Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

thinking that illiteracy is now universally acceptable in everday life

162 replies

MarytheContrary · 06/02/2015 00:31

"would of" "should of" "could of" - They/Their/They're - lose/loose - bought/brought - weighed/weighted

OP posts:
BitOutOfPractice · 06/02/2015 12:14

I thought she was referring to anyone who disagrees with the OP but I'll go with your version Jeanne

BitOutOfPractice · 06/02/2015 12:15

BTW your user name has just lead me to seeig a penis tree! Grin

JeanneDeMontbaston · 06/02/2015 12:17
Grin

Excellent. I do love my penis tree.

BitOutOfPractice · 06/02/2015 12:22

I wonder if one would grow in England nowadays?

JeanneDeMontbaston · 06/02/2015 12:24

Doubt it. They're foreign and French.

Incidentally, you will like this - I've just been reading a King Arthur story, which is listing all the horrible war crimes Arthur's enemy has committed. And one of them is that he's let foreigners come over and corrupt the French language. Grin

It's medieval pedantry. I love it.

Worksallhours · 06/02/2015 12:33

Hummm ... to answer your question, op, I would say that we do not have a situation where society accepts illiteracy but rather that society doesn't particularly care that a significant number of people are illiterate.

And they are. There was a piece in the TES a few years back that stated 20 percent of all school leavers were functionally illiterate and innumerate -- and this was before the significant increase in ESOL pupils in British schools.

For me, the problem with illiteracy isn't just about not being able to read or write. The really serious concern about illiteracy is that it affects your ability to think. If you do not have the language for a concept or a process, it is incredibly hard to think about it or speak about it in a clear and transparent manner that communicates your thoughts to others.

In short, language trains the mind.

A major concern of mine about poor understanding of language and grammar in Britain is that if you do not understand how your own language works, it becomes very difficult to learn another language to fluency after the age of about 14. I suspect that poor English language understanding is partially responsible for British monolingualism. As many young Brits do not understand how the English language functions, they find it very difficult to understand how certain concepts translate in other languages.

As an example, a colleague of mine finds that her language students struggle terribly with the way articles work in the language she teaches (they change according to gender and case). The reason for this is simple: we haven't taught grammatical case in British schools for decades, so few people understand it.

You may say it is not important, but understanding grammatical case is vital if you want to learn and understand another language or identify what information is missing in English. Political communications, for example, often employ passive construction to avoid stating the subject of an certain action, which, I believe, constitutes a form of propaganda.

My concern over the rise of "could of" and "should of" comes down to the fact that it means that people will struggle to understand the perfect tense: what it is, why we use it, how to employ it and how it functions.

JeanneDeMontbaston · 06/02/2015 12:35

Is that the perfect tense? I thought it was the pluperfect.

QueenTilly · 06/02/2015 12:42

I mentally categorise those under "the [fucking] conditional" regardless of tense. I'm not very good at being pedantic, but I'd like to be. Grin

BitOutOfPractice · 06/02/2015 12:45

QueenTilly I am also a half-arsed pedant. I am mildly irritated by bad grammar but I really can't be arsed to froth about it

flimmyflam · 06/02/2015 13:46

It's just incorrect to say that people who say "could of" have bad grammar. They've just used a variant from standard English. But of course they understand perfectly what tense and aspect the construction "could have"/"could of" expresses.

Hardly anyone has a formal or academic knowledge of grammar - but that doesn't mean that no one can speak grammatically. For example, worksallhours is incorrect in saying "could" is a perfect. "Could" is either the preterite or conditional form of "can". "Can" doesn't have a perfect form. (The "perfect tense" is the perfective aspect in the present, the preterite is the perfective aspect in the past. "I have done" is perfect, "I did" is preterite.) But obviously worksallhours uses "could" perfectly in speech and writing, despite not quite being able to identify what part of speech it is.

Every native speaker has perfect grammar - by definition since grammar are the rules that describe how language is used.

I agree that an analytic understanding of grammar aids precision of thought. I agree that a grasp of basic grammatical concepts aids language learning - but it doesn't eliminate all difficulties in getting conjugation and declension right in practice. And I know adults who have no more than a layman's grasp of grammar who have attained fluency in another language (since we can speak our own language without immediately being able to identify every party of speech, we can do it in other languages too).

I think grammar is a really interesting and important subject, and as such very much worthy of study in school. But I would never sneer at others for poor grammar (or any kind of ignorance), as the OP does.

JeanneDeMontbaston · 06/02/2015 13:51

I don't think she was claiming 'could' is perfect. I think she was claiming 'have done' is perfect. Not that it is that either, of course, but she's confused about tense, not mood.

QueenTilly · 06/02/2015 13:58

Hang on a minute.
I do- present
I did- imperfect/preterite
I have done-perfect, surely?

Reverso supports me, I think: conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-do.html

JeanneDeMontbaston · 06/02/2015 14:02

Surely 'I was doing' is the imperfect? And 'I did' is perfect? So 'I have done' is pluperfect?

