Bad grammar or evolving grammar – musings of a grammarian

I confess, I’m what’s not-so-fondly referred to as a grammarian – a bit of a grammar-fascist, even. I hate the US English tendency to replace ‘our’ with ‘or’ (e.g. honor instead of honour), and ’s’ with ‘z’ (organization instead of organisation), etc. (It also infects other English-speaking countries, including South Africa, thanks to the dominance of Microsoft Office, with its ‘English (US)’ global language default.)

American simplifications aside, there are a number of errors that particularly bug me, and I am not alone in my frustrations about bad grammar. Some bloggers have created a bit of a niche for themselves providing grammar and spelling tips.

But I’ve started to wonder where to draw the line between bad grammar and evolving grammar. The instant publication that the internet provides (and the almost immediate responsiveness that results) means that most people adopt a more informal, conversational style online. We’re generally less strict about spoken grammar than we are about written grammar, and perhaps online conversations represent a convergence of the two.

Ice cream as an analogy for social media

Another gem from CommonCraft – Social Media in plain English

Who’s negative – the DA or the media?

There’s a contention that pops up in the media from time to time – usually on the editorial and opinion pages – that the Democratic Alliance is too negative – that it only criticises and never offers its own solutions. It is never presented as the central thesis of a substantiated argument (that would be difficult, I would argue); rather, it is almost always a throw-away line – a cliché even. But does it hold up to scrutiny?

Fortuitously, Mandy de Waal published an interview with Media Tenor SA CEO Wadim Schreiner on Thought Leader yesterday that provides excellent background for this post. Among other things, it looks at how the media’s agenda setting plays a role in how politicians and political parties (or any institution or personality, for that matter – Cape Judge President John Hlophe is another case in point) are represented and perceived.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) is certainly a straight-talking, no-nonsense, critical opposition, and unapologetic about it. It’s also what the overwhelming majority of our supporters, as well as a significant proportion of voters who don’t yet vote for the DA, want from us.

In market research we recently commissioned, voters were asked whether they thought the DA was too critical, not critical enough, or just about right. Only 32 % of black voters – the market in which the DA needs to gain support in order to grow – think the DA is too critical; 15 % think we are not critical enough; and 39 % think we get our criticism just about right (margin of error of 2%). Among white voters – the majority of the DA’s current support base – 58 % think the DA is not critical enough; a further 36 % think we get it just about right. Only 2 % think we are too critical.

But the DA is by no means only critical. It also offers analysis of the numerous challenges the state faces – the better to identify the root of problems – and proposes solutions to many of those problems. This is something that all voters – regardless of who they voted for, or intend to vote for – want from an opposition party.

Classic video parody about continuous partial attention.

more about “All Online Data Lost After Internet C…“, posted with vodpod