Making grammar, spelling, and pronunciation mistakes

[dfgs3434]

From a Buddhist perspective, the way a lot of people demand language look a certain way - especially English - makes no sense. A lot of people are attached to this idea of what language "is". This speling "is" correct, this spelling "is" incorrect. And because it "is" this way, that is the way it should be, too. Writing "its" as "it's" is seen as a problem. Or writing "lose" as "loose" or "less" vs. "fewer", etc. They say it "isn't written that way"... despite the fact that someone just wrote it that way.

Everything changes over time. The way language is now isn't going to stay the same. Those rules will change. And who changes it? The people who speak it. Where else does language come from? Why is it not people's right to spell words in a way that the dictionary doesn't (and is often more phonetic anyway)? The amount of intolerance is insane. Like... it's just an apostrophe. You are not born hating a punctuation symbol in a word, you are taught to hate it. Every single aspect of language can be changed at any time and there's nothing you can do about it.

In my mind, this kind of thing is a perfect example of how attachment, dogma, and refusal to accept the changing nature of all things, causes nothing but suffering. Focus on the people giving the message, not the combination of letters they use to give it.

[Hazel]

From a Buddhist perspective, the way a lot of people demand language look a certain way - especially English - makes no sense. A lot of people are attached to this idea of what language "is". This speling "is" correct, this spelling "is" incorrect. And because it "is" this way, that is the way it should be, too. Writing "its" as "it's" is seen as a problem. Or writing "lose" as "loose" or "less" vs. "fewer", etc. They say it "isn't written that way"... despite the fact that someone just wrote it that way.

Everything changes over time. The way language is now isn't going to stay the same. Those rules will change. And who changes it? The people who speak it. Where else does language come from? Why is it not people's right to spell words in a way that the dictionary doesn't (and is often more phonetic anyway)? The amount of intolerance is insane. Like... it's just an apostrophe. You are not born hating a punctuation symbol in a word, you are taught to hate it. Every single aspect of language can be changed at any time and there's nothing you can do about it.

In my mind, this kind of thing is a perfect example of how attachment, dogma, and refusal to accept the changing nature of all things, causes nothing but suffering. Focus on the people giving the message, not the combination of letters they use to give it.

It's also a bunch of "ist"s and "ism"s. For example:

Ableist - Some people may have to use speech to text to communicate online for various reasons. Others may simply have difficulty reading/writing due to learning disabilities.
Racist - There are certain conventions that consistently follow a set of rules and are only "wrong" if you assume that how a subset of white people speak and write is automatically superior.
Classist - Not everyone has access to the same level of education

I could also make an argument for xenophobia (expecting people to follow a certain rigid set of conventions disproportionately effects language learners) and agist (same argument, but with the context that young people are still learning), BUT I think those are less true to the literal definition of the "ism".

[Hazel]

I feel super passionately about this due to my father being dyslexic and also myself having learning disabilities that meant I was a late reader.

Whether or not seeing grammar as fixed/rigid is ignoring the principle of emptiness or not, criticizing people for how they speak is completely lacking any attempt at compassion.

[Queequeg]

From a Buddhist perspective, the way a lot of people demand language look a certain way - especially English - makes no sense. A lot of people are attached to this idea of what language "is". This speling "is" correct, this spelling "is" incorrect. And because it "is" this way, that is the way it should be, too. Writing "its" as "it's" is seen as a problem. Or writing "lose" as "loose" or "less" vs. "fewer", etc. They say it "isn't written that way"... despite the fact that someone just wrote it that way.

Everything changes over time. The way language is now isn't going to stay the same. Those rules will change. And who changes it? The people who speak it. Where else does language come from? Why is it not people's right to spell words in a way that the dictionary doesn't (and is often more phonetic anyway)? The amount of intolerance is insane. Like... it's just an apostrophe. You are not born hating a punctuation symbol in a word, you are taught to hate it. Every single aspect of language can be changed at any time and there's nothing you can do about it.

In my mind, this kind of thing is a perfect example of how attachment, dogma, and refusal to accept the changing nature of all things, causes nothing but suffering. Focus on the people giving the message, not the combination of letters they use to give it.

