Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:13:05 AM
For those who have expressed skepticism over my insistence that spelling and grammar matter, I present you with another exhibit in my ongoing case. I will not link tot he blog form which I obtained this gem, though I will mention that the author claims to be an attorney (or else does not understand the conventional modern meaning of "Esquire", which may be the case)*. G-d help us if that claim is true.
Imagine the ordacioty of Ms.
Clinton to attempt to through another useless monker wrench at Obama's
camp. She needs to come off the stump and realize that Mr. Obama is
the Democratic choice of the people. Names do not sail in this race
Ms. Clinton, solidified resolves to issues does. This man has a
definite systematic plan of operations well in l'overture and ready to
move in motion. Ms. clinton is hindering the progression of the
democratic party to move forward by refusing to concede. Who does she
think she is? Mr. Dean National Democratic Chairperson you need to
step up to the plate and derive a definite resolve and get her out of
the way so that
Obama and Mc Cain can duke it out in the November 2008 election.
also, Ms. Clinton there is nothing more disturbing to America than
an undercover racist whose true underlying colors lies beneath the crux
until he/she feels threatened.
Let us just look at that first sentence and see how poor spelling makes it almost impossible to comprehend. First, what exactly is "ordacioty"? I think it may be "audacity", but I am not sure.
The author then provides an example of my favorite reason spelling matters, a misspelling which can be understood in some contexts but not in others. When I first saw the word "monker", I thought it a typo for "moniker". Once I read the full context, I realized it was "monkey", but, were it to appear in another context, it is possible readers could confuse this misspelling of "monkey" as a misspelling of "moniker".
And yet again, the final sentence provides an example of the same problem. The use of the word "crux" instead of (I assume) the word "crust" can lead to the same sort of confusion should the context be less clear.
Do I need to continue? I know many have adopted the "spelling and grammar don't matter" position as an article of faith, but can anyone look at that paragraph and tell me that it is comprehensible? Can anyone extract any more from it than the fact that the author really likes Obama and thinks Hillary is a racist who should step aside?
Yes, the thought are jumbled and the writing is poor, but that is not the only reason that we can get only ten words of meaning from over a hundred written words. The poor spelling and grammar actually make some sentences literally meaningless.
And that is why I continue to argue that spelling and grammar are important.
----------------------------------------------------------
* Actually there are four possible explanations for the writer calling himself "Esquire": (1) he is an attorney, (2) he does not know what Esquire means, (3) he belongs to a rank of gentry below knight and baronet, (4) he is a consular officer. As those last two seem a bit remote, I am sticking with the first two. (I need to make a confession here. I was unaware of number 4 prior to writing this. I was checking that there were no meanings of esquire other than the traditional attorney and what medieval romances usually termed a "squire", which I already knew. Thanks to dictionary.com, I learned that consuls are also addressed as esquire. As I have had little reason to deal with consular officers, I was unaware of that usage before today.)
----------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT
I am aware I have some typographical errors and perhaps a few honest misspellings in my own writing. That does not make my point any less valid. Should a man who smokes tell you smoking is unhealthy, does that make the message any less valid? So, please, do not bother pointing out my own errors, as I am aware I fall short of perfection. That in no way makes perfection an unworthy goal.
For those who care to see my earlier, more extensive arguments, the essays "
Spelling Nazi Part 2" and "
Why Worry About Grammar" are probably my best thoughts on the subject.
ADDENDUM
After posting that, I noticed there was a biography on the blog and discovered that "Esquire" has nothing to do with law. In fact, I don't exactly understand why the author is using the term. So my initial complaint is not quite valid, the author is not claiming to be an attorney. Apparently the blogger just heard the term esquire and liked it, or is using it in a fashion of which I am unaware.
The biography is actually pretty bizarre. I still won't link to the blog, as I don't want this to seem a personal attack on the blogger. I only picked this essay as it so perfectly fits my contention that spelling and grammar can make essays completely unintelligible. (I didn't intend to write on this topic today, but after seeing this blog post I was struck by what a perfect example it made.)
So, though I won't link to the blog, let me tell you that the biography is a bit frightening. Mostly because the author of the quote above claims to be an educator. That does worry me.