[Randman]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

Our president cannot articulate verbally, can you imagine what his letter writing skills are. Where does this place him in this intelligent scale??

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters and the grammar and expression is far superior to our current era

Was this post meant in a facetious manner?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters and the grammar and expression is far superior to our current era

As PacHead said, grammar and expression were both very different 150 years from what they are now. That doesn't mean they were far superior to their present counterparts. I'm sure there were many people back then who were appalled by the atrocious spelling and grammar (or lack thereof) in those same letters; people who would say that they'd had the pleasure of reading many Boston Tea Party era letters, and that both the grammar and the expression in these letters were far superior to this mangled English found in this linguistically savage and bastardised Civil War age.

The point is that written language has always, in every language (okay, almost every language) been traditionalist. As a matter of logic, the written language is slower to change than the spoken language, since new expressions are, almost without exception, made up in conversations, and the 'bastardisation' of our languages comes from using words in fast speech, ie. without having the time to reflect upon whether we're really using the correct word here. There is much more freedom in speech, also because we have more aids in speech than in writing, such as body language, intonation, and facial expressions; in writing, we have to rely completely on the common conceptions we have of certain types of linguistic constructions and build-ups, conceptions that we only have because we've seen them in writing before, and have some sort of literary 'precedence' for them.


(And was it on purpose, might I ask, that you, in the exact sentence where you praised Civil War grammar and expression, made both a grammatical error and an expressional error? )

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Oisín

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here: you are saying that the US is the system where “all kids get an academic program”, and Denmark is the one where “only those who have been selected on the basis of aptitude get that academic program”?

If so, I should note that entry into the Danish gymnasium is not based on aptitude, it's the choice of the student him- or herself. The student's class teacher in folkeskolen does give a 'verdict' on whether or not the teacher believes the student would be suited, perhaps suited, or not suited for gymnasium, but this is not a final verdict, and only students who really in no way are fit to take an academic route (and in very close to all cases, these are the ones who wouldn't dream of wanting to sit through three more years of school anyway) are declared not suited, and usually, it is up to the student him- or herself if he/she wants to take three more years of theory-inclined school.

The point is more basic than this. If one of your academically-inclined Gymnasium students goes on an exchange to a US high school, he is not going to the equivalent of a Gymnasium. He is going to a school that includes all students, whether academically-inclined or not. It's like a combination of a Gymnasium (in the German sense, I am unfamiliar with Denmark) and a Hochschule, or trade school. That will change things somewhat, because your Gymnasium doesn't have to address the entire bell curve of abilities. Imagine if the kids from the German Hochschule sat the Arbitur. It would change the way the subjects for the Arbitur was taught -- and possibly what is on the Arbitur. With a different student body the education has to be somewhat different.

You can look at what results from that in one of two ways. One way is to say that the US high school has lowered standards to accommodate the less gifted as well as the gifted. That is looking at it from the perspective of the academically-gifted.

The other way to look at it is from the perspective of the entire population, not just the academically gifted. The people who would be weeded out of a Gymnasium instead receive a more academically-rigorous education in the US than they would do elsewhere.

In other words, either way you do it, there is a trade off. In the US the trade off is that academically-gifted kids aren't stretched as early -- they have to spend an extra year or so in college doing things that in other countries they might have done in high school. So college is 4 years, not 3. Big deal. But the other side of the equation is a more uniform basic eduction for a larger cross-section of the population. The trade off of academic streaming is a lower quality education for everyone who doesn't make it into the academic system. To be blunt, it writes the plebs off.

But in neither case have you made a like-with-like comparison that truly lets you say that US school in general are not as good as other schools, because you have made your comparison by conveniently excluding a sizable chunk of your population - unless you are really suggesting that the kids on the exchange program came from trade school, which I highly doubt.

Of course, the argument for streaming is efficiency. Why make a welder take physics if all he has (or wants) to do is learn to weld. On some levels that works as an argument. Certainly, a lot of kids hate school and want nothing more than to leave as soon as possible. The problem is twofold:

First, the kid might just be immature, and that is pretty much what happened to me. I went to a Comprehensive and came very close to leaving school at 16 to run a camera shop. That is really all I wanted to do at that age. Fortunately, my mother said no and I stayed in school long enough to do my A Levels, but I really didn't apply myself academically until I went back to college as an adult. So that is one problem - too aggressive streaming can stream out gifted but immature kids before they have had a chance to learn their abilities.