There's a difference between language evolving and dialects, and just not knowing how to spell, proper grammar, syntax, etc. I'd argue that a lot of people suffer because they lack the language skills to express themselves, analyze things, including themselves , with subtlety and nuance. (Plenty of people suffer because they get lost in words, too, but that's a different issue). These things matter because we can't read each others' minds. If we wish to communicate with each other about anything more than gesturing where the bathroom is we need a common language. So, yes, spelling, grammar, etc. matter. Language is a significant subject in Buddhist discourse. Refinement of language allows us access, does not guarantee, a qualitatively richer life.

That said, minor spelling and grammatical errors ought not matter in a medium like this. In formal writing, they matter.

[tkp67]

The freedom of not having to conform to a metric that deludes is a blessing .It is a benefit to be dyslexic and dysgraphic. My learning disabilities and mental illnesses don't allow me to become conditioned in the same way as other people. Knowing this I am able to represent myself to others compassionately.

The minute someone rides me for a "perceived" defect it informs me about that person's capacity for compassion and understanding. The attachment to form for these types of minds is such that they deserve pity. When I encounter people whose are alarmed by accounts of suffering it conjures similar thoughts. Even though there is no cost to compassion the obstacle and obfuscations remain all the same. However this conditioning is greater than the individual. It is systemic, sublime and pervasive.

There was just a podcast on hidden brain about societal prejudices and the bias against mental divergence is the greatest hurtle for man kind.

To quote Frank Zappa: "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."

Many years ago I prayed that the I suffer these types of challenges opposed to others because I had become adept at enduring suffering and knew enough not to perpetuate what I had experienced.

I will be honest and say I was very naive to think there was a demographic that was beyond this. Silly me.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I’m exactly the type of fussy grammar person you are referring to. Most of the time, “perfect grammar” doesn’t matter in this type of forum, nor does spelling, as long as the meaning is clear.

But making the meaning clear, really expressing what it is you are trying to say, is very important. Language is an instrument, like a musical instrument. If the notes you play are a little sharp or flat or the rhythm is off a bit, if people know the tune you are playing, that’s fine. But if they can’t tell, that’s not good, and you can’t just say “well this is how I play that tune” if the notes don’t even match. The same goes for language. Words are strung together like the notes in a song. Commas, periods, the correct words, all have a purpose. They aren’t just there to maintain some colonialist agenda, or to make life miserable for people.

There is a big difference between:
“I’m going to eat, shit, and then go to bed”
and
“I’m going to eat shit and then go to bed”.


For fussy people such as myself, the best thing to do isn’t to correct or criticize, but to ask for clarification if a sentence isn’t clear or could mean two different things. And, that’s what I do.

My son has expressive language challenges. Mostly, he won’t use verbs. Although I usually know what he is telling me, there are many times (especially now that he is older) when I really don’t know what he is trying to say. I have no choice but to ask him to clarify. That’s really all that can be done.

But you can’t say that on the on hand that “there are no language rules” and then on the other hand say it’s okay to break them. You have to choose one position or the other, because you can’t break rules that don’t exist in the first place.

On the topic of language as it pertains to Buddhism, all of us in the west suffer from not being more familiar with Indic languages (Sanskrit, Hindi) because so many Buddhist terms have been translated poorly into English. Not only that. There are basic, sort of general meanings in words (“sangha” for example, which can refer to any type of cohesion, from Buddhist monks to labor unions to the stickiness of glue). Just as our communication with each other is limited by the words we use, I think our understanding of some of the profound nature of Buddhist teachings is also very limited because the translated words we use don’t always convey the full meanings.

[tkp67]

If someone feels mental discord because of language structure it might be helpful to remind one's self that many humans don't have this issue at all.

To make it an enforceable standard is both unethical and in many cases illegal. Enforcing conditioning doesn't seem to have many benefits from a buddhist standpoint.

The huge rub is however that because these ideas don't have perfect english translations there should be some difficulty in expressing them. Form should be challenged and mind should be opened enough not to react negatively just due to form.

