Attached Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11315819

Or is it that it's OK, and I've just become a grouchy-old-stickler for standards in written English and Journalism? 

 Yes, old boy you are right its crap !
However not to worry , your just a grumpy old git ! Me 2.
Yours Dyslexia  XXXX

Yeah. Pretty bad.

But take note that it is "BBC" so some words like "customise" is actually spelled correctly, as that's how Britain and Canada spells it.  In the USA it has a Z instead of an S.

But there is no excuse for the rest of the sloppy writing.  Don't they have editors to look over stuff like that before it's actually released to the public?

Quote - Is it just me, or is this piece absolutely RIDDLED with poor grammar

The linguist in me is quite interested to know what you're considering to be poor grammar.

Quote - But take note that it is "BBC" so some words like "customise" is actually spelled correctly, as that's how Britain and Canada spells it.  In the USA it has a Z instead of an S.

It's not quite as straightforward as "USA = z, UK = s".
Traditionally, if you were educated at Oxford University, you'd use "z" for words that came directly from Greek, and "s" for words that came via French. The OED (and its smaller versions) usually offers the "z" version as being the first choice where this rule applies.

Quote - The linguist in me is quite interested to know what you're considering to be poor grammar.

...the poor sentence structure, and the incorrect use of parentheses and hyphens; as if that was not enough, I am inflamed, that I, as a British TV licence holder am paying for this 6th-form level garbage.  The great "z" & "s" debate was not one I'd even considered in this context - I'm British and appreciate that the differences between "American" and "British" English are historical, with valid antecedents on both sides.  The bald fact remains however, that I HATE Bad Writing.

I guess, though, in the great scheme of things, it's not really that important.  Maybe what I really need is sleep.....

I found nothing that made my skin crawl in that particular article. However, if you'd like to this old grouch cringe, just stick "comprised of" anywhere in a sentence. Or write a page or so to convey nothing more than the headline. Completely mangling names, especially those of countries, will have the same negative effect.

Perhaps I was spoiled by growing up with people like Frank Reynolds, who actually knew something about the stories he reported, and didn't care so much about his hair or wardrobe.

A POX on you  all " too "proper"  British  critizizers of thoze who would rite  articlez in maguezines  and periodclesse. !!!!

The standard of writing is no better or worse than I've seen on most websites.  No, strike that... it's a damn sight better written than most of the things on Yahoo! "news".

But anyhow, I really don't give a flying monkey's fuck about Internet Exploder, any version.

@ Linda - johnpf has it right with the old z/s thing, too.   

Well, there are mathematicians... and musicians... and spellers. The your/you're, their/they're/there, it's/its and especially "definately" misuse and misspelling get to me like a sliver under a fingernail: yes, it's a small wound, but it hurts ever so much anyway.

But, this is the Internet, folks. No one has to pass any sort of examination to log on. And they are doing their bit to tell the world that where they come from, proper spelling and grammar doesn't really matter.

Quote - Well, there are mathematicians... and musicians... and spellers. The your/you're, their/they're/there, it's/its and especially "definately" misuse and misspelling get to me like a sliver under a fingernail: yes, it's a small wound, but it hurts ever so much anyway.

But, this is the Internet, folks. No one has to pass any sort of examination to log on. And they are doing their bit to tell the world that where they come from, proper spelling and grammar doesn't really matter.

Good point.  I think the OP is hacked off because the feature was written by a BBC "journalist". 

Addendum...

All the errors you mentioned should be hanging offences, IMO.  But then, so should mispronouncing "kilometre", so that's most of you for the rope.  :D

Ok, I'm gonna be a PITA, and say that proper spelling and grammar does, indeed, matter. Just perusing Facebook profiles, and knowing less about that stranger after reading, or trying to read, what is written, is a perfect example. I understand texting has evolved into a 'speak' of its own, but there are entire paragraphs without one correctly spelled word. Poor person is trying to say something, but no one can understand what it is. .

