its nice to see prime examples of taking exactly what you want to from a statement and not including the entire sentence. This is probably why you seem to bitch constantly about these things instead of making the effort to go beyond them.

Sorry I botherd.

You know, if everyone was telling me that I couldn't read, I might start to listen eventually.

Are you even reading what I am writing? I am not saying it is ok not to proof check your work and I have said multiple times now that I am not talking about spelling mistakes. I said specifically that not using the spell checker is unacceptable.

I am saying that for other grammatical problems it may not be a lack of attention to detail, but rather a poor understanding of the english language. And that no every job requires that you write very well. And it is unfortunate to eliminate qualified candidates based on that.

Chubby - the fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. When you call people "fags" (as you have repeatedly defended on this board), you say you don't see homophobia. When you call Noop/HFP racists because they think white America often screws over black America, you don't see your own racism. When you say that people who have trouble speaking English are situated the same as people with body odor, you don't see prejudice. Maybe you don't see it because you don't want to - not because it isn't there.

And Chubby - almost eveyone on this board disagrees with me (I'm used to that) - you are one of a very small number that seems incapable of having a discussion.

And yet not everyone can learn the language so that they have the same accent/grammar/pronounciation. I guess they should be blamed and try harder rather than actually encouraging tolerance. When people come to this country (or even grow up) speaking other languages or having different accents, we should welcome them, not tell them that they suck for being different.

And you use being a programmer as an example. You don't think that you need a good understanding of the english language to be a programmer???

We're not talking complicated language components, you used its instead of it's as an example. This is basic. Every job does require you to communicate well which is what you are trying to do through a resume. If you can't tell someone that "they are doing..." but tell them "their doing..." then you can't communicate on a high school level.

I can't say I disagree with this. Clearly you have to be able to manage the process and you have to weed out the candidates some how.

So I guess I would have to say that if you are doing it simply because otherwise the list of candidates is unmanagebale then it is still unfortunate, but somethign that probably can't be avoided. In the example that started this conversation though the question was would you be more inclined to listen to a person speaking proper english or in slang. So if we are talking about only two resumes and one deosn't use an ' correctly while the other one does, but everything else looks equal. I think it would be a shame not to talk to both of them.

Who can't learn the language? The people that are too lazy to be bothered?

I would like to say I am one of those you can not hold a discussion with and I am someone no one agrees with also.

Whenever the team I am on is looking for a new member, we have to inform the "recruitment specialists" that we do not want them to exclude anybody and to send us ALL resumes directly and let us make up our own minds. They balk. A VP has to sign off on our request. Inevitably, we still find out that the "recruitment specialists" discarded some for arbitrary reasons and have actually hired from that discard pile in the past. We do our best to prevent what you are talking about. It also demonstrates that, when your frontline resume-sorters (really, that is all they seem to be) know nothing about the jobs they are "recruiting" for, they will discard good candidates. Some teams/managers/companies want to get it right, but others just let the game play out and rob themselves of great talent.

Just try. Try to read. I've given many examples (of which I'm sure you will only reply to one and compare it to body odor): immigrants who are learning a second language, regional accents and dialects that are hard to shed, people who grew up in the US speaking different languages, and people who grew up in the US speaking a variation of English. I guess all the immigrants are "lazy?"

I said what HFP SAID was racist not that HE was racist, again RE READ John. Yet you talk about only wanting to see what I want to see supposedly. And Noop called me racist not the other way around, but again, believe what you want.

"When you call Noop/HFP racists because they think white America often screws over black America, you don't see your own racism."

Where the hell am I racist in that? Since a) I never said they were and b) I have said numerous times that it happens but I haven't seen it to the extent that noop claims. But w/e John, whatever you say is gold right?

As has been proven in other threads, I don't agree with you either. This is actually a first.

how many times do I have to say it? I'm not talking about accents, damn you are slow. FUCKING READ, seriously.

It IS acceptable for all people to be able to speak english in an acceptable manner. No where have I ever said "if they speak with an accent then I'd ignore them". Don't speak slang, don't speak another language then you turn around and say "not everyone can learn english". Yes they can, it might take them a while (for immigrants as an example) but they CAN learn it.

