J.O. Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I'm almost speechless ... N.Z. Students Can Use "Text Speak" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I work with a woman (in her mid-30's) who uses text message shorthand in company email. It drives me NUTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I'm almost speechless ... N.Z. Students Can Use "Text Speak" ........................................ ........................................... ................................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Not taht Im an Epxret but as lnog as tehy can stnrig corenhent tohughts tgoteher I'm OK wtih it. "....Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. Randomising letters in the middle of words [has] little or no effect on the ability of skilled readers to understand the text. This is easy to denmtrasote. I....you could ramdinose all the letetrs, keipeng the first two and last two the same, and reibadailty would hadrly be aftcfeed. ...sugsegts we may have some pofrweul palrlael prsooscers at work. The resaon for this is suerly that idnetiyfing coentnt by paarllel prseocsing speeds up regnicoiton. We only need the first and last two letetrs to spot chganes in meniang." (Raeosn for eidt- mespslit tohughts) ROTFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingjockey Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 This of course only applies to those people who learned to read the old-fashioned way. Certainly not the children who supposedly learned to read using the holistic method. They would be totally at sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I work with a woman in her mid-30's who sent an email to a lessor full of online shorthand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Hu??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 One of the things that drives me crazy in the U.S. it that when you are in a store or restaurant, someone provides you with a service and you say "Thank you" to them, and they reply with........ UH, HUH What up wid dat? Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I was down there for 3 years and it was "boom time" for the expression "Have a Nice Day" which seemed to replace "uh-huh" for quite a period of time. I found that "huh" is "almost" the equivalent to our "eh". It seems like in a conversation someone wants to get the last word in and "uh-huh" seems to be the American's way of acknowledging your statement of gratitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I was down there for 3 years and it was "boom time" for the expression "Have a Nice Day" which seemed to replace "uh-huh" for quite a period of time. Sheeesh Kip. Whta's wrong with having a nice day. I say "have a nice day all the time" to people, and you know what, I mean it. Have a Real Nice Day Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Sheeesh Kip. Whta's wrong with having a nice day. Absolutely nothing ......nor did I infer there was something wrong with having a nice day...........I merely commented that the expression "Have a nice day" seemed to have originated while I was in the south for 3 years. Isn't this medium neat...every once in awhlie no one seems to know who is saying what...............me included Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 To all you AEFers out there ----- HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Personally I'm getting a little tired of "not a problem". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Whether it be "Have a nice day", or "Not a problem" at least they are answering using the English language. I guess the root of my annoyance is the fact that society, methinks, is becoming a monosyllabic grunting mass which, in my humble opinion, is due to too much texting, ipodding, video gaming, and watching 7 second soundbites as a way of newsgathering. I applaud my fellow AEF'ers that at least for now, most of you can formulate thoughts using proper language and spelling and haven't submitted yourselves to the "modern" vernacular. Iceman P.S. Standing by for the smart-a$$ answers using shortspeak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 I was going to tack this onto the, um, emboldened boldface thread, but then remembered the more subdued grammarian thread. Soooo.... if any of you missed this ongoing comma debate, a synopsis will appear below. With respect to the comma placement in the English version, I tend to agree with Aliant. I have not yet read the official French version and so don't know how it should be interpreted. Wouldn't like to be the person who mispunctuated that sentence... Don't you just love the stuff I bring to these threads? Grammarians take heed of telecomma dispute Legal and business scholars riveted by Rogers, Aliant punctuation debate It began as an arcane legal dispute between two Canadian companies, but a fight between Rogers Communications Inc. and Aliant Inc. over the placement of a comma in a multimillion-dollar contract has ignited an international debate over the importance of language. After a long period of deliberation, Canada's telecom regulator is expected to rule on the case in the next few months. When it does, an array of business experts, law schools and language specialists from around the world will be watching the outcome closely. The comma quarrel -- which threatens to cost Rogers at least $1-million because of a simple grammatical issue in the contract -- has been called an English teacher's delight, reinforcing the value of basic punctuation and grammar in the business and legal worlds. Dozens of universities have flagged the case as a cautionary tale for business and law students, while language specialists from across Europe and North America are now weighing in with arguments and advice in the dispute. "The phone has been ringing quite a lot. We've had tons of people calling us who want to argue the case for us," said