And, yes, I'm arguing just for the heck of it. Facebook, Omegle, and Chatroulette are my funny papers. My youngest sister couldn't spell to save her life, but it was all right, because you couldn't read her handwriting. ;)

Well, let's be honest folks: the media have been increasingly pandering to "Knuckle-draggers" for 20-odd years or so :P

Also, like it or not, language isn't stationery, it changes over time.
I often cause problems because I don't want to use English in the damn boring, craptastic way we were forced to regurgitate it's mouldy bones! If you can't THINK about what someone has written in multiple levels of meaning and possible insight, then bugger off and wake up to what being a Human Being is really about! ;)

Legibility is important when trying to convey information, but language is NOT bloody simple arithmetic!
One reason I use smilies so much is that emotional content, intent, is an absolutely vital part of the process. I can infer a dozen different possible meanings for a simple phrase with tone, expression and gesture, hence it's vital for people to add some clue to true intent on message boards, as a simple sentence can sound like a vile insult under the wrong circumstances.

:)

it's like the ruddy silent u in colour, or not knowing whether to type ize or ise, I tell ya.
they ain't trogs, just the future, in which they communicate in more abbrev. form.
they dinna read the OED, but yer language must change as long as the race survives IMVHO.

I don't know how they manage to repackage one little PR story from Microsoft marketing department with a byline from 2 BBC journalists.

Rory Cellan-Jones is the old style; 'standing outside a colliery, in the rain, up t'north' school of journalism.

You actually have to find the link to click through to read his original story.

Maggie Shiels: Radio 1, Newsbeat.

Is there anything more that needs to be said?

 Another irritant:  confusing 'lose' and 'loose' . srsly. kthxbai 

The piece reads like a script-is this perhaps the transcript of a broadcast story?

As far as "pandering to "Knuckle-draggers" for 20-odd years or so" goes, this isn't Lake Wobegon-half the population is below average, and computers are now ubiquitous, so general articles on technology need to be written so that non-college educated folks can understand....

WandW
have you read any UK tabloids lately? :P

I think people are forgetting that the site in question is a professional news channel's website.  So their standards should be held higher than the average Joe who logs in and puts up a facebook page.  They do have editors that are supposed to review the articles before they are published. That one must have slipped by, or they need to seriously look at replacing their editors.

Quote - I think people are forgetting that the site in question is a professional news channel's website.  So their standards should be held higher than the average Joe who logs in and puts up a facebook page.  They do have editors that are supposed to review the articles before they are published. That one must have slipped by, or they need to seriously look at replacing their editors.

Quoted for complete agreement.

Quote - language isn't stationery

Was that intentional? I think I like it. It's an interesting thought, kind of like "The medium is not the message" or similar.

I see no spelling errors and only one grammatical problem:

*This "hardware acceleration" makes web pages more nimble and behave more like software running directly on the computer.

I'd rewrite it like this:

This "hardware acceleration" makes web pages more nimble, so they behave more like software running directly on the computer.

Quote - I see no spelling errors and only one grammatical problem:

*This "hardware acceleration" makes web pages more nimble and behave more like software running directly on the computer.

I'd rewrite it like this:

This "hardware acceleration" makes web pages more nimble, so they behave more like software running directly on the computer.

Lose the comma after "nimble" and you're on the way.  :)

lol unintentional humour ;)
I have an excuse though for crappy spelling mistakes, at least, hehe

but then again, hey good point you spotted, I'll go with "hey my subconscious was working, that day!" :P

Quote - I think people are forgetting that the site in question is a professional news channel's website.  So their standards should be held higher than the average Joe who logs in and puts up a facebook page.  They do have editors that are supposed to review the articles before they are published. That one must have slipped by, or they need to seriously look at replacing their editors.

While I'm in a mischievous mood...

Users of split infinitves should be tarred and feathered.  ;)

I'm not particularly impressed with the gist of the article either.  I don't see any of these features being something that is going to pull me away from using Firefox and some of it sounds like they are using the browser to try to sell Windows 7 as it will be more full-featured there.  Meh...  I've found that with the right add-ons, you can build the browser YOU want with Firefox.

What's them "infinitves", Sam? ;P

Other than that, not being a native English speaker myself,  but that doesn't mean you can't be interested in grammar and spelling. I do my best to do it correctly, although sometimes I fail, and fail miserably - most of the times because I'd heard a word and guessed how it was supposedly spelled. And then .. I was wrong. 

So - if anyone catches me making obvious mistakes like my old (and luckily eradicated from my fingers now) "becourse" - PLEASE let me know. Do not assume that I don't care. I do.

