Does This Irk Me? Well, Yes, It Does.

One word mis-usage I find trending strongly of late is the misuse of “bring” for “take.” It’s an easy (and extremely useful) distinction to make; simplified: bring HERE; take THERE. When someone uses it to say they will “bring [something somewhere]” (or a close variation) to mean they will TAKE [something somewhere], it’s a pretty clear sign that they aren’t really literate . . . OR have been spending WAY too much time in the company of illiterates and have succumbed to their bad influence.

“My brakes are acting up. I’m going to bring it in tomorrow to find out what’s wrong,” only semi-works IF the speaker is at the mechanic’s at the time of speaking (or is speaking to the mechanic about bringing it to him. Of course, if one were AT the mechanic’s at the time and had bad brakes, it’d be foolish not to leave the car at that time). If one were NOT at the mechanic’s and NOT speaking to him but to a third party, then “bring” is just stupid in that context.

Puzzle out those funny lil squiggles? Maybe. Understand the meaning those funny lil squiggles are intended to convey? Being able to put on paper (or in electronic “ink”) some funny lil squiggles that actually contain meaning with any clarity at all? It’s a crapshoot for college grads nowadays.


Sidebar: given the evidence of swelling illiteracy in our society, it seems obvious that spending billions and billions of dollars to add administration jobs to “education” doesn’t appear to be improving education.

I Post These Kinds of Things Because You’re Slacking Off

The problem with self-pub? Whole HERDS of 20-something illiterate liberal arts graduates “writing” books for a “readership” of their peers. The sheer depth of their cultural, historical and LITERARY illiteracy (grammar atrocities, word misuse, COMPLETE misunderstanding of background and usage of common expressions, etc., etc.) is mind-boggling. It’s too late to lobotomize them. They’ve already done such a good job on themselves, already.

(Yes, there are a few who actually either know how to use a dictionary and form moderately coherent sentences. . . or else have gone outside their cohort and enlisted the aid of the rare literate proofreader/editor to clean up their glurge.)

Yeh, yeh. Dylan Thomas said it best (though about a different kind of death): “Rage, rage against the dying of the light. . . ” *heh*

Deceptive “Memes”–Education

Disclaimer: I strongly dislike the corruption of “meme” to indicate some pithy (and usually plain flat wrong, or at least deceptive) propaganda presented as a graphic-quote.

meme: An element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

That’s the primary definition, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, and–mirabile dictu!–Wikipedia even gets it right in its article on Memetics.

Still, here’s a highly deceptive Internet “meme” *gagamaggot*

teacher-meme

Well, the numbers are highly slanted, though the underlying concept is fairly sound. The “time at home vs. time at school” is a false metric. Time under parental instruction/admonition/example vs time under influence by the schools would be a better way to compare things. Time at home/ostensibly under parental influence (admonition/instruction/example) is ~3,000 hours less than depicted, just from time “lost” to normal nightly sleep alone. And time under the influence of school is around 50% more than depicted above (ex: our local school district does NOT have the kids for only 5 hours per day for a state-mandated 180 days/year–or 900 hours; that’s just silly “math”), not even counting school-sponsored extracurricular activities supervised by teaching staff and Summer School (another month-long instructional period that, at least in our local district, is HIGHLY attended) OR the time lost to parental supervision accounted for in busing kids to and from school.

Still, it’s quite obvious to me that parents SHOULD exercise the greatest influence on their children’s upbringing, and when one observes kids in school or other settings, it’s almost always quite easy to tell which parents are really parenting their children.

Just did a lil bit more number crunching, with input from my school librarian Wonder Woman. Yes, not counting extra-curricular school-sponsored activities, bus time, etc., parents do (or should) have a bit more than three times the amount of conscious time influencing their children than schools do, over the course of a year, not nearly nine times, as the quote in the graphic deceptively states. AND, children are (or should be) primarily the parents’ responsibility to raise “in the nurture and admonition” of [parental values]. Unfortunately, parents (and “parents”) DO raise their children to hold their values, pretty much, just by example alone, whether they plan to or not. For many “parents” that means abdicating responsibility. . . for darned near everything.


Of course, I am firmly of the opinion that (conscious) time “under the influence of their own parents” should include a LOT of “free play” for grade/elementary school kids–time when they can explore, invent, and just goof off on their own or with other kids. Many (MANY) young kids (grade/elementary school age and younger) today spend WAY too much time in structured activities, and far, far too little time just being kids. The “influence” exerted by parents who give their kids such time can be that of encouraging responsibility, liberty and creativity, among other virtues (the reader is invited to consider others).

