U.C.D students are semi literate

Ernie Ball

Stepherunie wrote:

I'm going to go with I was drunk, it's impressive I did so well.

There should be a full stop after 'drunk'.

And yes, I feel I am in a position to say so, you are in no position to comment on my abilities on the basis of one post of mine that you have read.

There should be a full stop or a semi-colon after 'so'.

And I'm guessing he was commenting on essays and exam scripts that he has corrected, have you seen any of my work?

There should be a full stop after 'corrected'.

Spectator#1

Ernie Ball wrote:

There should be a full stop after 'drunk'...

We all got your point, you can stop now.

You definitely should illustrate why you think there should be full stops in places where Stepherunie placed commas or other things he did are mistaken; otherwise you're in danger of being mistaken for a petulant dickhead. Punctuation is an art, not a science.

In any case, I would suggest that some of your suggestions for full stops would be better served by hyphens or semi-colons. The sense of the sentence runs on in some cases and putting a full stop in would disrupt that, like here:

Stepherunie wrote:

I'm going to go with I was drunk, it's impressive I did so well.

You also made some mistakes. There were a few one-word sentences, lower-case letters starting sentences, ending quotes after the full stop - I could go on, but I won't.

There's plenty of other people who might make objections to what McDowell said that didn't make quite as many mistakes - not that I think those mistakes reflect on Stepherunie's literacy, it might have been one careless post.

humbert

Your grammar and punctuation may be impeccable, but you are unable to see that finding trivial faults with the English some people use on an internet forum says little about the general level of literacy in UCD. Instead it amounts to pettiness and highlights the fact the intelligence and good English don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Ernie Ball

humbert wrote:

Your grammar and punctuation may be impeccable, but you are unable to see that finding trivial faults with the English some people use on an internet forum says little about the general level of literacy in UCD. Instead it amounts to pettiness and highlights the fact the intelligence and good English don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I don't believe the faults are trivial. They are instances of the near-illiteracy that McDowell was talking about. That's what being semi-literate looks like. In any case, the howls of protest indicate that most here take McDowell's charge seriously. This implies that they don't think being semi-literate is the trivial matter you do.

The average UCD student cannot punctuate or spell properly, doesn't know how to form the possessive with any kind of accuracy, abuses the passive voice and writes in run-on sentences. Stepherunie is no exception to this rule, his or her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Spectator#1

Ernie Ball wrote:

The average UCD student cannot punctuate or spell properly, doesn't know how to form the possessive with any kind of accuracy, abuses the passive voice and writes in run-on sentences. Stepherunie is no exception to this rule, his or her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

But surely you accept that there is a difference between being semi-literate and mere lazy writing?

Your point stands - I wouldn't necessarily disagree with McDowell's statement, or you for that matter - but sifting through perceived mistakes (and that's all they are for the most part, or at least until you explain them) and making imperative statements regarding one person's careless posts isn't really proving anything.

There is always the (very likely) possibility that Stepherunie was just being lazy with his/her post - which is not the same thing as being semi-literate.

humbert

The faults you have highlighted do not indicate "near-illiteracy". To say so is ridiculous. However, I do think the state of English in UCD and further afield is in serious decline. It's taught poorly and not enough emphasis is put on the basics.

Ernie Ball

Spectator#1 wrote:

You also made some mistakes. There were a few one-word sentences,

I was correcting a post. Not all of my corrections were or were meant to be full sentences.

lower-case letters starting sentences,

Nonsense. I didn't start any of my own sentences with lower-case letters.

But surely you accept that there is a difference between being semi-literate and mere lazy writing?

Not much. The problem is that neither the lazy writer nor the semi-literate one care very much about language. If you can write correctly, why wouldn't you? It takes no more effort. Unless, that is, you really are semi-literate....

but sifting through perceived mistakes (and that's all they are for the most part, or at least until you explain them) and making imperative statements regarding one person's careless posts isn't really proving anything.

I don't have to explain why I'm right in order to be right. Every one of those sentences I corrected was poorly expressed and every one of my corrections was correct.

Ernie Ball

humbert wrote:

The faults you have highlighted do not indicate "near-illiteracy". To say so is ridiculous.

Then I guess your standards aren't very high. Which is typical of the average UCD student.

