RE: G/grammar (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

daniL -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 7:21:15 PM)

While the slashes are annoying to me, and obnoxious to read, I can understand it in the context of an online relationship.



PeggyO -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 7:32:49 PM)

Hello,

My personal view is that how you communicate depends on what your goal is.  If your goal is to communicate a thought and have it understood by the broadest possible audience, use standard English grammar, sentence structure, capitalization and punctuation.  If you are attempting to convey that you are part of the "scene" by using the jargon and stylistic idiosyncrasies that have evolved on the net, then by all means use slashes, third person and non-standard capitalizations.  However, don't be surprised if your message isn't read or understood by folks.

I personally skip messages that have too many slashes and I don't have the energy to dig through third-person speech.  I am sure I miss out sometimes, but then if the person really wanted me to understand what they were trying to communicate, they wouldn't make it difficult for me to do so. 

Be well,

Peggy



dcnovice -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 7:32:56 PM)

<fast reply>

I must confess the whole caps/slash thing makes me giggle. The Bible and the Book of Common Prayer don't even cap pronouns referring to God, so I'm definitely not in a rush to cap them for mere mortals.

Cheers,

DC



Damocles809 -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 7:34:22 PM)

It's B/bull-S/shit. 



spankmepink11 -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 7:45:24 PM)

There is a spell check option for anyone who cares to use it when writing a post.   



Aswad -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 7:59:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mstrjx

Maybe (just maybe) instead of considering G/grammer, we should tackle S/spelling instead.


While I hate it when people criticise spelling (we don't speak English up here), I must say that I agree that this is actually more a matter of spelling than grammar. There is no improper declension, conjugation or whatnot involved, just a spelling convention.

I'd love to drop the S/spelling, although not because it makes anything easier to read (I find third-person speech a lot more confusing, for instance), but simply because it makes for less typing. It's kind of become a bit of a habit, though, since a lot of people prefer it that way.

It comes down to the same reason why I write "him/her" or "s/he": the lack of a generally recognized, neutral mechanism for the same thing, and I'd prefer to have some people spend an extra second in reading the post, rather than having some people take offense at it when none was intended. Absent body language, one does what one can to communicate intent.

Personally, I couldn't care less if anyone calls me "you", "he", "she", "it", "we" or "they", although I'll have to draw the line at anyone but me calling me "I". [:D]

Similarly, I have no need for anyone to capitalize my role, my name, or indeed any part of any sentence they write to me, or about me, nor do I care one way or the other.

But I don't assume this to be the case for everyone else, and getting used to the convention of reading and writing that way was quick and painless for me. YMMV.



dcnovice -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 8:02:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: mstrjx

Maybe (just maybe) instead of considering G/grammer, we should tackle S/spelling instead.


While I hate it when people criticise spelling . . .


I'm not wild about it either, but I can see how the irony of a misspelling in a post about spelling was too tempting to pass up!



Aswad -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 8:17:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gypsygrl

When I first started with this stuff, I explored with a Master who had me use idiosyncratic grammar when corresponding with him.  I kind of agreed with his theory behind it (it kept me in a specific mind space and since we only saw each other every couple weeks or so, using a writing protocol made sense.) but practically, it was too difficult.


You might want to consider suggesting the use of idiosyncratic speech patterns instead of "breaking" the grammar and/or intelligibility of the language.

I remember having had third person speech suggested to me as a good thing, but I just end up seeing it as fairly unintelligible. I can skip over the slashes and mixed-case letters without knowing they are there, but third person speech makes my brain trip, and going at 1-2Kwpm during usual reading, I end up having to focus very intently to go slowly enough not to trip up.

I could write it in my sleep, though I don't do so except when making up examples, so I don't think it's very effective in maintaining the mindspace; it's just a habit to be acquired, and then there's no thought to it. Any actual thought directed at it can exist independently of the use of 3PS itself.

