What views do you currently hold that will look outdated to your grandchildren?

[Patine]

Ah, cool, the grammar and lexis police.

I mean, "ah" isn't a word either. Or wasn't always. It's like (or is) onomatopoeic; an expression of a sigh.

I mean, your yardstick here is fanfiction dot net. It's fan fiction. Written to whatever standards the author is able to muster. Unless the person is proclaiming some kind of excellence in the English language, you're being elitist.

So back to "u" for a second. It's an abbreviation. From "text" speak, which arose in the early days of mobile phones where people are charged by the character for how much an SMS costs. I'm sorry if you already knew that, but that explains why people use it. People had valid, inarguable reasons to come up with it and use it. Text speak literally defined a generation (or more). It's habit. You can call it a bad habit if you want, but your anecdotes about how people are typing online is not indicative of baseline literacy or handwriting skills. And you're using it to justify a bad habit of your own - judging people for how they communicate on places like Facebook. That's not a writing site. It's not peer-reviewed. It's social media.

You are, in essence, in your complaint about a person's writing on a Facebook page (which you're happy to use a contraction for), complaining about the digital equivalent of an accent (or maybe dialect would be more accurate). Why? What's the point? Are you advancing the English language in any meaningful way?

How a person types in an informal setting has no bearing on neither their literacy or handwriting skills. Your correlation of the two is a poor one.

One of the reasons (not the only one, definitely, but a notable contributor) in the original labour issues in both Victorian England and the post-Slavery U.S. Deep South and Caribbean was not the employers and employees couldn't talk to each other - their dialects of English were SO different they could barely understand each other. But, you seem to believe that lingual drift, and even degeneration, are harmless and ephemeral things that should not never complained about, lest one look pretentious and arrogant, and be the, "the grammar and lexis police," and could not possibly have ANY negative repercussions down the line of any sort - a non-issue made too big of a deal over. Until this new crop of youth start typing job applications and resumes, of course...

 

[Synobun]

One of the reasons (not the only one, definitely, but a notable contributor) in the original labour issues in both Victorian England and the post-Slavery U.S. Deep South and Caribbean was not the employers and employees couldn't talk to each other - their dialects of English were SO different they could barely understand each other. But, you seem to believe that lingual drift, and even degeneration, are harmless and ephemeral things that should not never complained about, lest one look pretentious and arrogant, and be the, "the grammar and lexis police," and could not possibly have ANY negative repercussions down the line of any sort - a non-issue made too big of a deal over. Until this new crop of youth start typing job applications and resumes, of course...

It's a fairly boilerplate prescriptivism vs. descriptivism argument. The former loses the historical battle when it comes to English pretty much straight across the board. There is no language authority and the language itself doesn't deal well with strict control outside of class warfare.

Usage will always trump written standard, which is why all the respected dictionaries and style guides no longer pretend to do anything except represent common usage in specific settings.

 

[warpus]

That looks like a properly communicated idea to me. As I said to Valka, you not liking it has no relevance to its actual function.

It might be, depending on the context. In most contexts - it isn't.

Surely you understand my point here and are just ignoring it? If you don't teach somebody how to write or type properly - their overall communication skills will suffer.

To see this in action just go on twitter.

 

[Synobun]

It might be, depending on the context. In most contexts - it isn't.

Surely you understand my point here and are just ignoring it? If you don't teach somebody how to write or type properly - their overall communication skills will suffer.

To see this in action just go on twitter.

The point is that what you were taught isn't going to be what's taught in the future. You didn't need to use the quill so you weren't taught to use it. Children today are unlikely to need to rely on handwriting and typing and will be using touchscreens more, so there's no reason for them to be specifically taught how to do those two things well.

Your and my generation got real good at tapping numpads in certain patterns to get letters, but that hardly means it should be a skill taught to those who won't find themselves in that position. And the lack of that being taught doesn't mean the next generation is being shortchanged... They just don't need to be taught it. They are clearly not having any challenges in conveying information to one another.

Twitter simply gives a platform to the people who, in ye olden days, wouldn't have been able to speak to anyone beyond the local drunks. Visibility and accessibility only makes you think there are more stupid people. The truth is that they were always there, just silenced before the internet and mass print.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What manners were taught that aren't now? What makes it manners? How were these manners enforced?

Manners are social conventions that reduce public conflict. Generally they reflect the values in play at the time.