Not All “Literates” Are

The US reached an impressive 81% high school graduation rate in 2013. That was also the year that, had previous models been followed, the Department of (Mis)Education would have conducted another National Assessment of Adult Literacy. But, of course, following the dismal results of the 2003 assessment (which varied not a whit from the 1993 assessment) did not militate for yet another embarrassing survey.

Oh, that 2003 NAAL? Here’s all you need to know: 69% of recent (at that time) college grads could not read and understand “complex text” that included bus schedules, want ads, warning labels and driving directions.

BTW, the CIA Factbook defines that level of “reading” ability as illiteracy. Warring bureaucrappies? No, because although more than 50% of Americans–based on the NAAL, cannot read such materials, the CIA Factbook hilariously states that American literacy is over 97%. BTW, the NAAL dumbed down the term “literacy” to the point that it could come up with an 81% literacy rate. The data disagrees. . . and has become harder to get to recently, for some reason.

Has literacy in the US improved since then? The question virtually answers itself.

*sigh*

While it is not (yet) correct to say that all US citizens are functionally illiterate, it is far to say not only that not all US citizens are functionally illiterate, but that probably 50% or more of them can tell no difference between the first statement and the second.

Valley Girl University

*gagamaggot*

Reading almost anything written in the last 30 years is a crap shoot. As traditional publishers have come to be run more and more by bean counters and literate editors have been more and more pushed aside in favor of hucksters who know how to weigh manuscripts or some other such stupid criteria, the murder of the English language there has become more and more par for the course. Still, there seem to be a (very) few literate adults left in trad pub houses.

“Indie” publishing is all over the place, but yes, execrable treatment of English is a wee tad more common in “Indie” books. It’s as though in all forms of publishing practiced nowadays, books are becoming dominated by products from writers (and proofreaders and editors) who all received degrees in Assassinating English from Valley Girl U.

Example abound, but the proximal cause of this wee rant is,

“If X didn’t hack into Y’s accounts and trace the money to Z, we might never have put it together.”

No, moronic graduate of Valley Girl U. No. “”If X hadn’t hacked. . . ”

I really, really, really wanted to dope slap the writer (and any proofreader and editor) for that, especially since it was the capstone of many usage, grammar and utterly stupid POV errors.

People who want to get paid to write (or proofread or edit) text should do their due diligence. They ought to at least work to become minimally literate. The example above disqualifies the writer (and any proofreader and editor involved in the book) from inclusion in the class, “literate.”


Continue reading “Valley Girl University”

I Blame “Mass Man”

OK, “backyard” I can almost buy as a noun, since it’s been (fairly infrequently) used that way, and not just as an adjective, since the 17th Century. It’s still infelicitous. (And note the differences in pronunciation between “back yard” [separate adj+noun] and “backyard”[adj]) But using the adjective “backseat” as a noun in place of “back seat” is just laziness, committed by writers whose verbal vocabulary exceeds their reading/writing vocabulary (and who have a tin ear for nuances of pronunciation, as well). How many morons write “frontseat” to be used as a noun? Yeh, maybe a few–though in today’s increasingly illiterate society, increasing in number–morons. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of subliterate, lazy writers misusing adjectives as nouns. . . and editors and “proofreaders” who are just as subliterate and lazy. All should be flogged with dangling participles.

And all of the above who get paid for their abuse of English should be flogged–for real–through the streets before being tarred and feathered.

That is all. For now. . .

Something the Internet Is Good For

[Just a lil stream of consciousness rant. . . ]

One thing the Internet is really good for: revealing the extent of subliteracy1 in society. Small example: folks who misuse as nouns compound words that are adjectives, instead of using the separate adjective/noun phrase that applies, or who misuse adverbs that have been formed as compound words instead of using the adverb/verb phrase that is appropriate. FarceBook yields a good example. It offers “Log in” to, urm, log in but offers the noun, “logout,” for the action of logging out, instead of “log out,” as it ought. Other examples are almost endless, it seems.

“War monger” when the word is “warmonger.”

“Backseat” (adjective) when referring to a “back seat.”

“Nevermind” (*gagamaggot*–an almost sure sign of a 20-something nearly illiterate grup; still useful when writing archaic dialog, though meaning not at all what the aforementioned grups might intend) instead of “never mind.”

“Alot” (which is a “word” only in the nearly non-existant minds of self-made morons) instead of “a lot.”

Misuse of “altogether” (a perfectly useful word meaning “entirely” in place of “all together” (something like “as a group”).

