Andy's recent posts

Recent public posts (showing 21-40 of 277).

I have received private messages from people who agreed with Candy but felt threatened by several OTHER members of the group. So it seems ejecting Candy from the group is not making the board safer for all.

What I don't understand is if a person is so upset by another person on a message forum, why don't they just ignore said person's posts? Why read something that is going to drive you to such turmoil?

I'd also be curious to know what kind of less strong alternatives were taken before the ejection. (Because I am predisposed to disagree with people myself, I think it would behoove me to know if there are some warning signs to look out for.)

I feel your pain, Jane. But in the last year, I went from using the salutation comma to eliminating it. The trouble I had with Hi, Jane, was when writing a quick email to say thanks. The email invariably ended up like this:

Thanks, Jane.

I would worry, perhaps unreasonably, that it sounded like I was saying Thanks, then signing off with Jane instead of my own name.

So I would write Thanks Jane instead. Then, I decided to start leaving the comma out of Hi Jane too, because, as they say in the publishing business, it is better to be wrong but consistent than it is to be inconsistently right.

Regarding volunteer experiences in relation to grammar, I did work with Hmong immigrants at a school for a couple of years specifically on literacy. The kids were brilliant in general, their speaking was beautiful considering many of their parents did not speak English at all. There was a movement in the school district to combine the school I was at with a more middle-class school, but the parents of the middle-class school killed it because they thought it would bring their children's test scores down.

I've often had interesting situations with the spoken language at different jobs. I worked with a bunch of guys on a route driving job for about nine months, a lot of them asked me what the hell I was doing in that job because of the way I spoke, but I also found myself using language and grammar I wouldn't have otherwise, like "ain't" for instance. To fit in, I suppose. Even at my current job, I refer to many nouns as "her" because, unfortunately, that's how many of the men talk in my office. As in, "I got a new fishin' pole, wanna take her out for a spin?" Ugh. But I work for a magazine that takes as its topic a hobby that is wrapped up with our audience's sense of manhood, and one of the conditions of my being hired was to be passionate about the topic, and I believe that to speak too correctly (ie to refer to a fishin' pole as "it") would reveal me to be decidedly unmannish and would call my passion to question and would therefor threaten my job. Plus, I sit next to a salesman who happens to be very crafty when it comes to "mirroring" the clients he calls on the phone, so it seems that I've begun to mirror him and the other salesman (who I really don't like very much), mirroring my way even unto ungrammatical-land. Which reminds me of another job where I was known to slip into a very mild form of ebonics when talking to some of the women on the job. I really liked it :)

When I worked with Candy at the Outreach, I don't remember changing the way I spoke too much, other than the fact that I was of course using my Chicago voice rather than my Wisconsin accent, which is also back in full swing now that I'm back up here. I may have done a slightly "cooler" language with some of the people, but especially since the people we were working with were often men who I was ever so slightly threatened by, I probably kept things pretty toned down. I was able to be there for quite a few art sessions and I also worked serving food once a week, but I still felt like I was just beginning to get a feeling for how to really relate to the homeless people, I did better I think when I was doing art or eating at the meals and I didn't feel as much like a volunteer but more like just another hungry person.

I think with some people, there is a connection or conflict based on something completely separate from language, whereas between other people, language and inflection and grammar matter very much. It's a mystery to me.

I think that would be a challenge for me if I were a teacher, because I'd be inclined to try to talk like my students instead of wanting them to talk like me. Who knows, maybe it would work both ways. It could be my own deficiencies that cause me to lapse into ungrammaticalness to fit in or to try on different expressions. Maybe if I was more confident or stronger I would be more correct in my spoken language use.

I think teachers are doing something right, for while it can often seem that today's young people are hopeless, I believe most research indicates that, at this moment in history, illiteracy rates are lower than ever before, both in the United States and in the world. Yeah teachers!

This is a very fascinating, if thorny, discussion. I don't think it's such a bad thing for "new members" to see honest discussion and true passion. I for one wish I could get certain people in my "outside life" to speak so frankly. It may feel somewhat painful and scary and intense but I think ultimately such rigorous discussion is a good thing especially given the topic.

Jane said
I don't understand why it bothers you that I don't like poor grammar.

