I am considered a Grammar Nazi, is this a common Aspie trait?

[tree]

 

[Mr Allen]

Very good, you know what though? I had to read it twice to get it lol.

 

[pjcnet]

The multi-faceted problem going on here is that often a letter/communication is not readable and does not get its information across correctly but that nobody is allowed to point that out anymore. One asks for clarity and they get raked over the coals for "thinking they are better than others," when maybe that's not what they actually think. Maybe they truly just want clarity, not a feeling of superiority.

It's however totally different asking for clarity when someone truly doesn't understand the meaning of what's been written to when someone points out grammatical errors such as missing or misplaced apostrophes when they can still easily understand what's been written. Some of the Internet shorthand and slang used these days can be confusing to some people however, but if a person politely asks for the meaning most people wouldn't have any issue.

 

[CMZ]

It's however totally different asking for clarity when someone truly doesn't understand the meaning of what's been written to when someone points out grammatical errors such as missing or misplaced apostrophes when they can still easily understand what's been written. Some of the Internet shorthand and slang used these days can be confusing to some people however, but if a person politely asks for the meaning most people wouldn't have any issue.

Yes, and usually I just grin and bear it and don't point it out. As stated earlier in this thread my concern is not so much that an individual makes a typo now and then as it is that society is getting dumber and too readily accepting poor communication. And sometimes what someone writes isn't clear unless and until I decipher it and imagine commas, apostrophes, etc., in their correct positions. Yes, we all need to be forgiving of others' (other's?) mistakes, but I feel we should also all strive for clear communication so that people reading what we write won't even be under any necessity of having to decipher it.

 

[Progster]

I think part of the reason a lot of people have become lazy with both grammar and spelling is because of Internet chat including on smart phones (also SMS messages) where people want to communicate as quickly and efficiently as possible, often in real time, commonly using Internet short hand and slang.

Yes, and I've also noticed that people are fond of using acronyms instead of writing something in full. I very often come across acronyms that I don't know, and it makes it hard to read and understand what the person is saying. I was taught that one should always write it out in full, and then put the acronym for it in brackets, after which one may use the acronym. But on the internet, people just assume that others are going to know the acronym, it doesn't even occur to them that people might not be familiar with it. Personally, I always adhere to this rule, unless it's a really common one or something like 'ASD' which I think that everyone will know.

 

[Kirsty]

Apostrophes do not denote plurals. They denote possessives. I think what you are talking about is what might be called a plural possessive. For instance:

• CORRECT: "The cats were at play." (No apostrophe needed in "cats" because it's just talking about more than one cat, not something that a cat possesses.)
  INCORRECT: "The cat's were at play."
  ALSO INCORRECT: "The cats' were at play."
  
• CORRECT: "We took our cat's scratching post away." (This means one cat had their scratching post taken away.)
• CORRECT: "We took our cats' scratching post away."(This means more than one cat had their scratching post taken away.)

The problem is that sooooo many people confuse plurals and possessives and scatter apostrophes all over the place. I recently saw on Instagram the following, "This was one of my favorite Christmas' ever." Well, that person (my niece, bless her soul) was getting plurals and possessives mixed up. No, I didn't point it out; yes, I hope she learns the correct rule at some point. I think there's this thing going on where people think the mere addition of an apostrophe makes what they are saying correct.

I can’t believe what I’d seen today! THIS! I was guided to walk into a random shop on the way to the Portrait Gallery to buy this book. I had no idea I’d come across such a thing. There were only two left in stock and it came at the right time.

 

[CMZ]

I have to preface this new comment of mine with the usual fact that I don't endorse lambasting every individual for every human mistake that might get made, but I do strongly feel that people should put forth some sort of effort to communicate clearly. I was just reading an article about how Steve Jobs did so, and here's an excerpt from it. with emphasizing the first sentence, because so many people nowadays presume that, "If your writing is sloppy it just shows that you're being genuine and not a fake like all the people who make sure their spelling and punctuation and grammar is correct:"

Conversational and real doesn't have to mean sloppy. Clear thinking leads to clearer writing, and vice versa.

For example, you might notice that throughout the email Jobs uses proper:

• Capitalization
• Punctuation
• Spelling
• Grammar
• Syntax

Did that come by chance, on the first try? Don't bet on it.

