Category: Literacy

Posted on

Thinning the Herd?

*heh*

So, got a bill for Medicare Part B. Was expecting the rate quoted me on the phone and online. Was 3X as much.

Now, folks who are subliterate or simply stupid might have had a heart attack or some such, thus thinning the herd, as it were. *heh* Of course, I read on, and although nowhere did the accompanying documentation say it was a quarterly premium, there was a brief note stating it was for 01/01/17-01/03/31, so it was no biggie.

But I can still see some doofus who’s been TOLD the bill would be 1/3 the amount shown get all red in the face, stroke out or have a heart attack, simply because he’d not read (or understood?) the accompanying documentation.

Oh, a moron from Australia (who keeps finding his way into my SPAM folder) said something stupid (as always) about “. . .the small patch of ground between Canada and Mexico,” referring to the US. Yeh, including the mostly desolate wastes of Australia, his own “continent” amounts to just about 10,000 square miles more than the continental US.

Still, with less than 10% of the official US population, there’s room for such massive stupidity in Australia.

See? This is why I check my SPAM folder. Every now and then, I find something mockworthy.

Posted on

Something Old, Something New. . .

I read. A lot. But lately, many of the books I’ve been reading have been. . . blah.

So, a changeup (the “something new”)

Re-read old favs

Great Books of the Western World. I have a nearly worn out set, and another, in “library binding,” that I’ve read in very little. So, re-read the set over the next year or so.

A different Bible reading plan: chronological. Yeh, read the books/passages in a close approximation of when they were written, with an eye to also reconciling chronology of events, when possible (“chronology of events” hardly applies to the books of poetry. . . for the most part. . . sorta). That’s an approach I’ve not taken before. It’ll work well with re-reading the GBWW.

Something new: I have a couple of different versions/formats of The Harvard Classics in ebook formats now. I can read that set, too, reading around the books included in the GBWW–or even reading some of those in ebook format, if that proves to be more convenient.

Slack off on buying new books. Just buy the “must-haves,” and let the rest go. I’ve spent more time writing reviews of books that fall into the category of “A note to the writer: JUST STOP! Quit writing until you’ve at least passed a remedial English course, AND are willing to pay competent, literate sopy and line editors to fix your crap, mmmK?”

All in all, I think the reading goals outline above will make for a much better experience over the next few months/year.

Posted on

*Throws a Bullshit Flag on the Play*

Seen [at an undisclosed Internet location], stated by a person claiming to be a Bible-believing Christian:

“My job is NOT to ‘stop Hillary’ or to “StopTrump.’ My job is to lovingly trust and obey my Savior. He gave us very specific vetting lists for consideration when choosing candidates for leadership of a nation.”

I’d like to have the scripture citations where Christ noted the qualifications for “candidates for leading a nation,” please. TY. I do recall the scripture where he told some folks to “render unto Caesar [a pagan with questionable morals by biblical standards] that which is Caesar’s,” but cannot seem to put my finger on his “vetting lists” for candidates to be voted into civil office. . .

And no, I will not accept the parameters set down by which Saul was chosen as king of Israel (against God’s wishes, but he gave ’em what they wanted. Didn’t THAT turn out well. . . )

The comment specifically cites “vetting lists for candidates” set forth by “my Savior”–very specific vetting lists WHICH DO NOT EXIST.

I do very much hope the person who made this asinine statement gets lost on the way to the polling place this November.

Posted on

Twigging to Dunning-Krugerites

Another trait that exposes those who want others to suffer for their self-inflicted Dunning-Kruger Effect is claiming status they obviously cannot qualify for.

Example:

Every now and then, I see a self-pub book cover with “Author So-and-so”. Invariably, at least so far, such books have proven to be unreadable well within the first page of text. Sometimes the first paragraph or the first sentence or even the dedication (if one exists) is so badly written that I almost feel a wee bit of pity for the po’ baby that refers to himself (or herself) as “Author So-and-so,” because the chance that such folk will ever even become moderately competent wordsmiths is somewhere zero and -1,000–and that’s often an optimistic estimation.

Sad. I just wanna know who encouraged them to write without becoming at least literate enough to be fluent in English.

Oh, another clue to incompetent self-pub writers is that they frequently include a forward or dedication that makes much of the extensive editing their “work” has undergone. Almost invariably, that indicates that the book is FULL of misused words, indicating that both the writer and any editors are the next thing to illiterate, inexcusably execrable grammar (in narrative, not even dialog), unbelievable continuity errors, etc.

And they (and their so-called “editors”) never see all the “Oopsies” because they are not really literate enough to know the differences. Not one of them.