The other problem is what I saw in my school mates. The biggest determinant between who went into an academic program and who left school for apprenticeships and the like wasn't ability, it was expectations -- mostly as a result of class. The bright working class kids left school, and the less bright middle class kids didn't. I don't think that is a good thing to encourage. I think it is better to keep all kids in academic education a little longer to give them at least the chance of either proving themselves, or at discovering their own abilities. Of course, at some point, you do have to let people decide for themselves. But 18 is an age when people have a little more maturity and independence than 16, and that seems to me to be the better cut off. After that, people can go to welding school or college as they want.

But with such different systems, you can't make a like-with-like comparison.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters and the grammar and expression is far superior to our current era

Then what you read were exceptions.

Most Confederate soldiers couldn't read or write. The few who could give first grade teachers heart attacks with their spelling and grammar.

Yankee soldiers were better off, but not by much. Young children in grade schools, nineteenth century and current grade schools alike, still come off like geniuses compared to them.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

But in neither case have you made a like-with-like comparison that truly lets you say that US school in general are not as good as other schools, because you have made your comparison by conveniently excluding a sizable chunk of your population - unless you are really suggesting that the kids on the exchange program came from trade school, which I highly doubt.

Actually, some of them did - of the Danish ones, at least. It's not all that uncommon for trade school students to take a year abroad here; it's not something reserved for the 'academically gifted'. It's also not uncommon for kids to take a year abroad (especially in the US) between folkeskolen (ie. 9th grade) and their first year at gymnasium/trade school/whatever. They then follow the first year of an American high school and then come back to Denmark to start gymnasium afterwards. Even there, I've heard many say that they learnt very little in high school in America, since much of what was taught was almost exactly the same as they had been taught in 9th/10th grade in folkeskolen at home.

The other problem is what I saw in my school mates. The biggest determinant between who went into an academic program and who left school for apprenticeships and the like wasn't ability, it was expectations -- mostly as a result of class. The bright working class kids left school, and the less bright middle class kids didn't. I don't think that is a good thing to encourage.

I think there is another determinant that comes into play here: social class. Both in the US, the UK, and in Germany, social classes are far more defined and differentiated than here. In Denmark, more than 90% of the pupils are middle-class kids. We're a country that consists of little more than a working middle class.

Because there is so little difference in social class, there are fewer expectations connected to class, and it's not at all uncommon that a kid from a family that's very well off chooses to go to a trade school. As an example, an old classmate of mine: he lived about half a mile from me (both my parents have higher educations and quite well-paid jobs, and his were about the same, though I can't remember what they did), and he went off to trade school after 9th grade to become an electrician. Contrarily, a first generation immigrant girl who was also in my class, and whose family was not very well off (they lived in the 'poor' part of town, if you can talk about a poor part of town in Suburbia, Denmark), is now studying comparative cultural studies and Hindu religious images in university.

A factor to all this is of course also that education, including university, is free, and we have the EGLS (the Education Grant and Loan Scheme [SU in Danish], by which a student is entitled to a certain amount of money every month [normally around $600-650] for up to 72 months, while studying). These two facts combine to reduce pressure and necessity for young people to get jobs and make money early on, and gives them more time to focus on their studies.

But with such different systems, you can't make a like-with-like comparison.

Quite true, all said and done.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Oisín

In Denmark, more than 90% of the pupils are middle-class kids.

And everyone is above average.

As I say, I am not really qualified to make comparisons with Denmark. It's a small country with which I am unfamiliar. However, this web site indicates the school leaving age is 16. Education after that is voluntary and self-selected into either an academic program, or a trade school system. That is pretty much how it was when I lived in the UK (things have changed somewhat since I went to school there).

In the US the academic program is mandatory until age 18 regardless of ability. That makes like-with-like comparisons for 17 and 18 year olds in academic programs impossible. You are comparing different samples.

But in any case, such a strict comparison is misleading. You'd do better to look at society as a whole. If you take a look at this table, you can see that enrollment in higher education as a percentage of the population is much higher in the US than other peer countries. The US is a high access system (although it isn't free) to higher education, and nobody suggests that US higher education is substandard. So it is little misleading to point to only the academic corner of secondary education as the comparison when it appears that the overall goal of a well educated population is amply met.

There are a lot of ways to structure an education system and they can lead to different measures depending on what you want your education systems to do. I just get a little tired of the chest beating when people don't take the time to look beyond the surface. And having been through parts of two systems, I don't think the stereotype is accurate.

That's thrue even though Americans seem to be the ones most convinced that their education system sucks. Most of them, of course, have no personal experience to compare it with, and they make the same mistake when they see comparative statistics of assuming that other countries have the same structure as the US. Even when Americans go on exchange, they don't go to a trade school.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

And everyone is above average.