Thank you for asking, Jane. If I can get all Oprah on you, and it seems rather benign after having read through the discussion, but I would say in part it is because I was corrected as a child and it really pissed me off. Obviously plenty of people have had that experience; am I the only one who was really bothered by that? Or has everyone else just gotten over that experience and I'm stuck nursing some little scrape that wasn't even that bad twenty years ago? I think we had a poem on cultivating perceived hurts--Scars. But that's not the whole reason for me being annoyed :)

Mary Ellen said:
(But now I await the inevitable response: picture-hanging is politics!!)

Regarding the picture hanging on the wall, it becomes political when one person points out to another person that the picture is crooked. Everybody obviously has the capacity to "go with the flow" and everybody has the capacity to “put their foot down” or “draw a line in the sand.” To me, it's interesting to know why a person chooses to put her foot down when she does. I don't always notice in daily life because I can't think fast enough, I suppose. Sometimes, as is the case with this thread, I am annoyed by a person’s line in the sand. So then I draw a line, too, and suddenly there are two people pointing out crooked pictures, and then a bunch more people jump in and pointed out even more crooked pictures (or what they perceived to be crooked pictures, anyway) and holy cats, this is suddenly one interesting room to be in. Isn’t there something about how having crooked pictures is a sign there is love in the house?

I have been historically annoyed that people don’t want to acknowledge the political implications of their statements about language. I posted what I posted because I thought I had something to share with people that they might find interesting. I was not always aware that being annoyed by grammar had class and power implications so I thought there might be other people out there who also didn’t know who might want to know. I was also trying to show that grammar and usage are forms of thought control (in the sense that if we use a pre-existing language to express an idea, we are formulating and communicating the idea with an apparatus that is partially outside of us, the language, so in that sense, the language has influence on our individual thoughts), which I still believe to be true, which is why I believe, somewhat to my chagrin, that my annoyance is more righteous than the annoyance expressed in the OP. And because of my feeling (and even my idea) of righteous indignation, I did and still do feel compelled to state my positions, especially given that we live in a democracy and especially since the language and who controls it, and even the definition of control, are very much up for grabs.

Yes, everybody is entitled to feel annoyed, and everybody is entitled to share that annoyance on a forum, but in this instance that annoyance provoked a sensation of righteous indignation in a few members and those members feel compelled to say so. (Everyone knows full well that righteous indignation is annoying, too, but we all consider ourselves good stewards of the earth and of humanity, so there you have it.)

So, with all the above being said, I have two more defenses of mistakes in language, with the caveat that most of us are agreeing to disagree:

1. Children make grammatical mistakes as part of their natural language-acquisition process. Mistakes are good when children make them, because it aids in their “mastering” the language. Adults are capable of acquiring language, too. If mistakes are good for learning, couldn’t mistakes be good things?

2. One thing this discussion is missing is a historical perspective on changing language. If nobody ever made a mistake since middle English, we'd still be using the rules of middle English, right? Why else would the language change?

Yes, Jane, we can agree to disagree. I guess while some people are bothered by typos and errors in grammar, I am equally bothered by people being bothered by such.

Good examples of legalese and offialese, Whitaker. Thanks.

A body of people living together must, as a matter of course, agree on certain rules of communication for no other reason than that they need to communicate and communicate clearly.

I agree people need to communicate clearly, and that grammar develops as a way to facilitate clear communication.

However, I think there is a conflict here between what works for the group and what works for the individual. Grammar, usage, and the conventions of the whole language can sometimes work against the individual's ability to precisely communicate an idea or feeling. Jane mentioned in the OP that French is much more precise when it comes to the possessive case. And, Enlish has essentially eliminated the subjunctive mood. An individual might have a hard time communicating the feeling of subjunctiveness in English. Perhaps eliminating the subjunctive has facilitated clear communication for the group. I know no one would advocate dumbing down the language, but is that what English has done by eliminating the subjunctive? Fewer rules and forms to learn make for clearer communication?

Certainly some poets and writers have taken it upon themselves to explore how constricted the rules of correct written usage are. James Joyce, ee cummings, Cormac McCarthy, others?

And then there are accents and regionalisms. Are grammar errors the written equivalent to a "creative" spoken usage?

Perhaps, too, there is something else being communicated when a person uses incorrect grammar. For one, at times, the person is communicating the fact that they have never grasped the correct usage in some instances. Or perhaps the person is communicating the fact they received an inferior education. Or perhaps they are communicating that they just don't care about grammar. Or they are communicating that they would rather not play by the rules dictated by the language police.