Calling someone's words racist and calling them a racist is a distinction without difference (unless the words are spoken as an accident). People are called racist based on their actions.

As for your racism, I'm not going to bother. You won't read it anyway.

In my humble, pointless, opinion, it seems it all boils down to this:

Everyone have to make their own way in life, the way they best see fit. Nothing is going to be handed to you, and you aren't entitled to have everything you want. If you aren't happy with your situation, you have to stop, take stock of the situation, and see what needs to change. Maybe it's behavior (or behaviour for our UK friends), language, location, approach, mindset, whatever. If you are happy with your situation and the way things are progressing, then keep on keepin' on. It's your own responsibility to make your way, not the responsibility or fault of anyone else.

you see, this is the whole point, of course there are those who simply don't have the aptitude or abiility to get to that higher level, but those people are the VAST minority.

This whole discussion isn't about the extremes, its about the mainstream, and right now the mainstream in this country seems to be the chant "We don't want to try harder so you have to accept us and treat us equally with those that do"

and that, I say, is horse shit.

If I have to hire someone for a position, ANY position, and my top three candidates come in for interviews, ALL else being equal, I'm going to hire the candidate I can understand and communicate with the easiest, because THAT is whts best for my company.

Is that racist? prejudiced? bigoted? no, thats common sense. I will tolerate almost anything in my personal activities, but when it comes to a work situation, take your "jive" and "street lingo" and stuff it womewhere dark and quiet, because it won't be acceptable in relating to co workers or customers.

The wisdom of the Afoci (when not crawfish related) is strong. I'm going to listen to him and VPI97 on this one.

Ok... who wants Jell-O?

No I don't believe you do need to be able to write well to be a good programmer. And I know several very good programmers who consistently make the mistakes we are talking about here in e-mails to me. They are all college graduates, but for whatever reason consistently use the wrong to or the wrong their. However they are excellent coders.


I agree with you that we are not talking about very complicated rules. At the same time that still doesn't make someone a poor programmer. It makes them a poor writer. I am in no way saying that it wouldn't benefit everyone to both be excellent writers and speak proper english. I am however saying that I have seen people who have had "perfect" resumes get jobs over more qualified people for silly little mistakes and the company was worse off because of it.

Ok John. If your are defining stupid people as a race then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Otherwise w/e. You won't bother because you have no basis in fact.

It may be a distinction without difference to YOU but not to me. Ooops, everything must be based around what you believe, sorry...

Considering the Thread title, it has to be a Jell-O Pudding Pop.

Only if it's a pudding pop!

This one seemed to slip through unnoticed, and I'm curious why you differentiate between the two. Perhaps a different thread would be in order, but I'm interested in your reasoning.

Dear god no!

Am I the only one who sees a difference between the following:
accents v. slang(dialect)
immigrant v. natural born citizen
person attending english class all their live v. immigrant/naturalized immigrant.

Heck I can drive down the street and see signs in Spanish all over down here anyways. We do not have an "official" language, but in the business world for the most part English is implied.

Technically 95% of us do not speak proper English. I type it much better than I talk it.

I believe you are one of the few as am I. Particulary on the 1st item.

I think precisely for the reasons stated here about resumes. It is much easier to work hard in preparing written work and using "proper English" in a resume than it is to adapt in spoken English. I think people should be expected to be correct in grammar and spelling when they have time to edit and check. Unfortunately, our brains can't do that when it comes to spoken English.

Yes. Even though I am the one using them interchangably, I think there are important differences. Still, I think at the core, discrimination on any of them is dangerous (with the exception of use of words in improper settings).

Accents are distinct from dialects but they typically go hand in hand. Exceptions are generally those who speak the language as a second language--and thus learn the "proper" language, but still speak it with an accent (of their native tongue).

You mean like when you say you can define "fag" as being not offensive and ignore EVERYONE who is offended by the use of the term?

How was calling Noop/HFP's words "racist" calling them "stupid?" How can anyone be called "racist" if it isn't based on their words and actions?

OK. Side note, but I'm curious to the difference y'all see between an "accent" and "dialect" (and perhaps it is just semantics...)

