> I hate myself for being such a grammar nazi, I really do.
You'll make more money, be productive, and have a happier life if you just process the information and shrug. The point of language is to communicate, not to obey grammar. That sentence isn't pretty, but you get all the information - google employees, on reddit, answering questions.
Most of the wealthiest people I know use bad grammar because the extra 10% of time to clear it up doesn't add as much value as doing more stuff. Sure, edit carefully if it's going to be something timeless or very important, but some people are being cool and answering questions random strangers on the internet ask them.
You're entirely right. Which is why I really did hate myself a bit for posting it. I normally notice bad grammar (especially small errors like this), move on, and don't think again about it. Sometimes, though, the urge is too strong.
I do always notice, though. My mum is a former English teacher, and I have a history degree as well as a CS one. After you spend enough time editing text in your native language, it becomes second nature to notice errors and want to correct them. I accept it as the price for being able to write easily and clearly myself, without consciously worrying about grammar. In my opinion, this is a useful skill when you're a programmer. Plus I kind of like proof editing (when it's invited.)
The one thing that surprised me about your reply was the choice of 'money' as the metric that I can maximise by suppressing the habit. That has certainly never occurred to me. The thinking behind it seems interesting on a few levels.
(NB: The nature of this post, and the fact I had a few glasses of wine over dinner, mean that there is bound to be at least one grammatical error in this reply. Doh!)
> You're entirely right. Which is why I really did hate myself a bit for posting it. I normally notice bad grammar (especially small errors like this), move on, and don't think again about it. Sometimes, though, the urge is too strong.
I'm with you, I understand. I've got a heavy reading/writing background, so I notice too and used to be pedantic about it. Letting it go was huge for me, which is why I'm such an advocate of not caring about grammar. It really isn't so important to most people as long as you're communicating effectively.
> and I have a history degree as well as a CS one.
Ah, cool, I love history. Hey - want to recommend me a random history book or two you like? Obscure is cool, mainstream is cool too. I'm reading Julia Cartwright's "Baldissare Castiglione" right now - really wonderful reading. It's out of copyright and free here, really wonderful reading if you like that era:
> The one thing that surprised me about your reply was the choice of 'money' as the metric that I can maximise by suppressing the habit. That has certainly never occurred to me. The thinking behind it seems interesting on a few levels.
Well, it's the most concrete, but I mentioned producing more and being happier too.
Have you read Stephen King's "On Writing"? It's worth checking out. The first half about his life is a mixed bag, but his writing advice has some really excellent points in it. The thing that's interesting to me about King is that so much of his work is trash - I mean, really bad and cliche. "Oh, the overbearing mother just did something morally wrong to try to protect her weak son - I wonder if the son is going to die in an ironic way for that?"
But it doesn't matter, because King comes up with interesting premises and writes things that are interesting. He's not a master of language most of the time, but he sells books. And in a literary dogfight, I'd take The Stand straight up versus 95% of the works from "serious writers." King produces - he gets stuff out the door. Sometimes it's cliche, sometimes his grammar or structure sucks, but you know what? It doesn't matter, because he delivers stories that people want to buy and read. So King is getting stuff out the door that people wants. It's made him more wealthy, able to create and produce, and from reading his autobiography he seems a lot happier now with money than he did when he was struggling.
Making grammar not very important as long as you're understood - the reason you do it is so you can put your attention on what people really want. Almost nobody wants grammar, they want the message to get across. I intentionally break grammar rules a lot with commas and dashes in inappropriate ways - it's the fastest way for me to write something that can be understood. Grammar be damned if it's getting in the way of speed or communication or what we really want.
> ...mean that there is bound to be at least one grammatical error in this reply. Doh!
See, that's the beauty of it - I understood you so I don't care! :) Now if you have a free minute, I would be much obliged if you'd recommend a couple favorite history books of yours. :) Cheers and best wishes.
I will make time to check out 'On Writing', I've always avoided it basically out of snobbery. Still, I bet Stephen King can actually throw a sentence together reasonably well, despite turgid prose and bad themes!
If you haven't read it, I'd also recommend the essay "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell. You can even read it online for free: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm (or for a couple of bucks at pretty much any second hand bookstore, as part of a collection of Orwell's essays!)
You have also called my bluff on history. I don't actually have a 'history degree', I have an Asian Studies degree with majors in Asian History & Indonesian. I shorten that to 'history degree' cos it gets more mainstream approval, and most computer people don't care less about the difference. It gets less negative responses than 'arts degree'.
So, most of the non-Southeast-Asian history study I've done has been historiography (theory of history writing.) A lot of which borders on the deconstructionist stuff that you posted the discussion of, today. So, given that you seem to be interested by that, I'll try and remember some good reads or at least ideas...
Max Weber's Ideal Type is an interesting idea, and an important one in the history of postmodernism's precursors. I also find it a useful conceptual tool to keep in mind when generalising or reasoning. I can't remember the name of the essay of his that I read, sorry, but there are a few linked from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type
I've only read a chapter of Foucalt's early work Discipline & Punish but I'd like to go back and read the rest. It's pretty heavy going though, from memory (translation from French doesn't help.) His ideas are really interesting and influential (at least the ones I can follow.)
Orientalism, by Edward Said. This is, from memory, another really dense book but it also has some really illuminating and rewarding sections in it.
The best "real" history book that I've read since uni is probably Howard Zinn's Peoples History of the United States. It's politically fairly extreme, and unashamedly biased. It's the unashamedly biased part that I really like about it, even though I don't always agree with the politics. I think it's both healthy and honest for an author to give up any pretext of being "unbiased" or "objective" and admit "this is my theory, this is what I believe, here is my thesis laid out, make your own mind up." Which is exactly what he does.
Homage to Catalonia, also by Orwell. Not really a history, but a personal account of a historical time.
History of Modern Indonesia, by Adrian Vickers. A very readable history of Indonesia.
I'm actually embarrassed at how few other authors and book names I can remember. I know that in my notes and reading bricks there are some really good books and articles, but I can't remember any names...
Or develop a piece of software(a Firefox extension?) which will fix bad grammar and raise to fame among grammar nazis. Scratching your own itch versus learning to live with it.
You'll make more money, be productive, and have a happier life if you just process the information and shrug. The point of language is to communicate, not to obey grammar. That sentence isn't pretty, but you get all the information - google employees, on reddit, answering questions.
Most of the wealthiest people I know use bad grammar because the extra 10% of time to clear it up doesn't add as much value as doing more stuff. Sure, edit carefully if it's going to be something timeless or very important, but some people are being cool and answering questions random strangers on the internet ask them.