Well I can agree to disagree, but it certainly is a prickly subject.

My friend is a big Craig Ferguson fan. Maybe I will get it for her birthday!

That's really cool, Janet! I bet it will be neat to read all those papers and hear the students' responses. And I bet your publisher is happy for the sales!

Sara, you're right, I was being a bit confrontational/defensive. No matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to convince the good people of CR that language is politics!

Theresa, I agree that there is body language grammar, but body language is not specifically prescribed and taught like other forms of language. (And I didn't mean to offend with the crack about legal and academic language.)

Could language arts instruction include written, verbal, AND body language?

Pontalba, that sounds like a great story, I hope you can remember the book! And thanks for the body language link.

The Nick Adams Stories by Hemingway and
Hot Water Music by Bukowski. I don't think either of these is strictly autobiographical short fiction, but as the Amazon page for Nick Adams Stories says, they closely parallel the author's life. Bukowski is awfully bleak, in my opinion. The Nick Adams Stories are great...

Somebody asked the very same question here:
http://languageisavirus.com/questions/wh...
The answers on that website:
1. Ernest Hemingway. Look for the Nick Adams stories. They are all based around his life.
2. Charles Bukowski
. Any of his novels and short stories are autobiographical.
3. Andre Dubus. All of his short stories are based, to a certain degree, on his life.
4. John Fante
5. Richard Brautigan’s short stories. He has a surrealist twist to his stories, though.
6. Tobias Wolff…In Pharaoh’s Army (this is a novel/memoir in the form of connected stories/vignettes.
7. Tim O’Brien. The Things They carried. They are short stories based on his service in Vietnam.

I guess the examples above are not all that contemporary. There is a short story group here on GoodReads that seems to discuss contemporary short stories (they don't really discuss the stories, they just discuss books and authors) but they might have some more ideas for you.
http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1213...

So why do you ask, Sonya?

How about this question:
Why do we have correct spoken-language grammar and correct written-language grammar, but no specific body-language grammar?

Candy wrote: "That was a fun article, thanks. I always try to see what people are reading on the public transit. It's amazing how many people are reading. Actually, one day I saw someone reading a book we were h..."

Yeah, if I'm not reading something myself, I was always peeking over people's shoulders to see what they were reading.

I was fond of reading Spanish poetry when I was trying to learn Spanish...

I thought the first commment on the Daily Mail article brought up an interesting point. The conventions of legal language and academic writing make for terrible reading. But still nobody ever complains about their offenses. It's funny when academics complain that students just don't know how to write, then teach them to write in a style that makes the eyes bleed to read.

Erin wrote: "Andy, I'm intrigued by the Seven Levels of Punctuation. Do you know where I could find more information? I wish my undergrad writing program had included a course like this - now that I'm in my g..."

I'll try to dig out a handout from my files. I believe the seven levels of punctuation is a somewhat proprietary theory developed perhaps by the professor's department as a graduate student. I think if I find some of the materials more information will be forthcoming. If I find the notes, Erin, I can send you an email with attachment.

I liked the device of attaching the boyfriends to the father, son, and holy spirit.

*SPOILER*
I wasn't sure if I bought the part where she has to hide from Danny and Lewis has to watch the apartment. I didn't really see the run in at the bowling alley that precipitated that turn of events to be all that violent. So he asked her where her mother was as she came out of the bathroom.
What's the big deal? I know she tried to set up that fact that he could be a mean drunk, but I never really felt that.

Looks interesting!

Russ: Agreed. But won't disagreement today lead to two views of history tomorrow?


Candy: Looks like an amazing project! Can't wait to hear more about it!

Gail wrote: "Good grief, Andy, your view is a dark one."
Gail wrote: While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had...

Depending on who you mean by they, I'd say you have a fairly dark view yourself, Gail. Who do you mean by they? At what point in history did they suddenly begin to control their impulses? How did the control come about? Was it like the will power necessary to quit other bad habits, like smoking? What are the impulses you are talking about?

Russ wrote: Andy, I think you are just a tad too inclusive in your indictment of we who are now alive. Yours is a popular view no doubt, but please don't include me in too readily. It has been a long time since I raped or killed anyone, and I assume the same for you too.