[Bristollad]

Correctly using language so that others understand the ideas we are trying to express is not conforming to conditioning. Nor is it necessarily prejudiced expecting others to also use correct language though it can be used to unfairly exclude or belittle someone. Written language has to have more rigid rules than verbal language because all of the non-verbal cues we naturally use to clarify and convey meaning when talking face-to-face are missing.

Also, just as hearing someone play a musical piece with perfect technique and style can be a joy and a pleasure, so too reading a well-constructed sentence.

[tkp67]

Correctly using language

There is no required entry exam or stated level of proficiency for posting here. The basis for correct is subjective to cause, condition and capacity. This is a global site. This is not a formal site.

The expectation that information be tailored to an unknown metric (i.e. YOUR causes, conditions and capacities) is not reasonable.

This isn't a bad thing until it allows for the marginalization of others. Denying the pink elephant in the room doesn't make it go away.

[tkp67]

Putting priority on the form of communication opposed to the humans communication is meant to serve is fundamentally flawed.

Understandable in many scenarios but unreasonable in others.

[Queequeg]

Putting priority on the form of communication opposed to the humans communication is meant to serve is fundamentally flawed.

Understandable in many scenarios but unreasonable in others.

No one is actively marginalizing you. I'm not breaking any news to you because we tell you all the time - most people here don't understand what you are saying a lot of the time. People try - look at all the responses you get. The problem is, many of the discussions here go into hair splitting detail. Standard English fluency is the baseline for participating in those discussions. The subject matter is often difficult enough.

I'm sorry if you feel marginalized. Its not personal.

[tkp67]

Putting priority on the form of communication opposed to the humans communication is meant to serve is fundamentally flawed.

Understandable in many scenarios but unreasonable in others.

No one is actively marginalizing you. I'm not breaking any news to you because we tell you all the time - most people here don't understand what you are saying a lot of the time. People try - look at all the responses you get. The problem is, many of the discussions here go into hair splitting detail. Standard English fluency is the baseline for participating in those discussions. The subject matter is often difficult enough.

I'm sorry if you feel marginalized. Its not personal.

I understand it isn't an active and thank you for sharing a concern for my person. Since I know it is not active I don't take it personally.

My divergence from form especially when talking about Buddhism is as natural to me as form is for those who specialize in it. This difference has been delightfully enlightening to me because the variation opens up my perceptive boundaries. I find much complimentary benefit. I do feel that at times it becomes easier to critique form then to address a critical point but this is easy enough to address.

Now because I adapt very well as I grew in the IT industry I made it a point not to hold onto "form" but rather essence to avoid information overload. This does lend to me being abstract. It also has kept my intellect relatively fluid.

I think most importantly however is this. The splitting hairs is to really falsify or validate a granular aspect is just that. It is an extension of the academic process. It can give rise to ego (imprint) when applied with effort. Once again some of this is good as topical expertise is relevant. However it is also relative.

I don't get frustrated by lack of form obviously because I approach it from the opposite position. This leaves me lacking because I can't tell when what I am going to write will not meet expectation past gross spelling errors. I understand frustration though and I don't like feeling it or making people feel that way. So I am not trying to rationalize a grand lowering of the bar for good ol' monkey boy me. I do feel it important to be candid. I wonder if there aren't those who have slipped through the cracks due to such difficulties?

[reiun]

Hey tkp67: to my ears, you communicate beautifully, no problem.

[Bristollad]

Correctly using language

There is no required entry exam or stated level of proficiency for posting here. The basis for correct is subjective to cause, condition and capacity. This is a global site. This is not a formal site.

The expectation that information be tailored to an unknown metric (i.e. YOUR causes, conditions and capacities) is not reasonable.

This isn't a bad thing until it allows for the marginalization of others. Denying the pink elephant in the room doesn't make it go away.

There is no required entry exam or stated level of proficiency but if one's use of language doesn't convey the intended meaning to the other posters, it's missing its mark.

It isn't an unknown metric. The metric is not MY causes, conditions and capacities but the established rules for ease of communication.
There is a difference between data and information - data becomes information when it is given a form that can be read, understood and used. The established rules (grammar, punctuation etc.) are what turns the data conveyed in writing into information.

If someone's posts do not successfully convey the meaning they intended, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the poster for not being clearer or the fault of the reader for not being able to guess what was intended?