However, I do think the state of English in UCD and further afield is in serious decline. It's taught poorly and not enough emphasis is put on the basics.

Basics like punctuation and sentence structure?

Blowfish

tbh if your attitude is typical of people who aren't 'semi-illiterate', then i'm quite happy with my literacy level.

Ernie Ball

Blowfish wrote:

tbh if your attitude is typical of people who aren't 'semi-illiterate', then i'm quite happy with my literacy level.

Good for you.

copacetic

Ernie Ball wrote:

If you can write correctly, why wouldn't you? It takes no more effort. Unless, that is, you really are semi-literate....

I suggest a site wide investigation into your posting history. It's clear you are a model for us all and I'm sure all your posts are perfect examples of clear, concise and correct english. Surely we can all learn something from Ernie. Let the search begin!

Spectator#1

Ernie Ball wrote:

I was correcting a post. Not all of my corrections were or were meant to be full sentences.

...

Nonsense. I didn't start any of my own sentences with lower-case letters.

Was I too pedantic in pointing out that your corrections didn't read as proper sentences? Are we all unequivocally subject to your opinion on how far this kind of pedantry should actually go?

There is a protocol to be observed in the quoting of other people and you did not adhere to it.

Not much. The problem is that neither the lazy writer nor the semi-literate one care very much about language. If you can write correctly, why wouldn't you? It takes no more effort. Unless, that is, you really are semi-literate....

I'd agree with you on that point for the most part. I try to write properly even on boards.ie. The point is, there is a difference in context between here on an internet forum and elsewhere (exams, letters, CV's...). Provided the author adheres to most grammatical and syntactical rules it's quite easy to discern their meaning. While I try to be as clear as possible, I wouldn't begrudge somebody using contractions or more informal constructs to get their point across, provided it makes sense. I don't think that's the same thing as illiteracy.

I don't have to explain why I'm right in order to be right. Every one of those sentences I corrected was poorly expressed and every one of my corrections was correct.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, quite simply. There is more than one way to construct a sentence. You suggested a better way to have done so in that case, but not the way.

What's more, you're not correcting anything if you don't explain why those corrections need to be made in the first place. By just posting these one word 'corrections' without any qualifications for their pertinence you're just being supercilious.

Your point has been made at this stage. I still wouldn't agree that a lax attitude towards spelling/grammar etc... is the same thing as an inability to spell. You might argue that the former is even more reprehensible than the latter but by taking a patronising, insulting and condescending tone (such as you have) you're only making the situation worse.

Ernie Ball

Spectator#1 wrote:

There is a protocol to be observed in the quoting of other people and you did not adhere to it.

You are right. However, there is a different protocol when copyediting, which is what I was doing. And there's no protocol at all for copyediting on the internet, whereas the protocols for composition on the internet are (or ought to be) the same as for composition anywhere.

I'd agree with you on that point for the most part. I try to write properly even on boards.ie. The point is, there is a difference in context between here on an internet forum and elsewhere (exams, letters, CV's...). Provided the author adheres to most grammatical and syntactical rules it's quite easy to discern their meaning. While I try to be as clear as possible, I wouldn't begrudge somebody using contractions or more informal constructs to get their point across, provided it makes sense. I don't think that's the same thing as illiteracy.

I agree with you and I don't begrudge anyone their informal constructions. However, we're not talking about that. We're talking about semi-illiterate prose and Stepherunie's is an example of that, whether he/she can do better or not.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, quite simply. There is more than one way to construct a sentence. You suggested a better way to have done so in that case, but not the way.

I never said or implied that mine was the only way. What I did say was that the sentences I corrected were incorrect and mine weren't. That is the case whether I explain why they were incorrect or not.

What's more, you're not correcting anything if you don't explain why those corrections need to be made in the first place. By just posting these one word 'corrections' without any qualifications for their pertinence, you're just being supercilious.

Were my aim to educate Stepherunie, you might have a point. That wasn't my aim. My aim was to make a point. And, as you put it:

Your point has been made at this stage.

humbert

Ernie Ball wrote:

Then I guess your standards aren't very high. Which is typical of the average UCD student.

I simply don't have your penchant for exaggeration. After the previous petty criticisms and now this altogether risible remark, you come across as being bitter.

Ernie Ball

humbert wrote:

I simply don't have your penchant for exaggeration.