Of course - at least 115% above average

No, seriously - there is basically nothing but middle class here (by middle class, I mean the class that's located pretty much square in the middle, ie. neither rich nor poor; I'm not referring to the 'extra' meaning the word has required of 'upper layers of the middle class, one jot below upper-class'). Aurea mediocritas is pretty much the national motto here, and woe befall he that live not by it!

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

Our president cannot articulate verbally, can you imagine what his letter writing skills are. Where does this place him in this intelligent scale??

No, the president speaks Texan. Much like say the boys of Oasis speak ..well whatever dialect of English they speak.

I would not call them ignorant for it.

Besides pointing out such things is pretty darn petty.

[JERRYJERRYJERRY]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I've heard this over and over and over again. There are all kinds of different schools all over this country. Each has it's own level of adequacy.

To say American schools are inadequate is a uneducated thing to say.

Now, if you want to say "Some American schools do not teach what they should"

You would be correct.

But it's that way no matter where you go.

The problem with American students today, isn't their schools.

it is the teachers or it is the fault of tv.

[Floyd WHO]

Originally Posted by Randman

The political stuff doesn't need to be here. As far as I know, no world leaders have a blog going on or are regular posters to online forums.

Besides, should the location be Cocoa, FL?

This wasn't a political statement. simply a fact that if our leaders cannot articulate proficiently how can we expect ( well okay I guess it was a little political) our youth to.

And yes it is Cocoa FL, You got a problem with that

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by JERRYJERRYJERRY

it is the teachers or it is the fault of tv.

No, it's their own.

People need to stop looking for someone to blame.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

This wasn't a political statement. simply a fact that if our leaders cannot articulate proficiently how can we expect ( well okay I guess it was a little political) our youth to.

Little to do with articulation, and more to with public speaking.

I know MANY articulate people that aren't that great at speaking in public and pulling it off.

I have known many ignorant people that could pull off public speaking with a load of BS.

I'd rather have the first than than latter.

[wdlove]

I don't think that poor writing has anything to do with intelligence. If you are referring to legibility, you should try to read some physician s hand writing.

[JERRYJERRYJERRY]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This American is.

he is extra articulated. look at how his front foot is twisted to point down.

[storer]

This whole thread has sort of turned into a "Any word you use, I can use better" competition. Big words aren't all there is to proper English.

[Floyd WHO]

(And was it on purpose, might I ask, that you, in the exact sentence where you praised Civil War grammar and expression, made both a grammatical error and an expressional error? )[/QUOTE]


Where?

[lavar78]

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters and the grammar and expression is far superior to our current era

I'll add my two cents since you asked. The meaning of this sentence is pretty clear, but I definitely would've rewritten it. The "is" should be "are" because the subject is plural ("grammar and expression"). Furthermore, adding "those of" between "to" and "our" would be an improvement. Also, I'd replace the first "and" with a semicolon.

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters; the grammar and expression are far superior to those of our current era.

BTW, you're missing an earlier point: it's not "Cocoa FL" -- it's "Cocoa, FL" (or "Cocoa, Fla." if you want to be anal).

[sminch]

I think anyone who refuses to use the shift key properly... is not intelligent.

very true.

sminch

[docbud]

Just to chime in:

I personally think that it's more important so far as what the person is trying to say, and not how he spells (or misspells it).

I work in the book publishing field--and do you want to know something? A lot of the big time authors have lousy handwriting, inability to spell, and don't know a thing about grammar.

If you were to see some the original manuscript I get....

doc

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by lavar78

I'll add my two cents since you asked. The meaning of this sentence is pretty clear, but I definitely would've rewritten it. The "is" should be "are" because the subject is plural ("grammar and expression"). Furthermore, adding "those of" between "to" and "our" would be an improvement. Also, I'd replace the first "and" with a semicolon. Finally, shouldn't "Civil War era" be "Civil War-era"?

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War-era letters; the grammar and expression are far superior to those of our current era.

BTW, you're missing an earlier point: it's not "Cocoa FL" -- it's "Cocoa, FL" (or "Cocoa, Fla." if you want to be anal).

I go by the USPS abbreviations for states. Fla is FL in my book.

But isn't there a Cocoa Beach, FL? That's where Major Nelson shacked up with Jeannie and Maj. Healy, right?