Takeaway: I'm amazed at how sloppy most emails are nowadays. If you pay attention to your writing, it will be easier to understand and carry the full weight of your thoughts. By showing attention to detail, you'll stand out among peers and leave a better impression.

 

[pjcnet]

I can’t believe what I’d seen today! THIS! I was guided to walk into a random shop on the way to the Portrait Gallery to buy this book. I had no idea I’d come across such a thing. There were only two left in stock and it came at the right time.View attachment 41846 View attachment 41847 View attachment 41848

Ducking apostrophes? Why would you duck apostrophes in water? lol!

 

[Blue]

I've taught myself to ignore poor grammar but it does irritate me. My pet peeve is when people improperly interchange 'further' for 'farther'. They have separate meanings; you don't sound smart by saying 'further' in both contexts! /rant

 

[pjcnet]

I've taught myself to ignore poor grammar but it does irritate me. My pet peeve is when people improperly interchange 'further' for 'farther'. They have separate meanings; you don't sound smart by saying 'further' in both contexts! /rant

According to the Oxford Dictionaries they both have exactly the same meaning and are equally correct in most sentences such as "She moved further down the train." or "She moved farther down the train.", although "further" is a much more common word and is additionally used in various abstract and metaphorical contexts where "farther" would be unusual, for instance you wouldn't normally use "farther" in the sentence, "Have you anything further to say?".

Please a full description please see:

‘Farther’ or ‘further’? | Oxford Dictionaries

It is however odd because amazingly there is differences of opinion, I read on another site that you should use "farther" for physical distance and "further" for metaphorical, or figurative, distance. If dictionary sites don't even agree there's no hope of everyone conforming to a standard.

I was always taught that they had the same meaning and I live in the UK. Could it be a UK and USA difference? I'm only guessing at the moment.

Edit:

Yes, I've hit the nail on the head, "further" and "farther" mean the same thing in most sentences and are interchangeable in the UK and British Commonwealth countries because they both mean "at a greater distance", but "further" is much more often used for everything, however in the USA "farther" is more often used to refer to physical distances, and "further" more often refers to figurative and nonphysical distances:

Farther vs. further - Grammarist

More often still doesn't mean that it's officially incorrect for people even in the USA to interchange the words like in the UK and British Commonwealth however, although perhaps there is differences in opinion.

 

[CMZ]

@CMZ
Sometimes I lose all sense of what the person is saying
because I can't figure out WHAT the person IS saying
when the words don't look like real words to me, or are
words that don't fit the context (like homonym substitutions.)

Like when people write something like "would of" instead of "would've"? That's another increasingly common error.

 

[Blue]

According to the Oxford Dictionaries they both have exactly the same meaning and are equally correct in most sentences such as "She moved further down the train." or "She moved farther down the train.", although "further" is a much more common word and is additionally used in various abstract and metaphorical contexts where "farther" would be unusual, for instance you wouldn't normally use "farther" in the sentence, "Have you anything further to say?".

Please a full description please see:

‘Farther’ or ‘further’? | Oxford Dictionaries

It is however odd because amazingly there is differences of opinion, I read on another site that you should use "farther" for physical distance and "further" for metaphorical, or figurative, distance. If dictionary sites don't even agree there's no hope of everyone conforming to a standard.

I was always taught that they had the same meaning and I live in the UK. Could it be a UK and USA difference? I'm only guessing at the moment.

Edit:

Yes, I've hit the nail on the head, "further" and "farther" mean the same thing in most sentences and are interchangeable in the UK and British Commonwealth countries because they both mean "at a greater distance", but "further" is much more often used for everything, however in the USA "farther" is more often used to refer to physical distances, and "further" more often refers to figurative and nonphysical distances:

Farther vs. further - Grammarist

More often still doesn't mean that it's officially incorrect for people even in the USA to interchange the words like in the UK and British Commonwealth however, although perhaps there is differences in opinion.

I was taught differently but that's interesting. In America it's generally more strict about not mixing them. Have you seen the movie 'Finding Forrester'? There's even a scene where someone corrects another person.

 

[Katleya]

I have that book (not the badly punctuated book in the joke, but the book about punctuation called Eats, shoots & leaves with a panda on the cover).