The article in question was unfortunately better than what most Danish newspapers spew on their websites. sigh I guess it's the rise of the texting generation moving from phones to proper keyboards... >_<

Quote - What's them "infinitves", Sam? ;P

Other than that, not being a native English speaker myself,  but that doesn't mean you can't be interested in grammar and spelling. I do my best to do it correctly, although sometimes I fail, and fail miserably - most of the times because I'd heard a word and guessed how it was supposedly spelled. And then .. I was wrong. 

So - if anyone catches me making obvious mistakes like my old (and luckily eradicated from my fingers now) "becourse" - PLEASE let me know. Do not assume that I don't care. I do.

The article in question was unfortunately better than what most Danish newspapers spew on their websites. sigh I guess it's the rise of the texting generation moving from phones to proper keyboards... >_<

A simple definition of a split infinitive is, an action with the way the action is to be done, but with the way it's to be done first, as in:

horribly suffer
slowly crawl

and the most famous split infinitive of all (and one you'll definitely be familiar with)...

boldly go.

In most instances, a split infinitive sounds clumsy and - if broken down into component parts - doesn't make sense, because you're putting a modifier before an action.  How can you modify something which hasn't happened yet?

The chaps who compile the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), the nearest thing we have to an authority on the language, state that a split infinitive can be used but only if the alternative is more clumsy.  They always sound clumsy to my ears, in any case.  

Back to the Star Trek one...

Most people wouldn't object to it, mainly due to familiarity, but the sentence undermines itself from a dramatic tension point of view, as well as a good grammar aspect.  Consider, if the sentence went:

"To go boldly where no man/no one has gone before."  The speaker can place a dramatic emphasis on "boldly" with a slight pause after "go", whereas in the original it's just a throwaway word.  To write it out with the emphasis:

To go...boldly where no one has gone before.

Sounds much better, doesn't it?

In conclusion, I believe anyone who uses split infinitives should be mercilessly tortured.  Yes, that was another one and yes, it was a joke.  :)

My God - I do give good thread, don't I....?

Quote -
To go...boldly where no one has gone before.

Sounds much better, doesn't it?

Whilst it works better grammatically, It doesn't sound better, because changing it messes up the meter-it's blank verse...

Quote - > Quote -

To go...boldly where no one has gone before.

Sounds much better, doesn't it?

Whilst it works better grammatically, It doesn't sound better, because changing it messes up the meter-it's blank verse...

Blank verse or not, the original always sounds like sand in the gearbox to me.  Besides which, it's not supposed to be poetry.  

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

To go...boldly where no one has gone before.

Sounds much better, doesn't it?

Whilst it works better grammatically, It doesn't sound better, because changing it messes up the meter-it's blank verse...

Blank verse or not, the original always sounds like sand in the gearbox to me.  Besides which, it's not supposed to be poetry.  

One man's Mozart is another man's Bartok. I grew up hearing those famous words in that order, so under those circumstances - said in that context - I see nothing wrong with it. Said in any other context, it sounds pompous/pretentious/having parody qualities (what is that, parodic? Firefox gives me a red underline).
English is actually my second language as well, but I'm far worse at grammar in my first language: German. Mark Twain had some choice things to say about German:

--Some German words are so long that they have a perspective.

--These things are not words, they are alphabetical processions.

--My philological studies have satisfied me that a gifted person ought to learn English (barring spelling and pronouncing) in thirty hours, French in thirty days, and German in thirty years. It seems manifest, then, that the latter tongue ought to be trimmed down and repaired. If it is to remain as it is, it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it.

--Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth.

--A dog is "der Hund"; a woman is "die Frau"; a horse is "das Pferd"; now you put that dog in the genitive case, and is he the same dog he was before? No, sir; he is "des Hundes"; put him in the dative case and what is he? Why, he is "dem Hund." Now you snatch him into the accusative case and how is it with him? Why, he is "den Hunden." But suppose he happens to be twins and you have to pluralize him- what then? Why, they'll swat that twin dog around through the 4 cases until he'll think he's an entire international dog-show all in is own person. I don't like dogs, but I wouldn't treat a dog like that- I wouldn't even treat a borrowed dog that way. Well, it's just the same with a cat. They start her in at the nominative singular in good health and fair to look upon, and they sweat her through all the 4 cases and the 16 the's and when she limps out through the accusative plural you wouldn't recognize her for the same being. Yes, sir, once the German language gets hold of a cat, it's goodbye cat. That's about the amount of it.

