[BostonCard]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121962#msg121962 date=1436382715]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg121943#msg121943 date=1436375103]
Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!
[/quote]

Request for new thread on [math, science, engineering, social sciences, and all other subjects that we don't do well in] "policing."
[/quote]

When I was at Stanford, I took one engineering course (besides computer science), aero/astr 100 (Intro to aero/astro).  I don't remember much from the course, but I do remember that one of the assignments was to calculate the amount of runway needed for a plane to land based on a number of variables (weight, temperature, atmospheric pressure, and a bunch of others that I have since forgotten).  The formula was complicated and somewhat arbitrary (in that it was based on empiric data rather than some fundamental attribute).  The formula of course produced a rather exact number in the end, but since a runway that was exactly the length needed to land a plane leaves no margin of error, at the end of the day, we were told to add a 50% "fudge factor" to the answer.

Now for those of us basic science people (I was a chemistry major), the exercise was somewhat unsatisfying.  But for the real world, it is important to remember that in this case, the math is a tool.  Getting the exact answer is not as important when determining a runway length as getting a useful answer.  And in this case, "useful" means having a runway that is long enough for a plane to stop even when the landing is not executed perfectly, or the plane in question doesn't fit the empiric model perfectly, or any number of other potential problems.  The math required for the class was a means to an end.  The end is to land the plane safely, not the mathematical calculation, thus the 50% factor, while unsatisfying, is appropriate.

The same is true with language.  Language is a means to an end.  The end is to be able to communicate.  Clear language following certain rules makes it easier to do so, particularly in certain situations (for example, long-form prose, debates, laws [see the thread], etc.)  Other modes of communication are more informal and improper grammar is more acceptable (or, at least, less unacceptable).  Spoken word between friends, modern social media, especially twitter.  It might be horribly unsatisfying to a language purist, but all of us knew exactly what the tweet meant.  He accomplished his goal of communicating.

If he were incapable of using proper grammar in situations that clearly called for it, such as his written Stanford essays, I think it would reflect poorly upon him.  But using poor grammar in a tweet?  That places him squarely within 99% of twitter users.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=PrinceLightfoot link=topic=9617.msg121962#msg121962 date=1436382715]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9617.msg121943#msg121943 date=1436375103]
Request for new thread on grammar policing!

Second this motion!
[/quote]

Request for new thread on [math, science, engineering, social sciences, and all other subjects that we don't do well in] "policing."
[/quote]

When I was at Stanford, I took one engineering course (besides computer science), aero/astr 100 (Intro to aero/astro).  I don't remember much from the course, but I do remember that one of the assignments was to calculate the amount of runway needed for a plane to land based on a number of variables (weight, temperature, atmospheric pressure, and a bunch of others that I have since forgotten).  The formula was complicated and somewhat arbitrary (in that it was based on empiric data rather than some fundamental attribute).  The formula of course produced a rather exact number in the end, but since a runway that was exactly the length needed to land a plane leaves no margin of error, at the end of the day, we were told to add a 50% "fudge factor" to the answer.

Now for those of us basic science people (I was a chemistry major), the exercise was somewhat unsatisfying.  But for the real world, it is important to remember that in this case, the math is a tool.  Getting the exact answer is not as important when determining a runway length as getting a useful answer.  And in this case, "useful" means having a runway that is long enough for a plane to stop even when the landing is not executed perfectly, or the plane in question doesn't fit the empiric model perfectly, or any number of other potential problems.  The math required for the class was a means to an end.  The end is to land the plane safely, not the mathematical calculation, thus the 50% factor, while unsatisfying, is appropriate.

The same is true with language.  Language is a means to an end.  The end is to be able to communicate.  Clear language following certain rules makes it easier to do so, particularly in certain situations (for example, long-form prose, debates, laws [see the thread], etc.)  Other modes of communication are more informal and improper grammar is more acceptable (or, at least, less unacceptable).  Spoken word between friends, modern social media, especially twitter.  It might be horribly unsatisfying to a language purist, but all of us knew exactly what the tweet meant.  He accomplished his goal of communicating.

If he were incapable of using proper grammar in situations that clearly called for it, such as his written Stanford essays, I think it would reflect poorly upon him.  But using poor grammar in a tweet?  That places him squarely within 99% of twitter users.

BC