Crying, "Discrimination!" if one is misunderstood does not mean there was any.

Having never seen a pink elephant inside or outside of a room, I will happily deny it.

[Ayu]

Hey tkp67: to my ears, you communicate beautifully, no problem.

Me too. It's a strange phenomenon that English speaking people often complain about tkp's posts being not intelligible, while I think I understood it finely. But I'm no native English speaker.

[Hazel]

Correctly using language

There is no required entry exam or stated level of proficiency for posting here. The basis for correct is subjective to cause, condition and capacity. This is a global site. This is not a formal site.

The expectation that information be tailored to an unknown metric (i.e. YOUR causes, conditions and capacities) is not reasonable.

This isn't a bad thing until it allows for the marginalization of others. Denying the pink elephant in the room doesn't make it go away.

There is no required entry exam or stated level of proficiency but if one's use of language doesn't convey the intended meaning to the other posters, it's missing its mark.

It isn't an unknown metric. The metric is not MY causes, conditions and capacities but the established rules for ease of communication.

If someone's posts do not successfully convey the meaning they intended, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the poster for not being clearer or the fault of the reader for not being able to guess what was intended?

Crying, "Discrimination!" if one is misunderstood does not mean there was any.

Having never seen a pink elephant inside or outside of a room, I will happily deny it.

If you're reaction to people saying that behavior is hurting them or ones they love is to tell them they are crying, then you may need to rethink your stances.

[Bristollad]

There is no required entry exam or stated level of proficiency for posting here. The basis for correct is subjective to cause, condition and capacity. This is a global site. This is not a formal site.

The expectation that information be tailored to an unknown metric (i.e. YOUR causes, conditions and capacities) is not reasonable.

This isn't a bad thing until it allows for the marginalization of others. Denying the pink elephant in the room doesn't make it go away.

There is no required entry exam or stated level of proficiency but if one's use of language doesn't convey the intended meaning to the other posters, it's missing its mark.

It isn't an unknown metric. The metric is not MY causes, conditions and capacities but the established rules for ease of communication.

If someone's posts do not successfully convey the meaning they intended, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the poster for not being clearer or the fault of the reader for not being able to guess what was intended?

Crying, "Discrimination!" if one is misunderstood does not mean there was any.

Having never seen a pink elephant inside or outside of a room, I will happily deny it.

If you're reaction to people saying that behavior is hurting them or ones they love is to tell them they are crying, then you may need to rethink your stances.

Whose behaviour do you mean? Your sentence is ambiguous. Nowhere have I said that anyone should be callous. When someone misuses language it is disingenuous to complain that people misunderstand what they say.

[Bristollad]

Hey tkp67: to my ears, you communicate beautifully, no problem.

Me too. It's a strange phenomenon that English speaking people often complain about tkp's posts being not intelligible, while I think I understood it finely. But I'm no native English speaker.

However, I have noticed an occasion just recently when you misunderstood what someone had written.
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 22#p572722

[PadmaVonSamba]

There are standard ways of doing things.
Those standards do not always apply the same way
in every situation, and that’s okay.

This is just a web forum. Nobody is writing a dissertation for a PhD.

Let’s face it, we’d all be better off spending the time we spend here doing more sitting meditation or chanting or whatever practice you do.

I can’t say I’ve seen anybody criticized for spelling, punctuation, or grammar. I’ve seen people say they can’t understand posts by tkp67. I will agree, sometimes it takes a little more effort than with others, but it is very rare that I don’t get the point being made.

I don’t think anybody disagrees about communication being the main issue. Picky grammar nerds such as myself agree, and people who write out their thoughts in a non-traditional way also agree.

Do what your teacher would do if they didn’t understand you. Just ask for clarification. You can never go wrong that way.

[reiun]

When someone misuses language it is disingenuous to complain that people misunderstand what they say.

Per the theme of this thread, I don’t see occasions where spelling, grammar or pronunciation can be criticized in the quoted material.
I appreciate readers who care about an author's intent, and I believe this is what gives rise to the kind and patient dialogue here. (Fwiw, conscious intent does not necessarily limit meaning.)