The only thing I can recall being taught in school that could relate to manners was the "be subservient to authorities" mantra, enforceable by violence if not adhered to. What else was there? Did this have any effect on children? Are people today more impolite than they were in the past? Almost everyone in a customer-oriented position would agree that the older the customer, the worse they get treated, so it doesn't seem like this manners education was all too effective.

100 years ago that might have been correct.

"almost everyone..." is one of those meaningless "they said..." "it is known..." type statement that grasps at authority. I could easily say "Almost all older people would agree that younger people today are ruder and less respectful than in the past." WTH

And children are not taught these things today?

I like the attempt at justifying having meltdowns in public against people who are paid minimum wage to serve you and smile at you. Very cute. Though representative of the tendency of the older generations to think they are lord and king in a customer setting, and the worker can just stick it if they happen to be in a bad mood and the worker happens to be in the vicinity of their lack of emotional regulation.

If one is working in a customer service arena and cannot be polite and control one's mood and language, one should not be working in that arena. It is a job you are being paid to do (at whatever rate) and if you cannot do the job, find another where you can be ditchy and it doesn't matter.

No, I do not think that displaying manners and being polite is high on the priorities of parents, teachers and young adults.

 

[Synobun]

100 years ago that might have been correct.

You'd think, but the federal government ruled in 1977 that corporal punishment of students was a-okay, and it's only on the state level that it's banned... and not even in all of them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/corporal-punishment/420420/

In the latest civil-rights report from the U.S. Department of Education, which generally discourages punitive discipline, nearly 167,000 students received physical punishment in the 2011-12 school year, with the vast majority of paddling in a handful of states. Mississippi and Texas accounted for 35 percent of the reported cases of corporal punishment. With the addition of Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia, the data suggests that over 70 percent of all children disciplined with physical force reside in just five states.

Is 2011 100 years ago?

"almost everyone..." is one of those meaningless "they said..." "it is known..." type statement that grasps at authority. I could easily say "Almost all older people would agree that younger people today are ruder and less respectful than in the past." WTH

Old people do say that. But through the powers of nuance and intelligence, we're able to determine which side is more correct than the other.

If one is working in a customer service arena and cannot be polite and control one's mood and language, one should not be working in that arena. It is a job you are being paid to do (at whatever rate) and if you cannot do the job, find another where you can be ditchy and it doesn't matter.

You misread my post. The minimum-wage worker is forced to take it when the (usually older) customer has their regularly scheduled public meltdown. The workers themselves can't do anything, not even refuse service, because they are enslaved by the pennies they earn for survival.

No, I do not think that displaying manners and being polite is high on the priorities of parents, teachers and young adults.

Aren't they? Children seem rather sensitive to respecting individuals, enough so they're called snowflakes and whiners by the "tough" older generations and right-wingers. What is their insistence on freedom, tolerance, proper gendering, and so on, if not manners and politeness?

 

[Patine]

Old people do say that. But through the powers of nuance and intelligence, we're able to determine which side is more correct than the other.

Everyone who doesn't die along the way before they get there will be an "old person," one day.

 

[warpus]

The point is that what you were taught isn't going to be what's taught in the future.

That's your point, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

To restate my point - These days (in the west) kids are being taught less skills that help them communicate. This leads to poorer communication skills than you would have had otherwise.

No, I don't expect kids to learn how to write with a feather, that's not the point.

 

[Synobun]

That's your point, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

To restate my point - These days (in the west) kids are being taught less skills that help them communicate. This leads to poorer communication skills than you would have had otherwise.

No, I don't expect kids to learn how to write with a feather, that's not the point.

What proof do you have of this besides you not liking how they're doing it?

Everyone who doesn't die along the way before they get there will be an "old person," one day.

Not me.

 

[warpus]

What proof do you have of this besides you not liking how they're doing it?

Read my posts dude! I explained this all the way back in the first post I made about this.

 

[Synobun]

Read my posts dude! I explained this all the way back in the first post I made about this.

I can't. I wasn't taught.

Your first post about this said social media was bad for you and that kids aren't taught to handwrite anymore. Not seeing the proof or the logic.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You'd think, but the federal government ruled in 1977 that corporal punishment of students was a-okay, and it's only on the state level that it's banned... and not even in all of them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/corporal-punishment/420420/


Is 2011 100 years ago?

Corporal punishment is not really part of the manners discussion. In the US it is primarily a religious affliction imposed by Christians. The reasons for imposing it vary from situation to situation. The fact that it exists in some places and has been through the court process is an indication that it is diminishing. In the more distant past it would have been used much more. Courts are often lagging indicators.