Daniel Campbell, a lawyer for Aliant. The dispute, which surfaced this summer, stems from a contract Rogers signed in 2002 to string cable lines across telephone poles in the Maritimes. Rogers thought it had an unbreakable, five-year deal with Aliant, which administered the poles. But a few years into the arrangement, Aliant informed Rogers the contract was being cancelled, and its rates for the use of the poles were being increased by a sum that would turn out to be worth more than $1-million. At the heart of the issue was a single sentence in the contract, which read: "This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party." That sentence has since been e-mailed around the world as academics, legal experts, newspapers, radio commentators and students argue over the true intent of the words. Aliant argues the second comma allows it to scrap the 14-page contract, since the termination applied to both the first five years and the subsequent five-year periods. After parsing the words -- and calling upon grammar specialists of its own -- the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) agreed with Aliant. Rogers was incensed, insisting that neither company signed the contract with the intent of cancelling in the first five years. Rogers has subsequently marshalled its own experts, including New York contract lawyer and legal syntax guru Kenneth Adams, who produced a hefty, 69-page affidavit. Rogers has also dug up a French version of the contract, where the sentences are structured differently, to argue its case. The CRTC must now determine whether one of Canada's official languages should take precedence over the other in such a dispute. One insider at the CRTC said the case is by far one of the most unusual disagreements the commission has dealt with in decades. While the comma battle may seem farcical or absurd, academics say it is no laughing matter. When McGill law professor Richard Janda was invited on public radio in the U.S. recently to discuss the case, he said the comma dispute should be heeded beyond Canada's borders. "I've been warning students [in Canada] with it," Mr. Janda told NPR. "So I'm happy to have that warning sent across the border." University of Toronto law professor Peter Ruby added the case to his curriculum in September then returned to the subject for a lecture in October when Rogers raised the language debate in its appeal of the first CRTC ruling. Speaking to a conference of energy companies in the U.S. recently, Mr. Ruby asked a room full of executives to voice their opinion on the sentence. The results indicated how divisive the comma debate has become: "I had the audience vote . . . Half voted one way, and half voted the other way," Mr. Ruby said. Should Rogers lose its appeal to the CRTC, the telecomma -- as it's been dubbed in Canadian legal circles -- will be going to court. Consumers have questioned whether Rogers' customers could be left footing the million-dollar bill if the company is unsuccessful. But Rogers lawyer Ken Englehart said the money would be added to the company's operating costs. "Essentially, we would have to eat this money," Mr. Englehart said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 The best, and never forgotten by me, example of how much power the comma has was demonstated to me by my Grade 9 English teacher. A man caught a cold while his wife was away on business and sent her a terse email......... check how the placement of the little comma could change the meaning of the note. Not getting much better, come home. Not getting much, better come home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Cool! I love it. (In English:) Obviously those who argue that the sentence, as structured, allows for the contract to be cancelled any time with a one year written warning, are correct.... However, Roger's is probably also right that niether party intended it that way when the contract was drawn up. Evidently someone at Aliance who was just a wee bit more on the ball than the folks at Rogers looked it over and found the little gem... I have no idea how much weight original intent has in law, but I do know that sentence says 1 year written notice anytime will cancel the contract, even in the first 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted January 1, 2007 Author Share Posted January 1, 2007 I once took a course on contract law, and from that we learned that the courts will look at intent as much as they will look at the raw language and the placement of commas. The concept of good faith goes a long way in determining the validity of contract language. If Rogers can successfully prove that they have never accepted a one year "get out" clause in any similar contracts in the past, they may win the case. Still, their contract lawyer needs a kick in the arse. A semi-colon instead of a comma would have solved their problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex 9A Guy Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 There is a great book about this very subject called Eats, Shoots and Leaves It is written by an English Language teacher and was sparked by her reading a sign about pandas which said "The panda eats, shoots and leaves The misplaced comma instilled images of a panda armed with a rifle having lunch, discharging the firearm and departing the scene instead of the intended comment on the panda's diet. Eats, Shoots and Leaves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 A semi-colon instead of a comma would have solved their problem. And even if the rules of semicolon usage were too vague in the memory banks, a full stop would have been an acceptable alternative. The second sentence would need simply to reiterate the first few words of the preceding one. As for Lynn Truss's "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", that book made it into many Christmas stockings in 2004. (Her sequel "Talk to the Hand" isn't quite as captivating.) My favourite quote is the dedication: "To the memory of the striking Bolshevik printers who, in 1905, demanded to be paid the same rate for puntuation marks as for letters, and thereby directly precipitated the first Russian Revolution." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Specs: "....Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. They are probably right if your mother tongue is English and you are not a young kid growing up, but if the English language is to be of any use to the rest of the world I don't think the form above will do the job. Actually I suspect that you could say the same for any language, imagine trying to learn another language with with the above being considered acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 One tough ESL course. Day 1 - Introduction to English 1. The bandage was wound around the wound. 2. The farm was used to produce produce. 3. The dump was so full it had to refuse more refuse. 4. We must polish the Polish furniture. 5. He could lead if he would get the lead out. 6. The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert. 7. Since there was no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present. 8. A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum. 9. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes. 10. I did not object to the object. 11. The insurance was invalid for the invalid. 12. There was a row among the oarsmen on how to row. 13. They were too close to the door to close it. 14. The buck does funny things when does are present. 15. A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line. 16. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow. 17. The wind was too strong to wind the sail. 18. After a number of injections my jaw got number. 19. Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear. 20. I had to subject the subject to a series of tests. 21. How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innuendo Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Well if you want an example of how difficult and illogical pronunciation is in the English language, have a read at this. Dearest creature in creation, Study English pronunciation, I will teach you in my verse, Sounds like corpse, horse and worse, I will keep you, Suzy, busy, Make your head with heat, grow dizzy, Tear in eye, your dress will tear, So shall I !, Oh hear my prayer. Just compare heart, beard and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word, Sword and sward, retain and Britain, (Mind the latter how it’s written), Now I surely will not plague you, With such words as plaque and ague, But be careful how you speak: Say break and steak, but bleak and streak; Cloven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, show, poem and toe. Hear me say, devoid of trickery, Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore, Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles, Exiles, similes and reviles; Scholar, vicar and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far; One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel, Gertrude, German, wind and mind, Scene, Melpomeme, mankind. Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet, Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would, Viscous, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward, And your pronunciation’s OK, When you correctly say croquet, Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve, Friend and fiend, alive and live. Ivy, privy, famous, clamour, And enamour rhyme with hammer, River, rival, tomb, bomb,comb, Doll and roll and some and home. Stranger does not rhyme with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Souls but foull, haunt but aunt, Font, front, wont, grand and grant. Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger, And then singer, ginger, linger. Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and guage, Marriage, foliage, mirage and age, Query does not rhyme with very, Nor does fury sound like bury. Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loathe, Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath. Though the differences seem little, We say actual but victual, Refer does not rhyme with deafer, Foeffer does and zephyr, heifer. Mint, pint, senate and sedate, Dull, bull and George ate late. Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, Science, conscience, scientific. Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven. We say hallowed but allowed, People Leopard, towed, but vowed. Mark the differences, moreover, Between mover, cover, clover; Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Camel, constable, unstable, Principle, disciple, label. Petal, panel, canal, Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal, Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair, Senator, spectator, mayor. Tour, but our and succour, four. Gas, alas and Arkansas, Sea, idea, Korea, area, Psalm, Maria but malaria, Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean. Doctrine, turpentine, marine. Compare alien with Italian, Dandelion and battalion. Sally with ally, yea, ye, Eye, I, ay, aye, whey and key. Say aver, but ever fever, Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver, Heron, granary, canary. Crevice and device and aerie. Face, but preface, not efface. Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass. Large, but target, gin, give, verging, Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging. Ear, but earn and wear and tear, Do not rhyme with here but ere. Seven is right but so is even, Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen, Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk, Ask, grasp, wasp and cork and work. Finally, which rhymes with enough- Though, through, plough, dough or cough? Hiccough has the sound of cup, My advice is to give up. Author unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.