Misuse of “everyday” (adjective: commonplace, quotidian) for “every day” (a regular, daily occurrence).

And, of course, the plethora of examples of verb phrases versus compound nouns that poorly-read people get wrong with fair consistency, because they have never (or have not often enough) read examples used correctly.

When I read things like this in someone’s text, I can be fairly certain that they are lazy thinkers who have not bothered to do their basic homework (that is, bother to become literate) before committing their slop to text.

Of course, these little indicators are just part of the package, and more subliteracy indicators await the conscious reader. Still, these canaries can give a quick tip to careful readers that the oxygen’s being replaced with toxic fumes in whatever text they contain.

Thank you, Internet, for showing the true value of a hyper-democratic society: a rush to the bottom of an ever lower common denominator.


[micro-mini addendum]

A slightly different problem, of course, is dumbass illiterates misusing words they think they know the meanings of, and we’ve probably all seen a bellyfull of this. From the mother country of the English language, published recently in a “professionally edited,” internationally read newsrag, this:

“Each date was captured on camera, with the ‘big reveal’ illiciting [sic] wildly different reactions from the women. While some find it funny, at least two of the women struggle to hide their disappointment at Joe’s conceit [sic].”

THAT got published?!? *gagamaggot* No wonder illiteracy in English is rampant. . . and not just in the US.

1subliteracy: a neologism I have not seen elsewhere, though someone else must certainly use it, intended to convey just what it appears to convey: a condition of poor literacy that does not approach a standard that could be reasonably called “literacy” by any honest person. Subliterates can generally puzzle out the words formed by letters, though they often have only vague ideas–if any at all–what the words they have puzzled out actually mean. And in those cases where subliterates do know words’ meanings, their reading vocabulary is vastly overshadowed by their oral vocabulary, rendering their own attempts to reproduce what they have heard (quite often from those who, like them, are not at all well-read) incorrect.

Gross examples of this are simple misused words such as using “then” for “than” (or vice versa) or any of the plethora of sadly laughable misuses regularly promulgated in social media, blogs, discussion lists and even Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind “professionally” written and edited subliterate crap.

But a sure sign of subliteracy–chiefly of being exceedingly poorly read–is this problem of either misuse of compound words or the failure to use a common compound word where it is appropriate. This is a common failing of poorly-read writers.

Remember: Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline

Cluebat: Things are no better in 2015 than they were in 2005 when that WaPo article was written about the 2003 NAAL. In fact, the 2003 NAAL data (not the Ed Department spin on the data) showed the situation to be worse than the article states, because the “complex text” that “recent college graduates” couldn’t read and comprehend included bus schedules, want ads and med instructions as found on prescription med bottles.

Do note: I do not consider myself as well read as either of my grandfathers, for example. Just saying.

Spreading subliterate crap. . .

. . . one article at a time.

So some subliterate (backed up by subliterate editor[s?]) has written a “helpful tip” article about cleaning one’s oven in an amazing way that anyone who’s not dumber than a bag of hammers already knows. naturally, it’s peppered with crap like this:

“Let sit over night [sic]. The baking soda will need at least 12 hours to work it`s [sic] magic.”

No, moron. “Overnight”–one word–and “its” is the possessive of “it”.

If the “writer” were literate or at least had a literate editorial staff to back her, this crap wouldn’t be in the article, useless as it is to anyone who is actually an adult.

*sigh* So maybe there’s an adult American somewhere who is so clueless that they’ve never been exposed to baking soda and vinegar for cleaning. Wastes of oxygen.

I’m Not Easily Offended, but. . .

. . . no! Really! *heh*

Anywho. . .

A writing team–husband and wife–whose books I really enjoy nevertheless have some really annoying habits. “Though all at [place name] are not actively hostile, [blah,blah]” is one. No, “though NOT ALL at [place name] are. . .” The first formulation simply does not work. The first formulation simply and plainly (and nonsensically) means NO ONE AT [place name] is hostile, when the context is one of describing a hostile environment!

That’s just dumb, and some proofreader or editor should have caught that.

Then there are the many annoying misuses of “I”. For example, “some [x]s are not like you and I.” Parse that without the “you.” “Some [x]s are not like I.” Stupid, right? These are not stupid people writing these things, but they are just not literate enough to notice some of the stupid things they write. Consistently. They appear to genuinely think these constructions make sense.

Sadly, they are also very, very, very good storytellers, so these sorts of things are being almost subliminally taught to their hordes of fans.

That’s just sad.