Makes English grammar seem to be a walk in the park, doesn't it? :biggrin:

We chucked out most grammatical rules during the formation of our language, so we - or some of us - tend to try to be protective of the few we have left.  :)  English has a kinship with German, since it was formed as a baby talk version of two proto Germanic languages.  That's probably why we threw out most gender rules along the way.  

OTOH, there is precedent for split infinitives in English, since we tend to put colour before object, unlike most other Indo-European languages.  That's a bit silly from a technical standpoint but then, saying "the tractor green" or "the balloon red" sounds daft, too.

sam, written english has evolved (approx. 50 yrs behind vernacular) by the introduction of
foreign words (dutch, french, spanish, italian et al.).  even now ye'll see louts at grudge site
forums using slang terms like bint (arabic) or chav (urdu) and they've got no idea they're
using arabic or urdu in english parlance.  in 50 yrs those will be so regularly seen in print
that nobody will even notice.

Quote - sam, written english has evolved (approx. 50 yrs behind vernacular) by the introduction of
foreign words (dutch, french, spanish, italian et al.).  even now ye'll see louts at grudge site
forums using slang terms like bint (arabic) or chav (urdu) and they've got no idea they're
using arabic or urdu in english parlance.  in 50 yrs those will be so regularly seen in print
that nobody will even notice.

Sure thing.  Don't care about them, either; new words and usages are always good, IMO.  Split infinitives are still ugly, though.

BTW, chav, bint and pukka were all words used in army slang over here at least 70 years ago.  Funny how they came around again.

Quote - ... piss-poor analysis and writing? I mean, I'm not perfect but FFS....

Err... I have no comment to make on the journalist's analysis, but on a purely linguistic level the above partial quote contains more to make me cringe than the whole of the article! Tut tut, Paul!

(written with a smile, not a scowl)

Quote - > Quote - ... piss-poor analysis and writing? I mean, I'm not perfect but FFS....

Err... I have no comment to make on the journalist's analysis, but on a purely linguistic level the above partial quote contains more to make me cringe than the whole of the article! Tut tut, Paul!

(written with a smile, not a scowl)

As another Paul - and fellow Yorkshireman - I have do defend the gent here.  If he'd written the above in a news feature I'd be somewhat taken aback but within a forum it's fine and dandy.

There's not really much to complain about in terms of linguistic quality anyhow.  The vernacular use of "I mean" is fine in conversational use and "FFS" is now a widely used abbreviation. The only thing I'd take exception to is the unnecessary hyphen between "piss" and "poor".  Fowler's Guide to Modern English Usage states hyphens should be avoided unless their absence causes confusion.

:biggrin:

Guilty as charged.  In my defence, I did confess to not being perfect though.

An interesting little book

Quote - Fowler's Guide to Modern English Usage

You mean a book that was written in 1926? 

See what he says about split infinitives, anyway. With your previous posts in this thread, it seems you're cherry-picking at his authority.

(And then check out what he has to say about "individual" for an example of an inappropriate entry for modern writing.)

Quote - An interesting little book

Back in my days of doing nothing but discussing language (before I discovered Poser and the downward spiral began!), I used to discuss and/or argue (take your pick) a lot with a fellow linguist who thought that book was the one single most horrendous book ever published with so much wrong-headedness crammed into the smallest number of pages. He had a point with some aspects, but it's maybe not quite entirely bad.

Quote - We chucked out most grammatical rules during the formation of our language,

Uhh... no, we didn't. If so, then make sentence this sense would. Grammar is not just the prim and prissy "Proper writers never do X!" commandments. Grammar is inherent in every language, no less in English. If it weren't, then learning English for a non-native speaker would simply be a case of learning vocabulary.
What we have lost a lot of is the inflectional morphology that other European languages have, most noticeably in the lack of overt case-marking. The syntax of the language is still just as complicated as any other language (try teaching the difference between present perfect and simple past to an ESL student who just doesn't get it... it can be frustrating because there are complex 'rules' that allow one over the other in certain circumstances and vice versa in others).

Quote - English has a kinship with German, since it was formed as a baby talk version of two proto Germanic languages.

