Grammar Nazis: Useful Language Experts, Or Elitist Snobs?

from the well-this-ought-to-be-fun dept

I know that my grammar is not ideal, though I really do strive to get the basics right. There are times, however, when I feel that the strict "rules" that are put forth by grammar go too far. If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem? On top of that, there's the utter snobbishness with which some (no, not all!) grammar aficionados put down anyone who makes a silly mistake. I have no problem with someone letting me know about a typo or a grammatical problem in a friendly and useful manner -- but all too often the message is delivered in the tone suggesting that making such an elementary grammatical error suggests that I obviously never made it out of the second grade. So I'm glad to see an English professor taking on the grammar nazis.

Salon is running a review of a new book by English professor Jack Lynch, called The Lexicographer's Dilemma, which argues that grammar nazis should chill out. Grammar rules are mostly to make people feel elite, not to make them any clearer, according to the book. Again, I have no problem with basic grammar rules for the sake of clarity, but focusing too much on the rules over the clarity is a mistake, and it's nice to see at least some "experts" agreeing.

128 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes

from the oh-come-on dept

It's really funny to watch the entertainment industry lobbyists use a popular trick among disingenuous debaters: it tries to flip the arguments being used towards themselves against their opponents. For example, we've seen copyright maximalists argue against those of us who question the need for gov't intervention in issues like copyright claim that copyright represents a true free market, and weakening copyright law is somehow unfair gov't meddling in the free market. The latest trick is particularly neat. Plenty of people argue that all of the attempted changes that the entertainment industry has been pushing for around the world are unnecessary attempts by this industry to prop up an obsolete business model. Would you believe that the entertainment industry is now using the same language in favor of its proposals?

Indeed. As lots of people are pushing back on dangerous plans to "kick people off the internet," ISPs have pointed out how costly such a three strikes policy would be for ISPs who are suddenly drafted to be copyright police. In response, the head of BPI, the major UK music lobbyist group, responded by charging that ISPs were relying on an obsolete business model. Seriously:

"BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading. That's not only unfair to artists and creators, but penalises BT's many customers who use the internet legally,"

This implies -- incorrectly -- that file sharing is somehow a massive boon to ISPs. The very same ISPs who keep claiming they need to use traffic shaping to prevent any network from being overloaded by file sharing. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that ISPs are relying on file sharing as any sort of business model at all. A huge percentage of people have internet access, not because of file sharing, but because these days it's hard to get through life without an internet connection. Suggesting that they make their money because of file sharing is patently ridiculous. It's the sort of thing that a reporter should push back on, when an industry rep spews such nonsense.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?

from the questions-questions-questions dept

In the past, we've discussed the various problems with the language choices by the entertainment industry in discussing file sharing. Terms like "intellectual property," "piracy," "theft" and even its descriptions of "losses" are all misleading and biased. This, in fact, is a key point in William Patry's upcoming book -- where he looks at how the language has been co-opted by the industry to pre-bias the casual observer (including journalists and politicians). Ben Jones is wondering if there can even be a "fair trial" for file sharers given this widespread use of biased language. It's a decent question, and goes back to an earlier point we raised about why the jury verdicts in the recent file sharing trials were hardly a good barometer on the public's understanding of copyright issues. When the industry has been so successful in choosing language that so clearly biases the casual observer (and is then able to exclude anyone who is actually knowledgeable about the subject from the jury), it shouldn't be any surprise at all that rulings will tend towards those who have been able to define the terms.

69 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Using Trademark To 'Privatize The English Language'

from the did-you-(R)-that? dept

Jeanne sent in news of yet another overly aggressive trademark claim, this time on a blogger who just so happened to use the phrase "feel the fear and do it anyway" in a blog post. Apparently, that's also the title of some book that neither I nor the blogger in question has ever heard of -- but the author's lawyers insisted that since the title is trademarked, the blogger needed to add the (R) symbol after his quote, and include a message claiming "This is the registered trademark of Susan Jeffers, Ph.D. and is used with her permission." The blogger, Leo Babauta, has decided not to give in, pointing out how ridiculous it is to "privatize the English language" this way:

I find it unbelievable that a common phrase (that was used way before it was the title of any book) can be trademarked. We're not talking about the names of products... we're talking about the English language. You know, the words many of us use for such things as ... talking, and writing, and general communication? Perhaps I'm a little behind the times, but is it really possible to claim whole chunks of the language, and force people to get permission to use the language, just in everyday speech?

Well, that's for the lawyers to figure out, but trademark law is only supposed to apply to use in commerce, and it seems like a stretch to claim the blog post is use in commerce (though, since the blog has ads, the lawyers might disagree). However, the fact that the use of the phrase seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the book again raises questions about how this could possibly be considered confusing or dilutive of the mark. Either way, Barbauta makes a point we've been trying to make here for a long, long time:

As an aside, I think the idea of jealously protecting copyright and trademarks, in this digital age, is outdated and ignorant. You want your ideas to spread, and you should encourage people to spread your ideas, not put up all kinds of boundaries and restrictions and obstacles to that being done. This blog, for example, is Uncopyrighted, and will always be free, because I want people to spread my posts and ideas. I think it's actually good for me as a writer, and it's (not insignificantly) better for the writing community in general if we can share each others' work freely. I'm hoping that with posts like this, and the good work of thousands of other like-minded people, the old mindset of fencing off ideas and language will slowly change.

Exactly.

68 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Microsoft Parrots Google In Suggesting Tie-Up With Yahoo Violates Antitrust Laws

from the just-stay-quiet dept

Back in February, we pointed out that Google was playing with fire in suggesting that a Microsoft-Yahoo merger would violate antitrust laws. It seemed fairly obvious that those statements would come back to haunt Google -- a company many others have been accusing of antitrust violations. And, indeed, even with Microsoft still trying to buy Yahoo, Microsoft is now making nearly identical antitrust claims against Google concerning its ad deal with Yahoo. It's all legal posturing, of course, in an attempt to get the government to annoy a competitor. As Declan McCullagh points out at the link above, if either company really believes that the other was violating antitrust laws, it's perfectly free to file a private antitrust lawsuit. But, instead, both companies are playing a game in trying to get the government to be a pest for the other -- and now they get to use each other's scary monopoly language when tossing around accusations as well. So once again, might we suggest that both Microsoft and Google might be better off keeping their mouths zipped on anything involving antitrust violations from the other one?

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

W00t! I'm The Word Of The Year! Merriam-Webster Is Totally l337!

from the m3rr14m-w3b$73r dept

Back in 2001, the folks at the Oxford English Dictionary caused a little stir with they added Homer Simpson's "Doh!" to their dictionary of the English language. Merriam-Webster has upped the ante now by not only adding "w00t" to the dictionary, but choosing it as the 2007 word of the year. Last year, "truthiness" beat out "google" for the honor. When asked about the numerical characters in word, Merriam-Webster John Webster explained that this "is simply a different and more efficient way of representing the alphabetical character." Um, more efficient? Hardly -- w00t is from leet speak, and the orthographic substitutions of numbers for certain letters are intended to make more secure, yet easily remembered words for passwords. Is Merriam-Webster grasping for attention? With traffic on sites like urban dictionary catching up to Merriam-Webster, perhaps they wanted to curry favor with all of the l33t kids.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..