Ah, but you do:

Instead it amounts to pettiness and highlights the fact the intelligence and good English don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Blowfish

Ernie Ball wrote:

Ah, but you do:

No, that was actually a valid point.

Ernie Ball

Blowfish wrote:

No, that was actually a valid point.

So says the proud illiterate.

Spectator#1

Lads, what are we like? It's Saturday night and we're arguing semantics. Let's have a séance instead...

humbert

Spectator#1 wrote:

Lads, what are we like? It's Saturday night and we're arguing semantics. Let's have a séance instead...

Agreed. *Hangs head in shame:o

Blowfish

Ernie Ball wrote:

So says the proud illiterate.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word illiterate.

I also said absolutely nothing to indicate that I was proud. I simply stated that I would much prefer to be considered semi-illiterate than to come accross as completely arrogant and pedantic.

copacetic

copacetic wrote:

I suggest a site wide investigation into your posting history. It's clear you are a model for us all and I'm sure all your posts are perfect examples of clear, concise and correct english. Surely we can all learn something from Ernie. Let the search begin!

Lads, I'd like to call off the search. I had a quick look and Ernie is not the paragon of virtue I thought he was. Away from this thread Ernie is as bad as the rest of us. For shame Ernie, for shame.

Riamfada

Im not sure if all UCD students are semi-literate but by reading through this thread it is clear that all UCD students are semi-stupid.

Spectator#1

Har har har. You're gas.

Sangre

'Copy edit' any more posts like that Ernie Ball and you're being banned. It's probably the pettiest and most self-indulgent thing I've ever seen.

Anyway, the whole argument is ridiculous. It's like complaining that the brevity used in text messages is somehow indicative of the writer's literacy level. What people type on an internet forum can hardly be a measure of their standard of English afaik tbh brb lol?!

Ernie Ball

Sangre wrote:

'Copy edit' any more posts like that Ernie Ball and you're being banned. It's probably the pettiest and most self-indulgent thing I've ever seen.

I have no intention of doing any more copyediting here. I've made my point. But I don't see why you think it's self-indulgent.

Anyway, the whole argument is ridiculous. It's like complaining that the brevity used in text messages is somehow indicative of the writer's literacy level. What people type on an internet forum can hardly be a measure of their standard of English afaik tbh brb lol?!

The argument would be ridiculous if posts on this forum were the only evidence that McDowell is right. Unfortunately, there is much more evidence in every single set of essays or exams that non-science lecturers receive.

I'd like to hear what McDowell actually said. Does anyone have a link?

Stepherunie

Right, so say I were dyslexic and thus owing to this fact I find punctuation and grammar extremely difficult? Is it right that you, Ernie Ball, edit my posts to the point of oblivion with no regard or knowledge of my abilities and/or my own educational needs?

This is why I take offence to your comments, I find you to be an utterly petulant person who stands to belittle others by imposing there own values of self - superiority on them.



Oh I feel I should point out; I don't actually have dyslexia, my point was purely illustrative.

Ernie Ball

Stepherunie wrote:

Right, so say I were dyslexic and thus owing to this fact I find punctuation and grammar extremely difficult? Is it right that you, Ernie Ball, edit my posts to the point of oblivion with no regard or knowledge of my abilities and/or my own educational needs?

Yeah and suppose I have Asperger Syndrome.... How can you be so insensitive?

This is why I take offence to your comments, I find you to be an utterly petulant person who stands to belittle others by imposing there own values of self - superiority on them.

You are right. I was wrong and so was Moore McDowell: UCD students can hardly be characterised as semi-literate. I don't know how anyone could ever have reached that conclusion. Mea maxima culpa.

Stepherunie

Ernie Ball wrote:

Yeah and suppose I have Asperger Syndrome.... How can you be so insensitive?

I'm guessing in the exact same way you can.

Oh and due to the fact that you were actually able to desist from your constant copy editing when told to do so I've come to the conclusion you don't have Asperger syndrome. Apologies if I am, in fact, making a broad conclusion based on my limited knowledge of sufferers as a whole.

Reminds me of someone though... can't think who....

griffdaddy

yissers are bleedin' mad yissers are talkin' bout all dat

NUTLEY BOY

He is probably irritated by Freshers doing their papers in text lingo.......