Where is your evidence for this assertion? Are the millions of people in NYC who speak with accents that are hard for many to understand lazy or stupid?

Instead of just outright calling "bullshit" on this, I think we should take up a collection and send you to spend the summer with Sky Dog.:D

I think it is mostly semantics, but I think a dialect has different words whereas an accent has different pronounciations. I'm not sure where things like "ya'll" fall.

I'd say there is a huge difference between accent and slang. I think a discerning person would be able to pick that out.

So are you lazy or stupid? ;)

Note who you are talking to when you said that.

It depends on what you call "slang." Is "ya'll" slang - in NYC it is. Is "axe" slang - in Iowa it is. Is saying "like" every other word slang - in some parts of California it may not be. I've never defended the use of four letter words or inappropriate language in certain settings (like work), but I'm not sure all "slang" is unacceptable in those settings.

That being said, I think there is a difference between accent and slang, but I think language discrimination on either can be troublesome (with the caveats I made above).

It's y'all!!!

I'd classify "y'all", "mamanem", "dadgum", etc. as colloquialisms, fwiw.

My Yankee roots show. :p

Well, I generally use the two interchangeably, though that may not be the correct usage. I usually use "dialect" as a particular manner of speaking, not necessarily as slang. Perhaps we just use different meanings of the word. I can see how dialect would fit in with slang, although I feel slang is completely different from accents.

Although I will agree accents and dialect go hand and hand.

Can we ask the people who do not want to speak correct English which word does not seem to fit in with the rest?

Accents are just that. How we say the words we do. A southerner and a midwesterner will pronounce the word bag or greasy two different ways, but the words still have the same meanings.

Dialects are broader and include localized words and/or meanings of words (as well as the accent). Off the top of my head, a southerner referring to pulled pork as barbecue is one example (that may be a bad example, but I think foods are often cases where we see differences).

It is often hard to separate the two, because accent plays a big part in dialect. The one example I can think of, which I gave previously, is someone who becomes fluent in a second language through formal education. An American who learns to speak French at a school in Paris will likely speak with an American accent, but not an American dialect.

Does this make sense at all?

According to linguists (may or not be cunning, I don't have 1st hand knowledge), a dialect is a regional variation in pronunciation by a mother-tongue speaker, and an accent is pronunciation in a language other than mother-tongue.

Grammar and spelling defined by whom?

Jesus

Completely.

There I would say conventional English books on style and form (although I'm not as tight on some rules as someone like QS).

The way I have always seen it:

Dialect: The most common example I can think of is down here. "I want a coke" Now coke is not necessarily a Coca-Cola. "coke" = anything

A friend of mine from Vermont says "I want a soda". "soda" = anything

In both cases, they then turn around and specify what exactly they want.

Accent is myself and my friend both saying the word "soda". I say "so-dah", he says "soooooo-dah."

Can you elaborate on why you consider writing (and by inference, reading) conventional English as a different issue than speaking it?

Print v. vocal... come on Coug, even you can understand that... even the Court makes a distinction. :)

I agree with that description. As long as you don't say the p dash dash word :D

When I visited my grandparents in Georgia they told me about the "coke" thing and I got totally screwed up the couple of days I was down there heh.

Easy, there, Mac. I want to see the difference in the context of this greater argument.

I think the key differences are time and how are brain works. When you write, you generally have more time to refine and perfect your writing (and you should push yourself to do that). When you speak, you don't have time to refine your words. While you can work on your speaking to make it conform, that is a much more difficult process. Therefore I'm much more tolerant of "errors" and "imperfections" in spoken form than in written form (especially when it comes to things like resumes). I would never hold someone to the same standards on their resume as I would in a spoken interview (although they both serve the same purpose).

yeah, I had to adjust from pop to soda when I moved down South... granted I was 6 months old at the time, but it was difficult.

Its great when my cousins come down to visit... they ask for a pop and get stared at or order tea and are shocked to get sweetend iced tea.

Don't try to be punny or else I'll pwn you.

However, I think there is a difference between imperfections in speech (such as mispronounced words, incorrectly used words...) and using slang.

