"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
*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.
“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.
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.”
From a FarceBook, urmm, farce post:
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*
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.
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.
Seen on FarceBook: “bordum.” No, cupcake, for you that’s “bore-dumb.” For everyone else, it’s “boredom.” *sigh*
DON’T thank a teacher, at least not necessarily. Literacy ain’t what the “edumacationists” say it is, and, for the most part, is NOT what schools foster. (Yes, there are exceptions, but the system we now have militates against literacy. The exceptions swim against the tide. Let’s remain grateful for them.)
The Literacy Crisis in American Schools
Sidebar: teachers in schools were entirely incidental to whatever literacy I attained while in school and get no credit whatsoever for whatever literacy I have managed to acquire outside school. Seriously.
It’s really sad to hear people talk about how they “grew up with The Jungle Book” and realize they’re talking about an animated (or, perhaps an earlier live action) movie they recall from their childhood, NOT the book (or the sequel). The best of the movies were derived from just three Mowgli stories taken from the book. All the rest of the riches the book offers? Lost to these folks. Sad. New “Jungle Book” movie is being produced by one of these “Cliff Notes” kids. (But I’m almost certain I slander Cliff Notes summations, since I’m sure Cliff Notes dealt with the whole book.)
A Tale of Two Cities? I’m sure however many folks still relate to Dicken’s tale, most have never read the book, and most of those either read a Cliff Notes (or, if they’re old enough, a Classics Illustrated comic version) summary or sat through the late 50s movie with Dirk Bogarde that featured a Reader’s Digest version of the book. LOADS missing.
And so it goes. If it’s not a recent crappy Hollyweird movie, chances are it’s terra incognita/ignota to most folks. That’s just sad.
May I dope slap someone for using “abit” to stand in for “a bit”? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top? Would it help my case if I told you the same folks used the adjective “backdoor” when they meant “back door”? Hmm?
[excessively polite mini-rant /off]