 

[Mr Allen]

Like when people write something like "would of" instead of "would've"? That's another increasingly common error.

What would be even better, would be to use "Would have" instead, I know it's more characters, but unless you're on a phone with character limits that's usually not an issue.

 

[CMZ]

What would be even better, would be to use "Would have" instead, I know it's more characters, but unless you're on a phone with character limits that's usually not an issue.

Well, yeah, "would have" is the long form and "would've" is the abbreviated equivalent. But people take the sound of "would've" and then bewilderingly write it as, "would of." And it happens a lot. And I'm afraid that we're going to have a situation where people who don't know nor care about rules somehow end up making rules. Such a situation creates overall unclear communication.

 

[Balldez]

Topic.

I do tend to pull people up on forums if their spelling and/or grammar is not very good, and most people don't like it.

Is it just me though or is it a common Aspie trait?

I think it depends. If you do it all the time and if it annoys you excessively perhaps it is. If you are a writer or a teacher you may find it more annoying than most. Seeing the language butchered is not a pretty thing.

The Russian and alt-right trolls like to use excessive punctuation and "creative" punctuation. I'm not certain as to how it pertains to their agendas strategies and tactics.

I think that bad spelling and bad grammar can be a sign of laziness and inadvertent rudeness. It doesn't really bother me. If someone get annoyed when they are corrected it would be their problem not yours so long as do it in a polite way.

I post on political forums and I spell check the troll as a way to ridicule them. I enjoy ridiculing rotten people. It's great fun. If the person is simply not too bright, I don't ridicule them.

What are your thoughts on the Oxford comma?

 

[Kirsty]

I'm afraid that we're going to have a situation where people who don't know nor care about rules somehow end up making rules.

Same with mostly everything else in life, sadly.

 

[Progster]

What are your thoughts on the Oxford comma?

I don't use it, but as it's matter of style and doesn't impede communication, it doesn't bother me when people use it.

One thing that drives me mad is people putting a question mark after an affirmative statement. Example:

"I was driving down the road?"

 

[Amy Susan Rose]

I am a Grammer Nazi only when it comes to what I write. Ironically, I possess an obsession with words although I certainly am not what one would consider a verbose person. I agree with OkRad in that the English language is not a set of codified rules but rather is a fluid, ever-changing language. I have noticed that many writers today (and poets past and present) are more free regarding the "rules" of the English language. And to me, that is a good thing although I find that when I write I am more forgiving with myself regarding weak verbs and punctuations although I must agree that the Grammerly program, which LucyPurrs mentions, has been a wonderful helper when I write. Now if I could only have it installed in my brain where it would operate as I speak

 

[CMZ]

The purpose of rules is to facilitate understanding between two parties communicating with each other. Rules do not have the purpose of needlessly making things hard on people. It's about making things easier, not harder. When someone is loose with the rules they then put the onus of interpretation on the other party and the other party may then not always interpret correctly, and even if they do it means they had to go through unnecessary effort to interpret because the first person didn't care to. Best to be clear from the beginning.

Now, yes, language is fluid and ever-changing, and you can even get very creative with it, but it should only change to meet new situations, not because some subset of its speakers are unwilling to learn and adhere to rules that already exist to meet existing situations. Otherwise we are going to have a situation where "loose" becomes the new spelling for "lose" (not quite sure how this pandemic error ever began) because just enough people think that's how it spelled but without bothering to realize or care that an existing rule is already in place for spelling a certain word. Then the people that do know how to spell the word get told, "You're going to have to change what you're doing because there are people who don't know what they're doing who insist on doing it a different way. But even though they don't care to grasp and adhere to ridiculously simple rules they are saying that you have to grasp and adhere to a new rule they created through not knowing nor caring about rules." And that's a bad way for language to "evolve."

And, yes, every time someone writes "loose" when they mean "lose" (and it happens a LOT; and this is just one example of numerous institutionalized misspellings going on out there) I actually do read it as "loose" and then when I continue on in the sentence and it doesn't make sense I have to think to myself, "Oooooooh, they meant 'lose' but they wrote it as 'loose' ... again." And this is the type of thing that needlessly occurs just because the person writing doesn't bother to adhere to a very, very simple rule. In fact, they even went to a little extra effort to type in a superfluous letter.