When you hear a prepared speech, do you not subliminally hold it to a higher standard because it was prepared ahead of time?

We chastise our own Presidents because when they are on the cuff (ie away from their prepared speech) they blunder English themselves.

Correct me if I'm mis-stating your position, but this seems to imply that the same individuals you spoke of in your previous posts (like immigrants) should get no tolerance for their inability to communicate in written English. Correct?

And I'm not defending most slang - but things that are accepted in subcultures (like "y'all") are fine with me. Words like "shit," however, usually are inappropriate.

Growing up in Syracuse it's always been soda so when I went to lacrosse camp before college started in Buffalo I went to the snack shack and ordered a hot dog. The girl asked if I wanted any pop to which I stared at her for like 5 minutes with a confused look on my face til she said "You know, orange, cola..." and I go "OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH soda!" and she gave me a funny look back :)

But "shit" may be accepted in certain subcultures. Or are we only accepting certain subcultures now? I know in the high school subculture "shit" and "fucK" are 2 of the most commonly used words.

accent = the way words are pronounced

dialect = different words mean different things in different places. shopping cart vs. carriage, soda vs. pop, etc...

I think that was the point Cosby trying to make in his rant, that these are not imperfections, but just a bastardization of the English language that people are trying to use in all manners of life, and they cannot understand why they get rejected when they do so.

Thats some fucking shit bitch.

But a presidential speech is a different form of communication, and certainly wouldn't be considered "basic."

As for chastising presidents, I only do so when they make fools of themselves. They stumble because they are trying to remember their prepared stance on topics. By all accounts, George W. Bush is a very personable individual and a great communicator face-to-face.

Was she hot, becuase that would have made staring easier... and my cousins are from Illinois, so its a bit different from NY.

Yeah she was hot, was only working the snack shack cause she was a lacrosse groupie. It made it easier on the eyes to be staring at her trying to figure out what the hell "pop" was :D

You should have replied, "I don't know what this pop is; but if you're a virgin, we can try to find out." Asking for sex outright seems to work with groupies... mmmm soccer groupies.

No. They should always be tolerated, but they may not get the job in front of me if they can't meet minimal standards of writing. This can also be true of speaking, but only in the case of incomprehensibility or extreme disfunction. As I've said in many other threads, tolerance does not equal relativism.

Certain words (like racial slurs) are inappropriate in almost every occassion. Other words (like swear words) are inappropriate in some occassions. Tolerating difference doesn't mean you have to accept everything in all situations.

Wow, not to get off topic. But outside a release of a new text sim, this has got to be the fastest growing thread I've seen in my time at FOFC.

I actually don't care about the Cosby thing. I thought this whole discussion was a tangent. Maybe that is a cause for confusion.

I have to admit I always find it funny in these grammar discussions when a person pushing for proper grammar has a grammatical mistake in their statement. :)

its (sic) not funny! :D

Dola,

I would also like to point out that I ran that sentence through Word's spelling and grammar checker and it said it was fine. That grammar checker is a great tool. :)

:p

And remember - I'm the one who is supposed to be pushing for "anything goes."

Your day is now complete.

The way I hear "nigga" being thrown around in public leads me to believe that it has acceptance and appropriateness in most social settings.

you keep thinking that you cracka.

Not when used as a slur.

I still can't get used to white teens and black teens saying, "What up nigga?" to each other...

"Fo shizzle mah nizzle" :D

or if you don't like that saying,

"I am completely in concert with your line of thinking on this matter, Mr. SkyDog" :D

I think you're hedging your bets a little, JG. Explain why I can't substitute the word "speaking" for the word "writing" in your statement above. Both are integral forms of communication in the workplace; speaking is certainly so, writing perhaps less so.

They are both equally valuable (at least in my profession). I've never denied that. I've also said that is how most people will treat them. However, I'm preaching tolerance in speaking because it is much harder to conform speaking habits (especially for people who weren't raised speaking "proper English") than it is to conform to writing habits. I respect difference where there is reason to - that doesn't mean all difference should be tolerated. Again, tolerance does not mean acceptance of everything.