And yet they think of themselves as and proudly proclaim themselves to be “authors”.

Posted on

A Brief Note to Both of My Readers

*heh*

For any of your completely clueless friends, Malwarebytes’ blog is full of articles on malware, written for easy accessibility and comprehension by casual users. Nothing technical, just simple (sometimes too simple), easily-grasped blogposts about malware for folks who do not want or need technical stuff but who could benefit from a wee bit of awareness of threats.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com

Posted on

A Brief Comment About the Use of “Grammar Nazi”

“Grammar Nazi” is a term widely misused by folks on the Internet to refer to anyone who takes umbrage at illiterate abuse of language. It is a term of derision mean to the shield the user’s ego, usually after their own subliterate (or downright illiterate) abuse of English. Seriously insecure people are “offended” by others’ abuse of English being corrected.

Grammar~Syntax?Structure, logic, reason, all affecting the clear transmission of meaning. The more “noise” in the transmission, the shallower and less meaningful the transmission.

Phonemes (and their analogs in print) are just noise absent syntax and semantics.

Syntax: structure (99% of grammar). Affects semantics.

Semantics: meaning–the transmission of which is the sole justification for language.

“Now there abide these three: phonemes, syntax, and semantics; and the greatest of these is semantics.”

Where phonemes (and their analogs in print) are poorly transmitted (poor pronunciation or poor spelling), meaning is less well transmitted. Where syntax is garbled (spoken or in text) meaning is less well transmitted.

If these are important when speaking or writing in a “foreign” language (and they most CERTAINLY are!), then they are just as important when speaking one’s own, “native,” language.

Nazism does not apply, since fascist socialism has no place in any of these things.

Posted on

Pop Culture Is “Misunderedumacated”

Two simple examples:

Geographical “illiteracy”: time after time on “remodeling” or “house flip” shows, folks referring to a peninsula as an “island.” Sometimes, folks’ll refer to the same feature as both. Folks who have no concept of the difference between a peninsula and an island are illiterate.

N.B. “Material literacy“. . . ain’t. Literacy, that is. Having common, ordinary, everyday words in one’s (written or verbal) vocabulary and not knowing what those words mean? Yeh, “misunderedumacated.”

Here’s another very simple example, though just one of many in the long, long list of words people use without even knowing what they are saying: lay vs. lie:

“Lay” takes a direct object: one lays down a book. “Lie” takes a subject: I lie down on the sofa.

The (simple) past tense of “lay” is “laid.” The (simple) past tense of “lie” is “lay” or when “lie” is used in the sense of “wittingly utter a falsehood” the (simple) past tense is “lied.” At least the past participles are easier: lay?[has/had/have] laid; lie?[has/had/have] lain; lie (utter falsehood)?[has/had/have] lied. *heh*

Ain’t English fun?

If you ever have trouble remembering which to use–lay or lie–just remember: Bob Dylan got it wrong. “Lay, lady, lay, lay across my big brass bed. . . ” would have had red pencil through each of the “lays” had he submitted it in an English class. . . if the teacher had been literate, that is. 😉

BTW, the “subject/object” issue raises its ugly head all over the place, but it’s especially glaring when people use the first person personal pronoun,”I,” in an objective position, when “me” is called for.

It’s just people who aren’t really literate showing their “misunderedumacation.”

Posted on

Really? (Dunning-Kruger Redux)

From a FarceBook, urmm, farce post:

dunning-krugerite

Oh, really? I can falsify that “Romanist Contrarian” argument in one statement:

Isaiah 1:18, for but one reference, makes it clear that white has indeed been used to represent purity: “‘Come now, let us settle the matter,’ says the LORD. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.'”

IMO, anyone living in an English-speaking society who is unfamiliar with classic biblical quotations is [formally] illiterate.

Methinks “The Romanist Contrarian” may be afflicted with Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. . . *sigh*

Posted on

Literacy: It’s Probably More Than You Think

Literacy, as defined down by contemporary CYA “edumacationists” is merely the ability to decode the funny lil squiggles found on the printed page (in whatever form) into words. Comprehension? Notsomuch. Ability to take printed text, comprehend its meanings and reason from it? That’s not really what contemporary “edumacationists” are after, from all evidence at hand. (You can do your own searches on strings like “literacy declines” etc.)

Simple material literacy is just that: decoding printed text.

Formal literacy is more, much more, and involves having a wide written vocabulary, a grasp of correct grammar, and the ability to write using proper orthography in order to communicate as well as possible.

