certainly _should_ have been taught
well before University. But if Universities do feel the need to run a
refresher course (and since schools don't seem to bother with grammar and
punctuation and spelling these days, I can't blame them), the third year
seems a daft time to do so.

Though I was ten before I
> got formal schooling in components of language, though I did end up able
> to
> conjugate the pluperfect and stuff more or less consciously. It's all gone
> now, though. I believe that I will have used up all of those parts of my
> brain for drinking before I have attained the age of thirty.

Well, I don't think we necessarily need to know all the technical jargon, or
to be able to describe the rules in detail; learning them once is a good
idea, because we then internalise them, so we avoid the things that "sound
wrong", even if we can't explain exactly which rule they break.

>>Well, more to the point, possessive pronouns don't take an apostrophe;
>>yours, his, hers, theirs, whose (not who's!), its. They're not
>>contractions
>>originally, they are words in their own right, and therefore don't need
>>anything to indicate the missing bit.
>
> I am a moron. It's obvious in retrospect that that's why 'its' doesn't
> have
> an apostrophe, but I forgot that 'its' might have its own reason for
> existing because I went apostrophe crazy.

*grin* it is one of those things which gets harder if you think too hard
about it.

>>Yep, seems pretty reasonable.
>>It all gets a bit complicated when you get into proper nouns ending in
>>"s",
>>because then the rules vary partly depending on how many syllables there
>>are in the name, and partly, apparently, on where the name comes from; I
>>seem to remember that Biblical and Classical names have a different rule
>>from more modern names.
>
> My theory is that if it sounds silly, don't use it, but that's really
> subjective. I'm not sure how you're meant to indicate things that belong
> to
> Metropolis, other than to suggest that they are Metropolitan. If it's big
> enough to need a rule of its own for apostrophes, it's big enough to have
> an
> adjectival form that can be used to donate possession in a pinch.

I would say "The Metropolis' stuff", if for some reason it seemed
inappropriate to say "The Metropolitan stuff". But yes, the "If it sounds
silly don't use it" rule is pretty good, in general, particularly if one
has, at some point, actually learned this stuff formally.

H
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

Zareth wrote:
> "Varizo.." <varizo DeleteThis @yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> news:1162619157.383952.180730@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > It was on the radio in the week that exsaminers in skools hav got to
>
> <snip>
>
> Yeah.....give us some actual sources here so we know you are not just trying
> to justify your atrocious spelling.

Even with sources...none the less it still remains what it is. I don't
believe in Grammarian or jumping on people for minor spelling
issues...I only have issues when said grammar and spelling gets so bad
it is getting in the way of the message.

Hatter
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

"Benoît Meulle-Stef" <bmsguitarsNOSPAMS DeleteThis @biz.tiscali.be> wrote in message
news:YPCdncbsxLBxE9HYRVnyvA@scarlet.biz...
> Even with Spanish and French? :-)

Even with crabs you won't get the job.

Doh !

> Ben
> <thecoven.uk DeleteThis @ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1162630850.075522.165260 DeleteThis @h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Damn right!
>>
>> It's a blatant disregard for common sense, and a basic laziness that's
>> overcome the youth of today.
>>
>> If you can't read & write plain English, then you won't get far in this
>> world.
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

"Dag" <dagwast.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eii97u02686@news2.newsguy.com...


>
> But only to a point. I'd venture that basically no matter where you live
> that you will (on average) get less far these days if you can't read and
> write (and speak) English. I also venture that the importance of English
> is growing.

That's an important point although I think you really mean American rather
than
English. ;-)
Although when I was at college I was told to get a HNC I'd need to study 2
units of
technical German because that was going to be the many technology language
of the future.
Trouble is I knew the college had employed a German speaking lecturer that
people
couldn't really understand so rather than admit they'd employed someone
that couldn't do the job they employed him to do, they decided to invent a
new course called
advanced technical German for engineers for the final year !,
there was never a basic technical German.
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

"H Duffy" <hester_duffy.DeleteThis@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4r3lpmFp03riU1@individual.net...
>
> "Lori Pierce" <LPIERCE.DeleteThis@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:bc13h.49316$IO2.36493@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...

>> Ahhhh the dumbing down of society.......
>
> Fortunately, it's not being accepted without a fight;
> http://www.24dash.com/education/12440.htm
>
> We _really_ need to improve the quality of basic English grammar and
> spelling in our schools;

But how do we do that ?

> I'm marking undergraduate essays and lab reports where some of the
> students literally don't know ho to use full stops; this can make it
> really hard to understand what they're trying to say, and prevents them
> from expressing themselves clearly. This is a real shame for some of them,
> who are obviously bright, but struggle to use their intelligence.

Why do you think this is happening, surely it would show up in school exams
and the kids wouldn't get the grade(s) to go to university.
How are these kids passing at a high enough grade to get to univ.
in the first place.
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

ReVulse wrote:
> "Threads" ... Nuclear attack ... Sheffield ...
> ...speak a very basic type of English due to there being virtually no
> Education avenues...

Surely nothing to do with the nuclear attack?
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!! 

"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave.DeleteThis@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:einf2k$pce$1@qmul...
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy.DeleteThis@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4r3lpmFp03riU1@individual.net...
>> We _really_ need to improve the quality of basic English grammar and
>> spelling in our schools;
>
> But how do we do that ?

Well, ideally, the school system needs to add grammar lessons to the
national curriculum; as far as I know, pupils are not generally taught
formal grammar at any point in their schooling. In addition, good spelling
and grammar should be included as a Learning Outcome to other subjects, so
that in order to achieve full marks, a piece of writing would have to be
written clearly, grammatically, and with good spelling. Including grammar
and spelling formally would then allow and encourage teachers to correct
spelling and grammar errors in children's work; at the moment, the general
feeling seems to be "I teach history/geography/creative writing/whatever,
not spelling and grammar, therefore I can't/shouldn't/won't correct my
pupils' spelling and grammar, even when it is very poor".

In addition, I think that higher up the foodchain, in Universities, we need
to insist on a higher standard than we currently seem to get; it might take
a while, but sooner or later this should cause a sort of tricke-down effect;
schools will begin to recognise that they have a duty to provide their
pupils with the skills necessary to get into University, and therefore that
they need to provide grammar and spelling lessons.

Of course, parents can take a part in this too; reading with children, and
encouraging them to read to themselves, is an excellent way of helping to
improve a child's literacy, and playing educational games with them can also
be really useful; I have vague memories or learning to spell simple words
and the names of my family members using magnetic letters, at the age of
about three.

>> I'm marking undergraduate essays and lab reports where some of the
>> students literally don't know ho to use full stops; this can make it
>> really hard to understand what they're trying to say, and prevents them
>> from expressing themselves clearly. This is a real shame for some of
>> them, who are obviously bright, but struggle to use their intelligence.
>
> Why do you think this is happening, surely it would show up in school
> exams
> and the kids wouldn't get the grade(s) to go to university.

Well, being a new University, we don't have very high entrance requirements,
so unfortunately, this sort of problem doesn't get picked up at entrance
level. As I say, we, along with other Universities, need to raise our
standards somewhat.

> How are these kids passing at a high enough grade to get to univ.
> in the first place.

A lot of ours aren't kids; we have a lot of mature students. Also, we have a
lot of overseas students, who don't go through the UCAS entrance system, and
therefore don't have to have any particular grades.

H
 >> Stay informed about: Somthing else for the spelling police!!!