What I've been suggesting to people who advocate 3PS, is to change the phrases so that they no longer make the submissive party the subject of the sentence. For instance, rather than "should I fetch you some tea" becoming "should this one fetch you some tea", I'd suggest that "do you want some tea?" is more conducive to maintaining a seperate space, while still remaining perfectly good form from a linguistic perspective, and will, if used consistently over time, lead to changes in the thought patterns that lead to the things being said.



Aswad -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 8:33:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeggyO

I personally skip messages that have too many slashes and I don't have the energy to dig through third-person speech.  I am sure I miss out sometimes, but then if the person really wanted me to understand what they were trying to communicate, they wouldn't make it difficult for me to do so. 


Just thought I'd give you the flip side of the coin.

I really want you to understand what I'm trying to communicate.

That's why I sometimes spend hours on a single post, although I usually only spend a few minutes on each: to try to make my point clear, and pose any relevant questions to understanding yours.

In that regard, it has been my experience so far that I can't please everyone. So I have to try to compromise.

Shorter posts would probably help, but I can't express myself more compactly than I do, unless the idea is more compact, or I'm willing to deal with the pages of fallout from people not understanding me correctly the first time.

Not using the occasional slashes and mixed caps will help some people a little bit in making the posts easier to read. It may also make it more likely that they will read them. But it is also something that causes some other people not to read it at all. My compromise has been to try to limit the slashes, but still use them where I think someone might care.

So, yes, ideally, using clear, concise and correct English with proper punctuation (I'll admit the punctuation has been my main difficulty in learning the English language, and I'm pretty sure I'm not using it correctly) would be the best way to reach everyone. However, that isn't always the case.

People read differently, too, not just write differently.

Semi-offtopic: I didn't pick this slashes'n'caps stuff up from cybering, but rather forums like this one. As for cybering, I don't get why people get all wierd about it. I did vanilla cybering before I got into BDSM, and started BDSM-cybering a few years after getting into the real thing; it's harmless fun, provided you're not one of "those people" who need to be reminded where the line between on-line and off-line is drawn.

It's just interactive fiction, sometimes porn; would one disrespect someone for reading, or watching, non-interactive fiction? Few people substitute offline relationships for online ones, I hope.



Aswad -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 8:44:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spankmepink11

There is a spell check option for anyone who cares to use it when writing a post.   


That doesn't show up in my browser.

Is it set for British, American, Canadian, Australian, or some other flavo(u)r of English?

And, what nationality of dyslexia is it intended to compensate for?

Realize that the transition to romanized vowels ("The Great Vowel Shift") in English, along with the elimination of some consonants from the alphabet, folding at least fifty-something sounds into 26 characters, made it so that anyone not speaking a romanized language with similar diphthong-conventions may have a lot of trouble with it.

Compensating for dyslexia is very hard, as even distinguishing between the options for alternate spellings can be impossible for many, and computers don't generally do very well at regular spell checking; in fact, computerized spell-checking has been accused of introducing several new kinds of typing errors.

Consider that it took Norway's leading centre for research into the Norwegian language about a decade to develop a dyslexia-aware spell checker for that language, and that doesn't cover English at all. It's not a lack of interest, it's just very hard to do.

When you try to cross the barrier of dyslexia, then the barrier of a second language, then the barrier of that language having what amounts to a different set of phonemes mapped onto the smaller latin alphabet in a relation that is many-to-one, then it gets complicated fast.

Being a spelling nazi in such a scenario isn't perfectionism or pedantery, both of which I understand, and condone to some extent (or I wouldn't be doing it), it's simply elitism.



Aswad -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 8:45:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I'm not wild about it either, but I can see how the irony of a misspelling in a post about spelling was too tempting to pass up!


I wasn't referring to any misspelling in the OP.

I was referring to the use of the word "grammar", when referring to spelling (the actual topic), in the subject line.



MagiksSlave -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 8:53:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Darling Slave, I did my best to understand you, but I didn't go past the first two lines. You're obviously terribly proud of your American heritage, but you have a big bad problem at expressing yourself.

This would be fine by me were you not the sort of person who sharks up on those that don't speak 'proper' English.

