Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 16 KB, 512x512, C5E2D73E-C107-46AB-861B-8B6AA114AE18.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14386308 No.14386308 [Reply] [Original]

why do grammar nazis do it? power move? they want to humiliate you?

>> No.14386323

>>14386308
fascist tendencies being triggered

>> No.14386356
File: 219 KB, 1480x1588, i_could_care_less_2x.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14386356

>>14386308

>> No.14386374

>>14386356
>i could care less
this is correct, the word “could” here is used like the phrase “could afford to”

>> No.14386381

>>14386308
Because they are malicious. Also because they don't know the separation of pragmatics from semantics.

>> No.14386385

they were whipped and whipped until they memorised every nuance of the english language and now they must come and whip you too

sounds kinda sexy

>> No.14386391

>>14386356
I hate this comic so fucking much. I even agree with the general sentiment here about language but holy fuck it's insufferable. Every time I see this comic strip it has this same unbearable tone

>> No.14386399

>>14386308
it’s usually just an edgy teenage phase, most people grow out of it.

>> No.14386446

>>14386391
Same. The sentiment is right and I have to look past the shitty 'my iq is infinite' execution.

>> No.14386456

>>14386391
>>14386446
its XKCD syndrome, they're all just excuses for the creator to be a rancidly smug faggot

>> No.14386472

>>14386308

Imagine you're in a boxing gym, trying to be a tough guy, then someone points out you have your hands by your balls instead of your face.
Your basic understanding of what you are doing is wrong, and someone pointing this out to you, which makes you feel embarrassed but is intended to help you.
It's either that or getting punched in the face.

>> No.14386498

>>14386308

When your grammar/spelling sucks you are wrong about something, and the 'grammar nazi' you are speaking to knows more than you do about at least one subject, so maybe you should stfu and listen.

>> No.14386583
File: 113 KB, 850x687, get real.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14386583

>>14386308
Its necessary. If you don't call it out it becomes normal to you and you start making the same errors.
Striving for perfection is natural.

>> No.14386597

>>14386374
You are stupid

>> No.14386600

>>14386308
It's not an attempt to "humiliate you".
It's because we want you to have standards.

>> No.14386774

>>14386456
>>14386391
the xkcd mindset is the same mindset that brought rampant scientism and marvel movies
surprised that there hasn't been more pushback against xkcd
looking forward to future bonfires of his comic tbqh

>> No.14386801

>>14386472
Their intent isn't to help, their intent is to signal to everyone that they are "educated." There is this bizarre behavior among nerds that mastery of grammar makes them little scholars or something. I blame analytic and continental philosophers 20th century obsession with language for this.

>> No.14386808
File: 14 KB, 334x449, B1151BD4-6D74-4828-AA71-40DB6A7C4856.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14386808

>>14386600
This

>> No.14386834

>>14386308
When a mans been humiliated, and he has no arguments left, he attacks you're grammar.

>> No.14386910

>>14386308
i've noticed that people tend to discuss things at the highest level they are capable of
if you are arguing with someone, and you make a truly compelling argument that absolutely crushes their position, they'll just leave the conversation and move on. if you agree with them, they'll just make some vague positive comment like "based" or "omg so brave" or whatever, but they won't write a whole lot more
the best way i've found to get a good conversation out of people (or at least, get them to keep engaging you and keep on winning against them) is to not be so right that your position is completely unassailable, with irrefutable evidence, references, and footnotes, but to have the core of your argument be sound while intentionally having at least one weak point which to the person frantically looking through your text for something to nitpick at, will stand out like a sore thumb. they'll seize on this opportunity and point it out like they've just found the chink in the armor, the minuscule overlooked detail that the whole argument falls apart without, and they'll actually think they've found it. but, to the dispassionate observer who has no emotional investment in who wins, they'll be more convinced by the fact that the most salient point your opposition can bring up is in arguing about minutiae and will accept that the core of your argument is sound (which doesn't happen if your opponent never tries to rebut your argument). this "weak point" can sometimes take the form of incorrect grammar, but it's better to misrepresent statistics (say 13% of blacks commit 75% of violent crime instead of 50%, for example) or to say the wrong person did something, things like that
with this method, you can actually use grammar nazis to your own benefit, string along morons for ages, and all the while to an outside observer look like a fucking genius compared to the idiot who keeps arguing about inane shit instead of attacking the central point of things
of course none of this applies to convincing the sort of person who actually thinks that making grammatical mistakes means you're wrong, but these people are probably won over by tv advertisements and unironically vote so you shouldn't worry about them anyway

>> No.14386929

>>14386391
>>14386446
>>14386456
>>14386774
Christmas break will be over soon, kiddos. Better start thinking about getting your learners permit.