A few general observations:

- Regarding John Galt's points about tolerance of spoken english; while many would like to think that 'proper' english is static, it's not; take a look at books from prior centuries and take note, not just of different spellings, but of how people spoke (and wrote) as compared to today. 'Proper' english is in fact a slowly evolving thing that is generally pushed in new directions by hip slang that survives into the mainstream culture.

- That said, I think that there are rather obvious distinctions in what is appropriate speech given the context. I speak differently around my friends than I do at work, or around my parents, or in formal situations. If I'm meeting someone for the first time I will likely use more formal english until I get familiar with them and guage how casual they are with their speech and calibrate what's appropriate around them and what isn't.

- I fully recognize that as an upper middle-class white male born in an accent-free region of the country I have a big leg up in this category from someone that comes from a region, economic status or cultural situation different from mine. Thus, it's hard for me to fully understand the impact on the expectations of speaking 'proper' english in comparison to say Noop. It's easier for me to fall into this kind of speech, and doing so doesn't carry nearly the same political/cultural overtones as it may for Noop (I'm assuming this from his comments already in this thread - I apologize if I've mischaracterized him).

- Interestingly enough, I've been in situations where I felt I was at a disadvantage in terms of spoken english. I've worked with athletes on a number of different occasions, most of them minorities. They were all capable of speaking 'proper' english, but around each other they preferred to speak with more of a 'street' slang. When we've had game designers with us on these situations that were black, they were able to communicate with them much more easily on their level, whereas I felt a little out of the loop. I could've tried to fit in, like "Yo dog, whatup?" but coming from me saying it to them it would look forced and kind of silly, whereas I can talk like that to my white co-workers and we both recognize the humor in geeky white guys trying to talk street.

- Bottom line, I think it's important to recognize that most people make some kind of sacrifice or sacrifices in order to get ahead in their lives. They may not like it, and they might want to work to change expectations when they reach positions of power and authority, but sometimes you have to play the game in order to get anywhere. You can accept this, work your way into the system until you're in a position to change things, or you can sit on the sidelines complaining about how unfair it is while not getting anywhere. I'm very lucky in that I work for a very casual, tolerant company - on any given day I'll run into a whole range of different looking people, from those who are clean-cut and wearing suits to those in t-shirts and shorts with scruffy beards to those with multiple piercings and ornate tattoos, and pretty much anything in-between. That said, you can't just walk up and down the halls screaming "Whazzup bitch? Yo, that shit you sent me is all fucked-up, knowwhatI'msayin'?"

^^Very Well said. And you didn't mischaracterized me I just can't convey what my opinions are toward a given topic very well. So I did it to myself because I chose to join this debate knowing full well I can really explain myself without shooting myself in the foot or worse someone else.

Aww, dawg. How you gonna treat a nigga like that? Crackers are down, too. Jive turkey man!

You almost had me fooled but you messed up at one small point. It is Cracka'z and no one says Jive unless your talking about the record label. One more thing the right way to say what you said is this...

Dang, P... How you gon do a nigga like dat? Dem Cracka'z be riding at times... (end)
I have no idea what jive turkey mean....lol

:)

noop

Okay, I haven't read all of the discussion yet, but can guess what has been said.

Until anyone defines 'proper english', then the argument is impossible.

That's whack, yo.

Okay, I'll add something to the discussion other than ask a dissmissive question.

Firstly, what dialect and accent you use whilst speaking does have a huge impact on the impression you give to other people, but in different situations, different dialects carry different prestige. Howard Giles' proved this by delivering two identical presentations on a controversial topic to different groups of Birmingham sixth-formers (16-18 year old students taking A-Levels (optional qualifications required to go to uni), one in a brummie accent (think Ozzie Osbourne) and one with Recieved Pronounciation (think 1940's BBC newsreader). Afterwards, the audiences were surveyedfor their opinion's on Giles' inteligence and knowledge. Those who hear the presentation in RP rated him considerably higher than those who heard him give the very same presentation in their own accent and dialect. So, it undoubtably has an effect. However, we all knew that already. :p