I think you are a hypocrite. 


ME??? excuse me but I have never ever said anything to anyone about their spelling or grammer ever not even when i couldnt understand it so who are you to call me a hypocrite?

The only reason i ever bring up the third person speach or the I/i speach is when there is a thread asking for opinions on that sort of thing (besides the fact that that speach is done on perpose where as mine is because of a disability) so there is hypocritical about that at all so why be nasty to me??

Magik's slave



MagiksSlave -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 8:57:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spankmepink11

There is a spell check option for anyone who cares to use it when writing a post.   


Doesnt work on my PC.. When it hit it it says I need to install something and I really cant install random programs on my PC  besides that Im on dial up and it would take 10000000 years

Magik's slave



Sinimint -> RE: G/grammar (5/15/2007 9:38:32 PM)

I think it's annoying.  Why use it?  It just makes posts hard to read and is just ridiculous.  Whoever started that type of writing as "protocol" [8|] for online communication should be flogged LOL.  I've spoken to many doms and dommes at functions about this and they all agree.



Lordskitten -> RE: G/grammar (5/16/2007 3:27:43 AM)

I find it distasteful, not so much that people use this Y/y speak, but that they use it incorrectly (bare with me here).

People in posts, or in their profile will use it anytime there is a You, Our, We, ETC.  They will be specifically refering to the sub and will still use "Y/you will need to learn to do Y/your chores" or when they are refering to two Dom's controlling a slave "O/our slave blahblah." and even some, tho much more rarely, go so far as to do I/i ...(are they a switch? lol).

Over all i find it uncomfortable to read, and a little strange that people feel the need to put that much into their typing on some notion that it shows a great degree of respect. 

Not to mention it's DANG hard to type like that lol, atleast for me ;)



julietsierra -> RE: G/grammar (5/16/2007 3:36:51 AM)

I/i J/ust W/want T/to K/know H/how A/all O/of  T/this S/slashy-S/speak I/is P/pronounced W/when T/those W/who U/use I/it C/communicate O/off-L/line, U/up F/front A/and I/in P/person W/with O/others. O/or I/is I/it J/just A/a R/really S/strange I/idea T/that T/the C/computer M/might A/actually B/be C/considered S/simply A/a M/medium I/in W/which T/to M/make C/communication....G/god F/forbid!... E/easier?!

J/just C/curious Y/You K/know.

J/juliet



Valyraen -> RE: G/grammar (5/16/2007 3:40:16 AM)

Aswad, you've no need to fret about your punctuation. From your last several posts, I didn't spot any terribly glaring errors, so keep up the good work!



kittinSol -> RE: G/grammar (5/16/2007 3:50:10 AM)

ROFL



bandit25 -> RE: G/grammar (5/16/2007 3:55:52 AM)

I honestly think julianoceania has the right idea.  If it's too hard to read, don't read it.  I would expand on that.  If it's too hard to type, don't type it.  If you want to use the slashy thingy, use it.  If your dom says you have to, discuss it with him and come to an agreement.  If you don't want to use it and no one is telling you that you have to, then don't.

Damn!  I am really good at solving problems!  Next!



adoracat -> RE: G/grammar (5/16/2007 3:57:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Valyraen

More specifically, I don't capitalize "dominant" or "submissive", only capitalize "master" when referring to someone's title, capitalize BDSM because it's an acronym, and leave d/s lowercase (not quite sure as to the why of that particular example; just looks funny to me in caps). As you've likely noticed by now, I don't refer to myself in Godhead (the capitalization of words referring to oneself, such as "me", "my", and "mine"), because I feel that particular grammatical construction belongs to entities beyond the ken of mortals - i.e., I only refer to God in caps.


k, this made me giggle.....to me, "god" is a job title, not the specific name of a Deity.

and as i told Daddy one time "hearing OH GOD in the dark does NOT make one a Deity"  (which was a well deserved swat, but that's the way it is sometimes)

kitten, who is irreverent and loved for/despite it.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.515625E-02