Where were the clothes you are wearing made? I bet a sweatshop. Do you view sweatshops as barbaric or generous?

And how does your portfolio look these days? What are those companies up to that you are supporting? Surely they are not polluting the world. Surely they are not laying people off and replacing them with cheap labor in other countries. Surely they are not cheating on their taxes. Surely they are more worried about human dignity than they are about profit, right?

And you live in New York City, Russ? How many murders were there in NYC in the month of July? I know YOU didn't commit murder, but you were physically close to hundreds of murders in the last few of months. Why weren't those murderers able to "control their impulses?"

Is the veneer of civilization not strong enough? Perhaps we should become even more civilized and require our citizens to cover their skin and curb their language so no unwanted impulses come up.

edited: 10:18 central

Gail wrote: "While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had, or than they thought was necessary or wise"

I'm with Michael on this one: "When we think about that, is the case for human progress that clear?"

Progress in terms of change? Yes. In terms of "improvement"? That argument can be made. In terms of failure? That argument can be made, too.

Control our impulses. There are plenty of rapes and murders right here in the good old civilized U.S.A. And we're still bombing the shit out of innocent women and children in Afghanistan, with no plan to stop as far as I know.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/0...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07...

And the impulse to screw over our neighbor for a buck will live on forever, no matter how civilized we get, it seems.

Candy, your earlier post made me reflect on my own experiences hunting and fishing. There is something very strong in our culture that resists the notion that we are indeed hunting and gathering. Some sort of fear of wildness? Fear of being uncivilized? I think culturally it is easy to find security in "civilization" but sometimes don't you ever get freaked out when people bare their teeth in a smile or make weird laughing sounds. In an earlier post, somebody disparaged grunts and early utterances. Some days I feel like we're still making some elemental grunts and calling it language. And let's not even get started on humping... :)

I agree Russ, we probably are working with a sliding scale as far as the timeline is concerned. I guess I took it way back to the beginning of language. Though, to be fair, the point I'm trying to make--language is philosophy--necessitates my going back that far. And that point does speak to language use from that time forward. I have no idea how many years ago language developed.

You've mentioned the issue with "the same" before. I'm not sure if I used the word "same" but I suppose I was getting there. I do think there are similarities in how language is used from today to those very early times. I did some training in conversation skills once--researchers suggest when people talk, they generally talk about one of three things: Themselves, the person they are talking to, or their shared circumstance. I don't think much has changed about what we talk about. The circumstances themselves have changed greatly, but the fact that we talk about our circumstances probably remains "the same".

I hope that clears up how I was using "the same". Like I said, I believe as long as people have language, they have done philosophy, because there just isn't that much else to talk about.

I suppose it depends on how we are defining philosophy. Surprise surprise, I have a wide definition of philosophy :) I don't believe people have to do what Emerson was doing to be considered philosophers. I will stick with my idea that story is philosophy, so nearly everybody is a philosopher and people, as long as there has been language, have always been doing philosophy.

We're probably using a fairly modern definition of philosophizing. It's hard to believe any people existed who didn't have some form of ritual or spirituality. It may not have resembled ours in any way. I suppose several thousand years ago, people did not have pointy headed people writing incomprehensible books in ivory towers.

To me, to say a person doesn't have the capacity to philosophize is basically a way of dehumanizing the person. Making meaning is one of the functions of our species that makes us human. It seems to me that once our humans had language, part of having language was related to meaning making. I mean, what else is there to talk about really? Even if you are discussing the plan for the next day's hunt, you might consider that a form of spirituality, or you might be talking about where the berries were last year, there again, you're making meaning out of your experience, maybe you develop a way of recording where the berries are, maybe you use stories as mnemonic devices as a way to remember. Yes Theresa, good point about death. Does anybody really think that people with language saw somebody die and didn't have some sort of explanation for what death was? The same goes for birth. If you are a group of people with language, you are going to develop some explanation of birth. (I've never given birth, but I hear it's a rather powerful experience.) And reproductive cycles, and changes in the human life cycle. And changes in season. And changes from night to day etc. I'm no expert on the history of language, but it seems that if language developed as a product of evolution, it was because language gave people who could speak some sort of survival advantage. The advantage must have been the ability to make some guesses about what was happening around them. Those guesses would be meaning and that meaning would be philosophy.