Old people do say that. But through the powers of nuance and intelligence, we're able to determine which side is more correct than the other.

Yes.

You misread my post. The minimum-wage worker is forced to take it when the (usually older) customer has their regularly scheduled public meltdown. The workers themselves can't do anything, not even refuse service, because they are enslaved by the pennies they earn for survival.

Sorry. Unruly customers, of any age, certainly can be a problem. They can be stressful for those with less worldly experience, but the problem is not a new one and there are lots of ways to deal with them. Mostly it involves both training and time on the job. Employers need to prepare and train their CS reps. I would also add that as manners have become less prevalent, people feel more free to "have" a meltdown than in the past. It would interesting to see some stats on what percent of CS situations go bad and end up with impolite conversation. Squeaky wheels do get the grease.

Aren't they? Children seem rather sensitive to respecting individuals, enough so they're called snowflakes and whiners by the "tough" older generations and right-wingers. What is their insistence on freedom, tolerance, proper gendering, and so on, if not manners and politeness?

Children (under age 12?) may be. As they get older often we see the "you are not the boss of me" attitude of teenagers that is necessarily defiant and disrespectful. Insistence on a new value system by the young is nothing new. It happens frequently and usually is rejected by their elders who are resistant to change. The requested changes are mostly immaterial and a product of the young people's context. How they go about requesting/demanding they get their way is the nub of the problem. It is a bumpy road and the older folks will both die off and lose interest in fighting about it. In the end the young always win. Until they age and are faced with a new crop if youngsters. TBH the best path for the young to get their way is to ignore what the old folks say and just live their lives and work around those who disagree.

 

[warpus]

I can't. I wasn't taught.

Your first post about this said social media was bad for you and that kids aren't taught to handwrite anymore. Not seeing the proof or the logic.

Clearly there is never going to be proof of anything in this thread, since none of us are going out there to perform proper studies and obtaining results. Clearly it's all going to be anecdotes, which I have already provided.

I noted that kids these days suck at communicating more than kids in the past did. If you disagree with that, that's fine.

edit: as for social media being bad for you, that has actually been studied in a scientific setting - you can look up the studies yourself if you want

 

[Traitorfish]

It's simply one of many examples of communications kills kids were taught that they are no longer being taught. If kids aren't being taught how to write or type properly, what sort of communication skills do you expect from them in the future? You'll get things like "lol k thx why?" instead of properly communicated ideas.

I don't see the thread between a technical skill like typing and cursive, and intangible communication skills. A person with poor typing skills can write clear and excellent prose, and a person with excellent cursive can write garbled gibberish. I think you're conflating these because they're traditionally associated with high levels of education.

Based on various things I've read the general public's ability to write a proper essay has gone out the window. i.e. if you pulled a random (university educated) person off the street 30 years ago and got them to write an essay on some random subject.. and repeated the exercise today.. The essays written 30 years ago would be generally better.

Essay-writing is a fairly specific skill, and at the level of undergraduate education has a lot to do with adhering certain conventions around structural and style. While I do think a lot of those skills are transferable, that a good essayist is probably a strong communicator in other written contexts, it's not at all self-evident that a decline in essay-writing skills tells us anything about communications skills regardless of context.

Perhaps a sixty year-old might be more comfortable than a twenty year-old writing an essay-length piece about any random topic - but would they be as comfortable as the twenty year-old writing a five paragraph blog post about it? Which one are they more likely to be called upon to do in their day-to-day life? There's no clear reason to privilege one medium over the other as reflective of overall written communications skills- except that, as in the previous example, this particular skill is traditionally associated with educational attainment.

I never said that the majority did, just that the overall skills have diminished as a whole.

Then why pose it in generational terms?

 

[warpus]

I don't see the thread between a technical skill like typing and cursive, and intangible communication skills. A person with poor typing skills can write clear and excellent prose, and a person with excellent cursive can write garbled gibberish. I think you're conflating these because they're traditionally associated with high levels of education.

I am saying that these were skills that helped kids communicate better. They have been taken away and not replaced with anything else as far as I can see.

The benefits of typing and handwriting aren't just technical in nature. You learn how to assemble sentences properly, how to communicate the ideas you have in your head more effectively, and how to get that out using the English (or whichever) language.

Essay-writing is a fairly specific skill, and at the level of undergraduate education has a lot to do with adhering certain conventions around structural and style.

My point is that these days kids have more problems just assembling simple sentences, let alone paragraphs and more complex essays. The annoying conventions you have to stick to when submitting a university level essay are beside the point. These conventions aren't important to the discussion here. What's important are the skills you learn and improve on as you write these essays - you get better at communicating whatever ideas you might have in your head.

Perhaps a sixty year-old might be more comfortable than a twenty year-old writing an essay-length piece about any random topic - but would they be as comfortable as the twenty year-old writing a five paragraph blog post about it? Which one are they more likely to be called upon to do in their day-to-day life? There's no clear reason to privilege one medium over the other as reflective of overall written communications skills- except that, as in the previous example, this particular skill is traditionally associated with educational attainment.

You're honing in on the wrong part of my message. The conventions in essay writing standards are beside the point. If you can write a coherent and well written blog post - then yes, you are good at converting your thoughts to communicable words.. and essay writing classes won't help you much in that regard. I agree with that.

My point is that less kids have these skills because we teach them less related skills when they're growing up. So of course more kids are going to grow up not knowing how to properly string 4 sentences together to get an idea across.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Is my view that Betamax is superior outdated?

 

[Traitorfish]

I am saying that these were skills that helped kids communicate better. They have been taken away and not replaced with anything else as far as I can see.

The benefits of typing and handwriting aren't just technical in nature. You learn how to assemble sentences properly, how to communicate the ideas you have in your head more effectively, and how to get that out using the English (or whichever) language.

I'm old enough that my teachers were still making a half-hearted effort to teach cursive and typing, and no part of that class involved teaching us how to assemble sentences or communicate ideas. We were just copying blocks of text. It was all about technical form, not literacy. Those other skills were taught in other classes, and to my knowledge, kids still take English classes.

My point is that these days kids have more problems just assembling simple sentences, let alone paragraphs and more complex essays. The annoying conventions you have to stick to when submitting a university level essay are beside the point. These conventions aren't important to the discussion here. What's important are the skills you learn and improve on as you write these essays - you get better at communicating whatever ideas you might have in your head.

You're honing in on the wrong part of my message. The conventions in essay writing standards are beside the point. If you can write a coherent and well written blog post - then yes, you are good at converting your thoughts to communicable words.. and essay writing classes won't help you much in that regard. I agree with that.

My point is that less kids have these skills because we teach them less related skills when they're growing up. So of course more kids are going to grow up not knowing how to properly string 4 sentences together to get an idea across.

My counter-point is that adults have the same problems assembling sentences, paragraphs and essays, that this is not generational. You cited an alleged decline in essay-writing skills as evidence; I highlighted the ways in which this does not evidence what you suggest; now you abandon this citation. So what, beyond plain casual prejudice, is your basis for the claim that younger people have poorer literacy skills than older people?

 

[Gorbles]

One of the reasons (not the only one, definitely, but a notable contributor) in the original labour issues in both Victorian England and the post-Slavery U.S. Deep South and Caribbean was not the employers and employees couldn't talk to each other - their dialects of English were SO different they could barely understand each other. But, you seem to believe that lingual drift, and even degeneration, are harmless and ephemeral things that should not never complained about, lest one look pretentious and arrogant, and be the, "the grammar and lexis police," and could not possibly have ANY negative repercussions down the line of any sort - a non-issue made too big of a deal over. Until this new crop of youth start typing job applications and resumes, of course...

This "new crop of youth" likely already is, given that jobs can start from 16, and the "text speak" generation (pretty much millennials, really) are hitting up to 40.

I think we're all doing just fine, all told.

 

[Patine]

This "new crop of youth" likely already is, given that jobs can start from 16, and the "text speak" generation (pretty much millennials, really) are hitting up to 40.

I think we're all doing just fine, all told.

Well, regardless, that doesn't make the denigration of language skills PRAISEWORTHY and something to be ADVOCATED and DEFENDED even if it is marginally sufficient. Saying it, "gets by," even if just barely, doesn't mean desiring to improve such standards and help lift the situation isn't a worthy and admirable goal.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, regardless, that doesn't make the denigration of language skills PRAISEWORTHY and something to be ADVOCATED and DEFENDED even if it is marginally sufficient. Saying it, "gets by," even if just barely, doesn't mean desiring to improve such standards and help lift the situation isn't a worthy and admirable goal.

There is no denigration of language skills occurring here.