>> No.14387456

>>14386308
You're not allowed to make up your own traffic laws. Why should you be able to make up your own grammar?

>> No.14387802

>>14386356
>grammar is pretentious
>language is arbitrary emotion

>> No.14387843

>>14386356
The real reason people have such shit grammar is because it's either not taught properly, or not taught at all. They're not making a conscious decision to flout rules, they're just ignorant and badly educated. I was never really taught English grammar after the seventh grade, and I'm sure it shows.

>> No.14387846

>>14386356
Counterpoint: no, she's correcting you because you intended to convey a certain message but expressed yourself incorrectly. Language is a means for communication, and deviation from agreed upon regulations is not only inelegant and grating to those who actually know how to use it, but also inefficient.

>> No.14387880

>>14386929
the irony

>> No.14388021

>>14386308
Youre correct. Its because some people for whatever psychological reason will always jump at the opportunity to put themselves above others.

They will say it's about standards, effiency, or its because language is a concrete system forged by literary forefathers and cannot be violated. Even when an incorrect phrase conveys the intended meaning, like in the comic, they will say this. They have no sex. Let them have this one.

>> No.14388040

>>14388021
*You're

>> No.14388055

>>14386929
xkcd is boomer

>> No.14388078

>>14387843
Grammar is artificial imposition of simplistic rules onto something infinitely complex. It doesn't even scratch the surface of language and most of its concepts are from old Latin grammar and therefore inapplicable or poorly applied outside of case-heavy European languages. The language you use is what you heard as you acquired it. It's not wrong, just deviates from the often completely baseless decrees of a couple of academics in a grammar book who aren't even following the language they gained as a child let alone yours. Everyone in effect has their own language as it exists in your brain. Grammar and universal media is just a method by which the world is homogenised and placed under the control of a central authority. It also reduces the nuance and richness of language, not only in terms of its diversity but in general what is capable of being expressed. This is simply because grammar is not up to the task of describing language in proper detail, so the proper details are not recognised and discarded. The one upside of this is that central authorities of languages can, to some extent, preserve the language from foreign influence. Though this usually means killing a language's diversity to begin with. English would be so greatly diverse without standard education and autistic fixation on prescriptive grammar. Which would be a lovely thing as you'd get truly dialectal literature. One hilariously retarded thing about prescriptive grammar is it's ahistorical alinguistic insistence on language expressing logic in the same notation as formal logic / mathematics. Stupidly misrepresenting the terms in play. Think double negatives as the most glaring one.

That said, there's some great grammars that are certainly worth learning as a entry-point to linguistics and to understanding your own language- assuming your language is close enough to the standard one. Certainly worth it if you have any interest in linguistics or writing.

>> No.14388105

>>14386834
OP should of known this from the start

>> No.14388619

>>14387456
good writers transcend grammar

>> No.14388662

grammar prescriptivists of this type are often women or other incontinents, who need to solidify into law the arbitrary inherited rules in order to survive experiential chaos, because they are poorly equipped to understand the structure of experience or expression analytically. the solidification of experienced grammar into law is the closest approximation they have for a theory of the world of representation itself. grammar nazis are to be commended, really, they can't get any closer.

>> No.14390133

>>14388105
Should have *

Pussy

>> No.14390783

>>14386308
Cerebral Narcissism brought on by deep seated insecurities.

>> No.14390889

>>14388078
That's not why we don't teach grammar any more. It's not about linguistics at all - that's just an ex post facto justification for stupidity and laziness on the part of teachers. I also find it kind of ironic that you're talking about linguistic diversity when our language has been getting closer and closer to Newspeak with every passing year.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action