I admit, I'm doing this off Latin, and I think that site is using different terms, so I may well be wrong.

JeanneDeMontbaston · 06/02/2015 14:04

Ah, ok, wiki reckons in English pluperfect and past perfect are the same thing. I reckon wiki is right, and I am wrong.

Honeydragon · 06/02/2015 14:06

UNAUB

TheChandler · 06/02/2015 14:13

Worksallhours You may say it is not important, but understanding grammatical case is vital if you want to learn and understand another language or identify what information is missing in English. Political communications, for example, often employ passive construction to avoid stating the subject of an certain action, which, I believe, constitutes a form of propaganda.

I agree. If you have any degree of intelligence however, its instinctively obvious when someone is patronising you or using propaganda - it just doesn't come across as authentic, because its too suggestive of the conclusion it wishes to reach.

My concern over the rise of "could of" and "should of" comes down to the fact that it means that people will struggle to understand the perfect tense: what it is, why we use it, how to employ it and how it functions.

Reminds me of an ex who wrote "I must of" on an internet forum. It was probably a contributing factor in breaking up with him, since I still remember it. I just thought he must be a bit thick.

I don't actually mind people writing in accents too much, if they are at least consistent and follow the grammatical rules for that accent. But not knowing how to spell certain essential commonly used words is just unacceptable (and dyslexia is a real condition, not an excuse for never bothering how to learn to spell).

JeanneDeMontbaston · 06/02/2015 14:21

'and dyslexia is a real condition, not an excuse for never bothering how to learn to spell'

Really?! Shock

Shit. And I've been using it as an excuse all these years. It's so much easier, you know.

Oh, wait ....

Bakeoffcakes · 06/02/2015 15:27

Well Im just shocked that we don't all still speak as they did in Elizabethan times. All those modern types changing it.

Where will it all end?

HappyAgainOneDay · 06/02/2015 15:44

Flimmyflam

"Hardly anyone has a formal or academic knowledge of grammar "

There are plenty of us about, you know. We were taught precise grammar in school - up to perhaps 1970 possibly a bit later.

A lot of it is based on the way Latin works. Latin was used in examples of how English works when i was at school and no it was not a private one.

Once the rigid rules were no longer drummed into us meant that current teachers do not themselves know so cannot teach it. I once knew a Head of English who was dreadful at spelling and always got 'amend' wrong (ammend) - among other words. I sent her teaching work back corrected but she never changed

WorldWhore1 · 06/02/2015 15:48

I work in a setting where most staff mangle language every day. They are blissfully ignorant of all the mistakes they make.

QueenTilly · 06/02/2015 16:01

Jeanne I must admit, my fundamental understanding of tenses and moods is a reached through a combination of painstakingly conjugating amo, amare, amavi, amatum and German. Grin

I learnt that stupid English has three sorts of present [I do it, I am doing it, I do do (a ron-ron) it] and three sorts of imperfect [I was doing it, I did it, I used to do it].

What it lacks in precision is a lot it may make up in utility. Well, it mostly seems to work when I'm reading anything! Mostly...

AndreaZuckerman · 06/02/2015 17:42

You know I find people who feel the need to always correct people on their grammar rather nasty and full of their own importance. Rather like Katie Hopkins really.

If someone (for instance like my dd1 and my DH who both have dyslexia) doesn't spell words the right way, or use the right punctuation, or word their sentences in the right way, it doesn't make them any less intelligent!

I abhor people who look down on others who don't use language in the way they deem fit. It's just nasty. Unless you're a teacher, university lecturer or a proofreader there is absolutely no need to correct someone else's grammar. Unless they specifically ask for your help.

Correcting someone on their choice of words, grammar or spelling just make you look like a nasty self absorbed twat.

missymayhemsmum · 06/02/2015 18:06

There's a big difference between being illiterate (e.g. having to have a letter read to you because you are 'not a scholar') and having slightly sloppy grammar and spelling.
The OP raises an interesting point though. I think in the past having a correct grasp of grammar and spelling was a class and education signifier- a linguistic equivalent of the sharp business suit or top hat in that it gave the user a status advantage. Perhaps that is no longer universally the case?

IKnewYou · 06/02/2015 19:51

I'm not very good at English and I get pissed off by people being snotty about less than perfect grammar and spelling. I think good English is important but there are some senerios where it's a lot less important than others eg job application Vs Mumsnet post.

I have other random talents, I can fix computers, do most household DIY jobs, carry out car maintainence, skin and dress farmyard animals, make clothes, sail and map read - if people judge me for my poor written English perhaps I should start judging them if they can't do the things I can.

The other day my friend called the AA because of a flat tire Shock. I mean, really???

paxtecum · 06/02/2015 20:06

I think it is very sad that some people cannot read or write.
I don't think it is sad that some of us don't get should have / should of.

Obviously, in some eyes, I'm an inferior person because of that.

I'm thankful that I don't know you in R L.

Swipe left for the next trending thread