Grammar, punctuation, spelling - they're all things on which I vowed not
to hate: clichéd and all. But there's this one outstanding discrepancy - a
dinosaur among ants, if you will ('dinosaur' not only connotes visual significance
but also refers to a species supposed to
be extinct) - which deserves
special mention, and critique, partly
because it's so common, but mostly because it's different, and many times
worse, than any other discrepancy in the literary world. Plus I'm not perfect.
The mistake in question can be observed in the following example:
Now, before you comment, I'm well aware that this particular example
comes from Facebook, and thus of common objections. These include a) "I
don't care", and b) "Correct grammar and punctuation in informal
situations are like wearing a suit to a house-building party for construction
workers: unnecessary and, quite frankly, out of place."
a) is as much an argument as it is a response to the notion of running
over old people on walkers, and b) I completely agree with. Yes, you read
right. It's perfectly reasonable and logical, and the analogy works. Honestly, I don't advocate that one should
concern themselves with perfect grammar in informal contexts. But unfortunately
my very reasonable convictions don't apply here. Why? Because what we're
talking about is completely different.
Accurately differentiating 'have' and 'of' is not the same as knowing exactly
where a comma or apostrophe should go, whether your ellipsis has enough dots, whether
you mean 'weather' or 'whether', or whether that 'whether' is applied correctly
given its absence of the usual tag 'or not' or not. Far from it, in fact.
This is a matter of decency.
You can wear whatever you like, but it will be rightfully frowned upon
if it's not decent. By 'decent' I mean something other than a white hoodie
complete with white pointy hood, or transparent pants, or something. In short, even
informal standards impose a requirement. And no, your bedroom doesn't count,
otherwise so would your diary; and no-one sees your diary unless it's called
Facebook; and if that's the case then don't expect to keep your friends.
Could OF, should OF,
would OF - exactly
how indecent are these twisted combinations? Glad you asked. Allow me to demonstrate:
The (correct) phrase 'should have' can be replaced with 'ought to have':
1. "I should have known about this mistake before my
literature review was due."
2. "I ought to have known about this mistake before my
literature review was due."
Same thing, right? Check this out:
Retarded 1. "I should of known about
this mistake before my literature review was due."
More retarded 2. "I ought to of known about
this mistake before my literature review was due." Oh, but sir, first you must grow out
of finger spacing!
'Should of' looks careless; and it is, because we humans are careless
creatures: 'should've' sounds like 'should of', so the latter is born. But
'ought to of'? That's just insane! Yet it's the same thing! 'Of' and 'have' have, not of, two entirely separate
meanings, and this becomes blatantly clear when 'ought to' is put in front of
each one. If you're someone who makes this mistake, I hope I've convinced you
that it's worth breaking the habit. If not, it's probably because you 'don't
care' and you're thinking, "In informal contexts, it doesn't matter so
long as the reader knows what I'm saying."
Well allow me to salute you, and then punch
you in the face! Even I know what you're saying, after I gaze with disgust
at the 'of' and wish it were gone in the same way I gaze with disgust at world
poverty and wish that was gone. I
also understand this:
"My dogg Barrfollimyoo
tolld me too go bac too scool too lerrn how too spill," post the aforementioned disgust.
Sooner or later, we can all interpret what it's 'meant to say', meaning
that it meets our low standards of informal grammar, right? Maybe, if the
writer's three years old or his computer has acquired some variation of typing
virus. Otherwise, I didn't think so. Even informal grammar has standards other
than simply conveying one's intended meaning. And, when these standards are not
met, they're labelled indecent.
Proof-reading, perfect spelling and correct punctuation, to name a few,
are not things with which you ought to be concerned when it comes to Facebook,
texting, casual emails and speech, and so on. But this cancerous down syndrome
mutation of the English language whereby 'have' is replaced with 'of' clearly
doesn't fit into that category. 'Ought to of' looks indecent; 'Barrfollimyoo' projectile
vomits indecency (and believe me, he's a healthy dog); and 'could of', 'should
of, 'would of', 'this post was not meant to of been so long', all reek like a
hobo on a bus who's just shat his pants.
Anyway, like the hobo, I think I'm done now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment