I'm gonna try and keep this as short and sweet as possible but who the heck knows if that'll happen?

I don't know that happened along the way. I always hated Language Arts throughout grade school but now I actually want to go back and learn how to diagram a sentence all over again. This is entirely besides the point.

Just pulling from things said in Reznas's and Sumiki's entries, I have my own thoughts on grammar.

Quick and dirty, here's bad to worst:

• Capitalization and punctuation
  
• Replacements (l33t, txt abvs, homophones)
  
• Definitions
  

First off, poor grammar during arguments/debates. Do I make note of poor grammar while I'm having a back and forth with somebody I have differing view/opinion with? The short answer is "no". Since it's the subject matter that we're supposed to be focusing on, I don't. It doesn't add anything productive to the discussion, I look like self-absorbed jerk for pointing it out, the other person gets defensive and makes jibes back at me for being a Grammar Nazi, and before long we're not even discussing the issue anymore because we're too busy arguing about petty things off-topic that eventually spirals into nothing but name-calling. If somebody's grammar is so bad that I have trouble just reading it, I don't even bother responding. The way I see it, if there's an actual reason for their poor English, be it disability or lack of knowledge, my correct usage is likely to be just as confusing to them as their incorrect usage is to me meaning there's ultimately no point in trying to engage in a dialogue where will both be misunderstood. If it's a matter of them just not caring enough to even try being comprehensible, there's still no point in debating because they're likely not willing to listen to anybody other than themselves anyway. Why bother in the first place?

When do I actually correct someone's grammar? Well, if it's a library topic that goes without saying. Anybody with an actual interest in writing that doesn't want their stories, articles, or whatnot critiqued for grammar has no business writing. Did their misuse of grammar change their meaning into something that, as written, is hilarious? Yes, because we all need to have a laugh once in a while. Outside of that, I usually overlook the offenses in the first two bullets I listed above. If they don't care about the professional look of their writing, that'll hurt them in the long run, not me.

But do you want to know what really grinds my gears? Item three: Definitions. I'm going to give a special call-out to two words. They are "literally" and "Tourette's".

First off, no, I will not give up the fight for the word "literally". The idea that it should be allowed incorrectly is about as stupid as it gets. You can't have a word being its own antonym. How on earth are we supposed to know if somebody actually IS dying (just an example; get off my back) when you say "literally" if it can be meant as figurative/hyperbole or "in all actuality"? There's no point in even having the word anymore if we need to ask for further context and clarity every single time it is used. No means yes. Crying wolf. Do these ring any bells? When you are completely misusing a word your intent is completely lost and you will be misunderstood. If I point this out as an attempt to help you and you get offended, you are an absolute moron for wanting to perpetuate misunderstandings. This goes for far more than just the word "literally".

I would now like to tell everybody that they need to go and watch the movie "Front of the Class" because this is more than just fingernails on a chalkboard to me. For the love of all things holy, I am sick to death of the constant misrepresenting Tourette Syndrome as Coprolalia. It's a gross misrepresentation of a physical disability and is incredibly damaging to people who actually have Tourette's. I'd like to think that here on BZP where there's so much talk about using the correct words and terms when talking about people that this shouldn't be too much to ask.

Rant aside, this leaves me with a question. Why are people so adverse to having their grammar corrected? The answer is actually easy, it's a matter of pride. People don't like being wrong and will continue being wrong on purpose out of spite, ignorance, or laziness. Yeah, it's nobody's responsibility to go around and proofread everybody's internet comments and it can be rude. But how do you justify that as an excuse to keep being wrong intentionally? Now, having a casual chat with your friends is a different matter. If you want to forgo proper capitalization, punctuation, or can't be bothered to look up the exact spelling of an uncommon word, all the power to ya. That's private. Publicly though, why be so adverse to improving yourself? Poor grammar in a non-professional setting does affect your professional writing. I don't think many people realize just how many times their improper use of grammar or tone in writing costs them dearly. I'm talking about those e-mails to teachers you never get replies to; if you don't have time for a well constructed email, they won't take the time for you. I'm talking about job applications; I know from experience that a lot of job applications are thrown out after a half-glance because they weren't filled out completely or the person was obviously too lazy to care about the composition and appearance. I think of people correcting and being corrected and I think of something akin to a boss yelling at his employees. Yeah, your boss doesn't have to be so rude about it, but if you would actually follow the safety guidelines for the job there wouldn't even be a problem in the first place. Why do you hate improving yourself, especially in such an incredibly important skill? Why do want to be flat-out WRONG so badly? Why? Because you're lazy, ignorant, or spiteful most likely. Not exactly admirable traits.

Food for thought.

That was in no way short or sweet.