[docbud]

Eynstyn--I think lavar78 is talking about the comma between city and state.

doc

[Floyd WHO]

Originally Posted by lavar78

I'll add my two cents since you asked. The meaning of this sentence is pretty clear, but I definitely would've rewritten it. The "is" should be "are" because the subject is plural ("grammar and expression"). Furthermore, adding "those of" between "to" and "our" would be an improvement. Also, I'd replace the first "and" with a semicolon.

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters; the grammar and expression are far superior to those of our current era.

BTW, you're missing an earlier point: it's not "Cocoa FL" -- it's "Cocoa, FL" (or "Cocoa, Fla." if you want to be anal).

So was the original sentence in error, or strictly grammatical eloquence.

[Floyd WHO]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

I go by the USPS abbreviations for states. Fla is FL in my book.

But isn't there a Cocoa Beach, FL? That's where Major Nelson shacked up with Jeannie and Maj. Healy, right?

Yes that is correct and there is an "I Dream of Jeannie Drive" there, but I live in Cocoa. On the mainland east of Cocoa Beach.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

So was the original sentence in error, or strictly grammatical eloquence.

The part where your subject and verb don't agree is an error.

I prefer to use USPS abbreviations as well. They're nice.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by docbud

Eynstyn--I think lavar78 is talking about the comma between city and state.

doc

Based on your last post in this thread, doc, for about 10 minutes you were my hero.

Then you had to be a big shot.

I didn't miss the comma. (Don't you know who I am???) I know you COULDN'T have missed the obviously MORE IMPORTANT difference in the correct form over the incorrect version of the SPELLING...which is what I pointed out.

EVERYONE worthy of this conversation spotted the comma, doc! But how many people know their USPS state abbreviations????

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by lavar78

I prefer to use USPS abbreviations as well. They're nice.

Yes!

[docbud]

lavar78--I'd change your improved sentence to an em dash after "letters" instead of the semicolon.

doc

[docbud]

damn it! I'm sorry Eynstyn. Can you forgive me?

doc

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by docbud

damn it! I'm sorry Eynstyn. Can you forgive me?

doc

You redeemed yourself when you hit, "return."

[docbud]

I'm so relieved. I will sleep well tonight

doc

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by docbud

I'm so relieved. I will sleep well tonight

doc

Yes, and you shall dream of cherubic authors with Spell Checking Powerbooks in one hand and neatly typed "best-seller" quality manuscripts in the other, dancing about the heavens; And in every tome YOUR name is boldly inscribed on the dedication page, cited by the author as the source of his inspiration and thanking you (above all others) for your faith, tireless effort, brilliant insight and saintly patience.

Now wake up!

This is macnn and I am Eynstyn. Some things must never change.

[docbud]

Grrrrrrrrr

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by docbud

Grrrrrrrrr

docbud, why don't you sit down in a comfortable chair and close your eyes. You are getting sleepy. By the time you count down from 100 to 0 you will be completely relaxed and will believe every thing I tell you.

Now, when you wake up you will no longer have any need to imitate Tony the Tiger. Kelloggs Sugar Frosted Flakes will still be just as tasty as they ever were but you will be free of any compulsion to imitate Tony.

docbud, when you talk with friends and family you will take pride in proclaiming things as wonderful, and superb! You will sometimes even say that something or someone (like Eynstyn) is great. But from now on nothing will be "Grrrrrrrrreat!!!!" This word will be something only children or animated breakfast cereal spokes-animals habitually say out loud.

When I count to three you will have lost the compulsion to say Grrrrrrrrreat!!!! all the time. You will feel refreshed and better than you ever have before in your life. You will feel healthy and happy and relaxed and will have NO memory of this session.

One, feeling refreshed. Two, everything is wonderful, and beautiful and no more Tony the Tiger imitations. No more "Grrrrrrrrreat!!!!!" For you, Frosted Flakes will only taste great! Now, your eyes are about to open. You're feeling fine and relaxed and refreshed. Happy and healthy and no memory of this session.

Three.

Yeah, doc. I forgive ya.

[Randman]

Our president cannot articulate verbally, can you imagine what his letter writing skills are. Where does this place him in this intelligent scale??

Articulate verbally is redundant. You can't articulate non-verbally. Letter-writing is a modifier. I'd hyphenate it. You need a ? after skills are. Where does this should be where does that. In this intelligent scale?? should be on the intelligence scale?

Also, to be nitpicky, you say our president, but nowhere is it made clear if you refer to US President George W Bush.

I've had the pleasure of reading many Civil War era letters and the grammar and expression is far superior to our current era

Again, I'd hyphenate Civil War-era. Should be the grammar and expression of thought are far superior.

