To think it is literally not possible to be "offended" by poor grammar and punctuation as some posters claim.

[ElleBellyBeeblebrox]

Honestly, who gives a shit? The amount of smug wankery on here sometimes is unbelievable. Is there really any justification for snarking at someone about their use of full stops,( other than to try and make yourself look like a smartarse.)

FGS spelling and grammar are not like cooking.

You know if you can't cook.
You don't not necessarily know if you can't spell or use more than basic grammar.

We are not talking about illiteracy are we?

I think there would be posters who would hate it if everyone could spell and use grammar to ultra high standards.

They would have nothing to feel superior about.

I know perfectly nice people to whom grammar is a hobby and that is fine because they don't use their knowledge of it to humiliate others.

limited Have you ever done something this bad, though?

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/peru-government-tells-machu-picchu-tourists-stop-getting-naked-9208315.html

Read carefully, before your brain inserts the correct word. Naturalists and naturists are quite different!

I would reserve the word 'offended' for when someone insults me personally

I wouldn't think someone else daring to communicate with me while not spellchecking is a personal insult.

But that's on MN - I possibly would feel mildly offended if say, I was hiring someone and they couldn't be bothered to spellcheck their CV. I would think what else won't they bother doing?

But there is a form of arrogance in expecting someone to pander to your delicate sensibilities, which you may get away with as a prospective employer but not just passing the time on the internet.

It's an exaggerated courtesy thing. Take the time to make your post legible - courteous; but don't go for far as to consult professional proofreaders before feeling worthy to seek help, whilst crying in your bathroom - abasement

I've noticed at least one big error in my post. Bad, bad limited. Does anyone want to point it out to me in a perfect post of her own?

Just for fun. You will not be receiving a prize, small or otherwise.

I can't see it.

Muphry? Obvious typo. We all make those!

Looking back, I think I should have used a ; instead of a , btw.

Do any of the Wincingly Offended want to tell me where I should have done that? Again, I'm not offering a prize; the warm glow of being right should be enough.

Generally, it's not the people of Pedants' Corner who do this, but people who know a little, but not a lot.

At least some of us admit it.

Oh wow - people were really horrible to me.

I said: I have sensory issues - honestly the sound a feel of very poorly written sentences offends me. It's the way I can imagine it feeling on my tongue.

a is meant to be and, yes (typo), but I didn't actually claim myself to be perfect in grammar - just that very poorly written sentences physically offend me. It is like gagging on a mouldy banana or something.

given the smug tone and ludicrous exaggeration in your post

I hadn't realised that being a precious and prissy twit qualified as a sensory issue.

I was telling the truth... thanks for the disablist comments though, always warms the cockles.

Also, I don't think i've ever pointed out someone else's poor grammar or spelling. I was just trying to explain why offensive really is the best word to describe how some people might respond to it. As in an offensive smell.

Actually, I'm on WhyBeHappyWhenYouCouldBeNormal's side here, and i should have said before.

She said they hurt her. She didn't say she acted on it; she didn't say she was perfect herself. She said things hurt.

And you know, everyone's different. For example, some people see colours when they see particular letters. That's a type of synaethesia. People with synaethesia aren't making it up or exaggerating when they describe how they experience the world, so why assume Whybehappy is?

Thank you TillTellTale - that is it exactly. I am perfectly capable of causing this gagging feeling in myself too!

When old threads get necro'd in AIBU, I sometimes read a post, wince at the English, and then realise it was me under an old nickname.

Now, that's sickening.

I mixed up my tenses TillyTellTale, which would have got me on the Wall Of Shame where I used to work . Even if you'd have called it right, I was careful not to offer a prize because I'm now wise to offering hostages to fortune .

In my job you can usually go back, but even if you've gone to press, there's rarely a bigger problem than a stiff letter to the editor.

Putting the decimal point in the wrong place when you're prescribing drugs could be lethal, yet I've never seen a thread on here banging on about maths mistakes.

So while I think literacy is very important, I also think people should try to keep a sense of perspective; and perhaps some of them should own their problems with numeracy as well as their clear deficiencies with literacy.

Limited, I will have a go...

2nd paragraph- I think I'd use 'don't' rather than 'doesn't', as you are referring to more than one thing. And perhaps a comma before 'just', to make it clearer as a subordinate clause. It does tend to give the effect of a random smattering of commas when people overdo that though, so I can see why you might not want to.

3rd paragraph- I'd use 'if it were' rather than 'if it was', purely to be a ponce about the subjunctive.

Further on, is 'Muphry's' an intentional error? I'm not familiar with it, sorry.

And rather than 'Every time I sneaked down his blue-pen pocked copy of my column, a fresh one appeared until I accepted my humiliation and left it', I think I'd rearrange the tenses slightly and go for 'Every time I'd sneak down his blue-pen pocked copy of my column, a fresh one would appear until I accepted my humiliation and left it.'

It's mostly a question of style and preference though. Might I qualify as a junior turd-polisher?

Are you a sub where I used to work WhyBeHappyWhenYouCouldBeNormal? Because they used to like to have a right laugh too.

Muphry's Law

I definitely think we should have Truss's law - an appeal to grammar to settle an argument means that the person making the appeal has lost.

(named after Lynn Truss, Eats, Shoots and Leaves)

I see . That should preface every thread in Pedants' Corner, definitely.

I've just looked up Muphry's Law - I know it would apply to me every time so I never have the courage to criticize spelling, grammar or punctuation. I don't think it has the same sense of those who attack grammar, spelling or punctuation have lost the argument.

I like the idea of Truss' Law too, with the honorable exception of pointing out times when poor grammar has actually obscured meaning, which does occasionally happen (like 'Eats, shoots and leaves').

BOFster There are one or two posts scattered around which are genuinely illegible. I think it is reasonable enough to ask for an explanation.

Another good example:

A woman without her man is nothing.

A woman - without her, man is nothing.

On the other hand, some people really do nitpick away at nothing because they want to bring the OP down and can't think of another way. I think Truss's Law should definitely apply there.

(I love Eats, Shoots and Leaves. I haven't read it for ages. I shall have to dig it out and re-read.)

Lisamed, I use that often, to raise a laugh with my students and instill a little bit of female empowerment here in the land that feminism forgot.

And just think how this one would be without punctuation:

John where James had had had had had had had had had had had a better result.

On your marks, get set.......no googling, and no prize from me either.

I admit, I am completely stuffed with the hads

Erm, John where James had had 'had', had had 'had had', had 'had' had a better result.

Any good?

There's another one with a huge string of 'and's' as well (and I'm not sure about those apostrophes).

And in doing some illicit googling I found this page in Wiki that is all about syntactic ambiguity here