More and more, nowadays, folks write just what they have heard and in the way they speak. This is not all bad, but much depends on the speech they have heard and their ability to understand even that. The problem comes when these same people only read text written by others of their ilk, so that substandard usage, misheard (or misused) words and expressions have entered their speech and then their own text, so that poor language use is promulgated to yet another subliterate reader.

A couple of quick “tests” determine whether a writer is really literate or simply mistaken in thinking he is. (And there’s one right there: the use of the masculine pronoun to indicate a generic human.):

Word and phrase misusage. Does the writer constantly move a literate reader to invoke Inigo Montoya? (“You keep using that word [or phrase]. . . “) Subliterate. “Chomps” (at the bit) for “champs,” “snigger” for “snicker,” “beg the question” with an intended meaning of “begs that a question be asked” instead of its long accepted meaning of a form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises, etc., etc. The stupidities are almost endless.

Another quick test: does the writer even know how to use pronouns? Many, if not most, illiterate/subliterate self-inflicted victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect have NO idea how to use reflexive pronouns, such as “myself, himself, herself,” etc., and so consistently misuse them in place of “my, him, her,” etc. Does the writer even have a fricking clue about objective case and subjective case pronouns, or does he constantly use “I” when he should be using “me”?

These are all signs of a grasp of English that is verbal rather than literate, and that such grasp is influenced by the language (spoken and written) of others of the writer’s subliterate class.

Of course, a grasp of good grammar, proper orthography, and a decent vocabulary are just the barest beginnings of formal literacy. The person who would be literate must then read and soak up the language use and content of great literature, then use the knowledge gleaned to read widely. . . and deeply on many subjects in order to also become culturally literate. History, science (no, not crap science as presented by the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind), the various arts, etc., are ALL the province of a literate person. These once were the realm of a liberal arts education, but, sadly, no longer, save in a few scattered institutions of genuine education.

In truth, literacy is a lifelong learning experience. Anyone who is not fascinated to find ” holes and gaps, lacks and losses, absenses, silences, impalpabilities, insipidities, and the like”1 in one’s own literacy is simply not literate enough to do so. *sigh*

Of course, my post title could be an unfair imputation of ignorance. Perhaps the reader already knows this, and more. If so, I am open to instruction.

Posted on

It’s the Size of the Fight in the Dog

As Peter Grant quoted when he posted this, “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight; it’s the size of the fight in the dog.” ~ Mark Twain

BTW, I recommend Peter Grant’s sci-fi milfic/space opera books as HIGHLY appropriate for readers whose literacy reaches (legitimate) middle school levels, no matter what their ages. Sometimes a bit saccharine, but that’s better than destructively “gritty” in my book, especially for young readers. Think sci-fi milfic/space opera pretty much as written by Zane Grey. Or maybe less fantastic “Doc” Smith translated though a Zane Grey-ish filtering. *heh* (The more I think on that, the more Grant’s new Western series makes real sense.)

A big bonus is that Grant’s books seem to be very competently edited, so that readers are rarely led astray (and mistaught) by misused words, poor grammar, and punctuation errors. That’s just competent line editing. In addition, the content editing eliminates all (or almost all) of the plot bobbles so common to many books published nowadays, even (sometimes especially!) from big publishing houses. This is important, IMO, since reading engaging stories with good morals and ethics that are WELL-WRITTEN can help readers just pick up all these good things along the way.

Of course, unless a book is exceptionally well-written (and by that I mean of stellar class, worthy of survival to become an enduring classic such as “Pilgrim’s Progress”), didacticism can be a killer. No, just well-written (and competently edited) stories that have moral, ethical characters facing conflicts and choosing wisely, and therefore teach good lessons without having to stop and pound lessons into the reader.

Of course, there are competently-written books whose protagonists are bad examples for readers to emulate. I despise that sort of crap.

Poorly-written books that either have protagonists who are “good” examples or protagonists who bad examples are both to be condemned as simply poorly-written books. I find both to be anathema.

And then there are the kinds of books thatb Holly Lisle has correctly classified as “suckitudinous fiction.” Technically well-written but worthless “lit-ra-chure” such as Fitzgerald is celebrated (by self-made moral morons) for having written. Of them I can only say, “Gagamaggot.”

Peter grant’s fiction is all, as far as I have read in his sci-fi milfic/space opera (I have not yet read his new Western novel), light, entertaining, sometimes saccharine (to the point of nearly Goody Two-shoes saccharine), well-written fluff that is highly appropriate for YA readers and engaging even for folks nostalgic for an earlier ethos in sci-fi, where a more elevated moral/ethical behavior would be expected.

Here’s Peter Grant’s Amazon page.