Re: about antecedents
- From: dontbother <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:12:38 +0000 (UTC)
"UC" <uraniumcommitteechairman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
dontbother wrote:
"UC" <uraniumcommitteechairman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
dontbother wrote:[...]
By the way, I think your analysis and rewrite of the sentence
was excellent, and better than mine, but don't read anything
more into that statement.
Why do you think I am here?
I have no idea why you're here. You're certainly not here to help
anyone with their English. You're too much a martinet and
dogmatist for that. You do like to strut and fret a bit, and that
probably doesn't convince anyone that you're here for any reason
other than to put yourself on parade.
I am sick and tired of the kind of crap English I see.
As are we all.
This blurb was typical.
True enough, but it was clearly enough written to allow all of us
to understand it. That's a start. I have trouble with some of the
sentences my clients write. They're all native speakers of
Chinese and sometimes come up with real lulus.
What I don't understand is how this crap is tolerated. Americans
are becoming horrible writers. The English in this country has
been reduced to the level of that of badly educated 12-year girls.
Executives sound like idiots.
More people (both absolutely and relatively) are writing now than
used to, and the 1970s social revolution seems to have convinced
American in particular that it's better to include everyone than to
exclude the wrong groups. This is similar to the idea that it's
better to allow a hundred criminals to go free on technicalities than
to wrongly punish one innocent person.
But even back in the 1950s when I was in high school, academic
writing, especially in the social sciences, was poor to fair at best.
Most people didn't write, and most who did didn't publish, so we
never knew just how bad it was out there. With the Internet and
cyberspace destinations like AUE, we know. But there was also a
significant lowering of standards in universities during the 1970s,
when I was in graduate school. The Rhetoric Department at The
University of Iowa had to teach so many of its undergraduates how to
write complete sentences, because of what was virtually an open
admissions policy, that many who graduated from the school were only
half-baked and shouldn't have been let out of the oven for another
four years. In some ways, that's been a kind of boon for society. In
other ways, however, it has been the bane of education. But the
educated elite are still there, as they always have been and always
will be.
It's futile to hope that things will change and even more futile to
get upset about it. I rant and rave about about stupidities and
solecisms for my own entertainment. That so many of the RRs here
think I'm serious about thinking that my rants will change anything
is their problem, not mine. My problem is my clients and their
papers, and, this semester, a senior writing class here at my
university of technology. When I'm calm, as I am now, I'm perfectly
capable of having a totally rational discussion about anything. But
that's not always fun.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com
"Impatience is the mother of misery."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: about antecedents
- From: Kay
- Re: about antecedents
- References:
- about antecedents
- From: Kay
- Re: about antecedents
- From: dontbother
- Re: about antecedents
- From: UC
- Re: about antecedents
- From: dontbother
- Re: about antecedents
- From: UC
- Re: about antecedents
- From: dontbother
- Re: about antecedents
- From: UC
- about antecedents
- Prev by Date: Re: Pronunciation of "Davies"
- Next by Date: Re: Which word does not belong?
- Previous by thread: Re: about antecedents
- Next by thread: Re: about antecedents
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|