Another important piece off study is that of overt and covert prestige. For example, in the UK, RP ('The Queen's English') has overt prestige, i.e. it carries connotations of power and authority. An American equivelent would be the New England, JFK-esque accent maybe? However in the last few decades, these accents have fallen out of fashion and are seen as outdated, oldfashioned and are often parodied or satirised. In the UK 'Estuary English' (named after the Thames estuary, from where the accent originated) is quickly becoming the new standard, popularised by many celebrities such as Johnathon Ross (it sounds kind of like a soft cockney accent). The best American equivelent I can think of is the Mid-West, Jimmy Stewart accent. My (rather rambling) point is that what is the 'in' accent changes nand it changes by whom has power at what time. In the past, power, economic and political, was much more concentrated and climbing the social ladder was very difficult. In the 21st century, social mobility is multiple times greater than it was in the early 20th. Also, the proliferation of the media through television and the creation of the celebrity concept has changed the sources from whom we take our language, be it 50 cent, David Beckham, Tom Hanks, whoever. The prestigious accent doesn't just change over time either but from place to place too. I imagine that if you went into downtown Detroit and started trying to speak to some kids in a 'proper' American English accent you would be laughed off the street, or worse. If I entred a pub in Liverpool and started trying to talk to some of the locals, I would be seen as a 'posh southerner' because of my home counties accent and probably wouldn't get very far. Yet in the workplace, I am probably in a better position language wise then they are. In fact, my very English accent probably carries more weight than an 'urban-black' American one in America. The prestige of an accent depends entirely on the context. Just because you would be of benefit to speak in certain way in order to get a job does not make that certain way 'proper' english, or 'correct' english, or even 'preffered' english. I can certainly see the 'black uraban hip-hop' (for want of a better term) dialect making more inroads into society in the future to the extent that it will have overt as well as covert prestige. In fact, then it will probably lose it's covert prestige and the youth of the english speaking world will invent their own new dialect. And so the circle continues.

Remember there once was no such thing as 'proper english'.... but then the printing press was invented.

Wow, that was a rambly long post that actaully seems to have little to do with the subject. But what the heck.

There is no such thing as 'accent free', it is just that your accent is more highly valued at the present time by the media establishment that it seems to be accent free. In 100 years time, people will hear recordings of you speaking and laugh. (Nothing personal ;))

*referenced from: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...6&postcount=83

Well yeah, as it stands currently I live in a part of the country with no overt accent as determined by the 'norm'. Another way of putting it is that my speech is bland in comparison to pronounced accents.

As you say, the norms will likely be different in 100 years.

Honestly, speaking with an accent isn't a real problem, accents may be hard to understand, but in fact they're using the same words. The problem comes in when street jargon and other language words are entered into the conversations instead of using the english equivelents.

We're not discussing accents. We're discussing the inability or unwillingness to use the english language properly.

As for my evidence its based soley on my travels around the world. I've been to many foreign countries (17) and 38 of the 50 States. I've had to converse with people from all walks of life from the rich to the destitute.

In my experience I cannot actually say I think ANYONE is "unable" to learn and use english in a way that makes them easily understood, my own experience in fact, shows me that those who cannot be understood generally aren't willing to make the effort to do so.

I've tutored high school kids from the Alameda projects who could barely speak english, and those kids by the end of our tutoring, had learned, simply from working with me and others. (we tutored them in math, the language benefit was simply a great icing on their cake)

I made the statement earlier that there may be some who simply can't, because I wanted to give some of them the benefit of the doubt.

I believe ANYONE can learn, but not everyone is willing to do the work.

If people aren't willing to learn to communicate in the common language of the job/school/task/group etc etc, then they are only limiting themselves, because others will be chosen before they will.


As I said to Noop's post earlier, compaining about people not picking you for a job based on how you talk is their right, and complaining about such a thing is pitifully sad. Take responsibility for yourself, learn to communicate, get the job you want by providing the skills required, which, I'm sorry to say, might mean you have to learn to speak more clearly and use proper grammar in the work place.

I applaude Cosby for what he said, but after reading the article, my first thought was - what kind of reaction would this get if it was said by Rush Limbaugh, or some other white conservative?