Current era is also redundant. Our era suffices. Also, there's no period (full stop for Brit English) at the end of the sentence though maybe the two ?? at the end of the first sentence compensate.

President Bush is not articulate. Can you imagine what his letter-writing skills are? Where does that place him on this intelligence scale?

I have had the pleasure of reading many Civil War-era letters and the grammar and expressions of thought in those are far superior to the grammar and expression of thought in our era.

The point? The point is everyone has differing degrees of grammatical ability. Someone could pull my post apart and pick out a few errors as well.

The difference between the above post and someone who writes:

anyone now how i can get my hard drive to show info? that would paawwwwnnnzzz my freidns


is a world apart. Making a mistake here or there is different from people who don't how to write, don't type very well, don't give a damn if people understand their postings or not.

I'd take the weak but willing any day over the strong who aren't so willing.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Floyd WHO

So was the original sentence in error, or strictly grammatical eloquence.

As lavar78 said, the lack of congruens between subject and verb was the grammatical error; the expressional error lies in the fact that grammar and expression cannot, logically, be superior to an era, only to similar notions, ie. the grammar and expression of another era.

I didn't mean for it to become such a big deal, though—I just thought it was slightly amusing that there was one of each of these two errors in that particular sentence, and that perhaps you had done it on purpose, for effect.

(If you'd been really smart, you would, of course, have replied, “Of course it was—gotcha, didn't I? ”)


P.S.: Randman, I'm not going to pull your post apart; I will only point out in the friendliest of fashions that the British term for a period is a full stop, not a fullstop.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Oisín

P.S.: Randman, I'm not going to pull your post apart; I will only point out in the friendliest of fashions that the British term for a period is a full stop, not a fullstop.

Fixed.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I think anyone who refuses to use the shift key properly, has horrible spelling, and terrible grammar usage is not intelligent.

Oh, and if they have the inability to speak. Then they are dumb.

Your dictionary and you are dinosaurs.

Only dumb people (idiots) would refer to someone withe a speech impediment or impairment as being dumb.

You've shown your stripes.



I guess Leonardo was not intelligent. He wrote backwards and spelled

words however he pleased.

[Floyd WHO]

As you can see by the "Junior member" title, I have not had the pleasure of posting on MacNN very often. Well I've stuck my toe in the tepid waters and have been sufficiently mulled over. Perhaps the next time I post (and it will be a long time) I will more closely choose the subject matter on which to respond to. For now it's back to Mac Rumors where I belong and let the big dogs bite at one another.

[turtle777]

I could care less !

-t

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by turtle777

I could care less !

Any person who says that clearly needs to have their head examined, they absolutely have a screw lose!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Any person who says that clearly needs to have their head examined, they absolutely have a screw lose!

Ya thunk ?

-t

[Oisín]

I thunks!

[OwlBoy]

sposto!

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Articulation is important in my opinion. If you can't articulate it you can't communicate.

[Millennium]

I do wish Americans took more pride in their language. This isn't to say that it's impossible to go too far; the Academie Francaise does that all the time. However, is it really too much to ask to give one's writing a quick proofreading? Is it too much to ask to spell any derivative of "you" as more than one letter? Languages do evolve, but there is a difference between evolution and degeneracy, and most of the "bad" American writing out there falls squarely on the degenerate side of things.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Millennium

and most of the "bad" American writing out there falls squarely on the degenerate side of things.

Kind a mirrors the general culture (e.g. TV, movies, entertainment etc...)

-t

[Oisín]

Most bad American movies are degenerate things?

[docbud]

Well gang--congratulations on driving away a member.

doc

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, the president speaks Texan.

I don't care if he's from Texas and speaks Texan. He is the President of the United States of America. Not the "United States of Texas"

Since he represents the United States as a whole (ok, he's SUPPOSED to represent the whole country, though some would claim he only represents those who voted for him), I expect him to be able to speak clearly most of the time. I'm not talking about his accent. I'm talking about his ability to muddy things up sometimes when he goes off his written speech.

No matter where your political allegiance lies, you have to admit that George Bush, Jr. is not the most eloquent orator in the world. Nor the most photogenic. He's one of those unfortunate people whose face is set up such that it looks like they're permanently confused. Now, people like Ronald Reagan... of course he looked good on TV and in public. He was an actor, after all. And he could give good speeches.

Oh well, it doesn't really matter to me all that much. It gives the president "character."

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by docbud

Well gang--congratulations on driving away a member.

I sincerely hope you're not going to leave just because of one thread.