Again, not quite 100% right. Go and search for any text that's in Old English (original Beowulf is the most common) and see how complex the grammar is. It's definitely not "baby talk". Learning Old English was one of the most difficult things I had to do at university, and it was far from simple or "baby talk" as you put it.

Quote - That's probably why we threw out most gender rules along the way.

That happened long after the time of Old English. Most likely, it was a combination of the Norman invasion introducing Norman French to the country (and the ruling classes speaking it) and also the days when the north half of the country was speaking early Danish. For trading purposes and negotiations, the inflectional endings unique to each area were reduced and we started to lose them, with only remnants of them showing up once you get to  Middle English/Chaucer's time.

I'll stop. History of English was one of my specialities and I can get carried away for hours (mainly correcting the myths that have developed, unfortunately).

Ehrm...not really cherry picking.  IIRC, I mentioned Fowler but once.  Can't remember offhand what the OED bods say about hyphens but Fowler's always sticks in my mind for some reason.

Whether or not he thinks (thought?) split infinitives were a really good idea - I don't have my copy to hand - I don't like 'em.  They sound clumsy, nonsensical, pretentious and illogical.  IMO, of course.

You're right about us not getting rid of all grammar but we did get rid of a lot.  Likewise the "baby talk" remark.  It'd have been more precise to say "an extremely simplified compromise language" but I thought "baby talk" was snappier.  In any case, there would have to be - as you stated - some rules and we accumulated more along the way.   

My only question is this: How can anyone have 60% of the "Market" share for a product that nobody pays for? I've never paid for Internet Explorer, FireFox, Chrome or any other browser. Have you?

"market" defined as the totality of web browsers in use rather than the number sold :biggrin:

perhaps this is a new product that we've not picked up on; 'MS Office Grammar...now 50% less hard...;) Hey, if you're going to monopolize something, why not go for the whole megilla?...;)

Usage changes over time; while hardly a correct user of the Queens' (or even Dan'l Websters') English myself , I do see some times when proper usage comes out strange, as in ending a sentence with a preposition...

"There are some things up with which I shall not put!" - Winston Churchill

If you want to see how language has changed, look through a 1940s-1950s National Geographic, Life Magazine. Look at the copy in the ads. The vocabulary and reading lever are quite above ad copy today IMO. I think that today, you see a lot  more contractions, slang/buzz words etc. - things are much less formal. Part of it may be the schools and part may be that society, even in the notoriously class conscious UK is perhaps more egalitarian. People travel more, they're exposed to different language variations, and we no longer have only three television networks (in the US), where the news anchors and announcers provided to some degree a national standard that people could emulate. People like the pols who used to pride themselves on courtly, formal language have gone to trying to be 'with it' and converse on the level of the 'common people.'  

I suspect that good writing and speaking skills are less important  to get ahead these days so people don't bother. Most of the people in office wouldn't have a lasted minute with the likes of Lincoln and Douglas or even Roosevelt  People used to care. Now, 'folksy ' seems to be what the public wants.

Quote - My only question is this: How can anyone have 60% of the "Market" share for a product that nobody pays for? I've never paid for Internet Explorer, FireFox, Chrome or any other browser. Have you?

I paid for a copy of Netscape Communicator way back when.  I think it was $30...  

Quote - > Quote - My only question is this: How can anyone have 60% of the "Market" share for a product that nobody pays for? I've never paid for Internet Explorer, FireFox, Chrome or any other browser. Have you?

I paid for a copy of Netscape Communicator way back when.  I think it was $30...  

Boy someone sure saw you coming didn't they! I have never paid outright for any browser ever since I started using the internet in 1987/88. Email programs are a different story.

Quote -
Boy someone sure saw you coming didn't they! I have never paid outright for any browser ever since I started using the internet in 1987/88. Email programs are a different story.

This would have been in 1998-The Communicator suite included Navigator, an e-mail program, a USENET news reader and some other stuff I didn't use, such as a calender and off-line browser.  A couple of months after I bought it the Mozilla project started up and it went open-source-just my luck!  I think I still have the disc somewhere...

I'm familiar with Netscape Communicator, that's why I said email programs are a different story. NetScape communicator wasn't strictly a browser, any more than Poser with the Content Paradise tab is a browser. I should have used a smiley when I said they saw you coming because I was just teasin'. :tt2:

No offense Taken, LiSm..