Grammar/Written Word

Post Reply New Topic

Hi, yellowtamarin

The trouble with the sentence 'Yes, I did' is the sentence ends on the auxiliary verb - which is problematic, at best.

'Yes' is a more manageable unit - being so short (i.e. a single unit), it breaks no rules of structure. The intention is clearer.

For me, the reply 'Yes, I did have a good day today' is still the most lucid response to the question 'Did you have a good day today?'.

People have very different writing styles. Some writing styles make perfect sense to me. And other writings styles make me feel kind of like my brain is turning off, because I can read the words over and over again and it doesn't make any sense. If a post doesn't make clear sense to me on the first or second read, I usually just skip over it and move on to the next.

The way I write is very different from the way I normally speak. If I write in my "speaking" voice, it takes less time, but usually someone will misinterpret what I wrote. However, if I think about how many different people will be reading my post, and try to make it understandable for everyone, it takes way too much time to write and it exhausts me.

SonicallySensitive: I'm glad you're not into hierarchy. Additionally, I believe you are earnest in your opinions. I think the crux of the situation is that we have a different take on the importance of formalized grammar within an "everyday" context.

There are some people on WP, and life in general, who have had negative experiences related to formalized grammar and its importance. There are some people on here who, for whatever reason, are not proficient grammatically. Based upon the "negative experiences," they see someone questioning their grammar as someone who seeks to "marginalize" them and to forcefully place them upon a "lower rung"(a ladder analogy) within a hierarchy which is based upon perceived intellectual ability. Thus, they become defensive and become disinclined to converse with the "questioner." This leads to hard feelings all around, and leads to a stalemate as far as progress is concerned-- even though the person questioning their grammar might not feel the desire to place their other person upon a "lower rung."

My solution would be to engage the person in dialogue without directly criticizing their mode of writing. There is much that this person could offer--perhaps even wisdom. When one refrains from criticism within this situation, one could potentially become exposed to useful information, based upon the strengths (whether in "common sense," in practical knowledge, in social discernment, etc.) of the person who might not be so proficient in formal written discourse. This, inevitably, leads to "forward progress" for both of the dialogue's participants. They could benefit from YOUR enhanced knowledge of certain things; you could benefit from THEIR enhanced knowledge of certain things.

I am a strong believer in Socratic dialogue. I also try to use the initial conversation between the three main characters of St. Thomas More's "Utopia" as a model of fine, productive dialogue.

I'm in a place that "blocks" YouTube--so I'll have to listen to the video later.

If someone asks you "do you drive that Ford Explorer parked outside?".

And if you answered "Yes, I do", or even just "yes", most folks would understand your response to mean "Yes. I do indeed drive that Ford Explorer parked outside of which you speak."

But apparently the original poster would not understand that response, and would wonder "Yes you do...WHAT?"

Apparently Sonicallysensitive would not make the leap that your response of "yes I do" has the unspoken phrase of "drive that Ford Explorer" tacked on to the end of the sentence.

And frankly if SonciallySensitive has that kind of problem then - it IS a problem. He/she should get coaching for it.

I would sometimes have that trouble as a child. I read a school bio about a famous lady anti slavery person in a class excercise once. It ended with her telling an interviewer of her time that in her old age she hoped to "plant apple trees in her yard so children could to eat apples. Children love apples. I guess I did."

That last phrase "I guess I did" just drove me NUTS. I couldnt figure out if she meant "I guess I did...grow apple trees... at some point in the past"..or what the hell it meant. Can't she remember whether she had an orchard before, or not?

Thinking back- its obvious now that the text meant "I guess I did-also love apples when I was child myself". But when I was 12 reading it it just didnt 'click' for me that it meant that (as obvious as it seems now) some reason. Lol!

I am a very good, and voracious life-long reader. I rarely have this kind of trouble with print, unless some editor missed a couple of scrambled sentences. When that happens I have to spend a few minutes figuring out the correct sequence. I do sometimes have problems with the spoken word.

I don't make a lot of spelling and grammar errors, but I don't freak out if reading those of others. My younger brother is lousy with spelling and grammar, but I never criticize him on it. I am just happy he sends emails to me and other family members. He was an even worse student than I was, but managed to get through a vocational college program, so I am proud of him for that. Prior to that I had thought he would never go beyond high school, so I was pleased when he decided to go for this vocational degree. He will never be good with writing, but he does research things of interest to him, which involves reading, and does write emails, so although his academic skills are somewhat weak, at least he is using them, which is more than many people can say.

Although we had little in common as kids, now we do have some shared interests, so we get along better now.

I think in your case, you need to read more, and a number of different types of reading to get better at interpreting the meaning of text. As I mentioned early in this post, I have more trouble interpreting the meaning of spoken words, but have gotten somewhat better over the years. I spent most of my adult life doing temp work. This exposed me to a lot of different people, and different types of work. This in turn, provided me with more and wider experience in conversations with people, so I have gotten better at understanding the meanings when one needs to read between the lines. I have also gotten better at understanding when something is not meant to be taken literally. Now I usually "see" both the literal meaning, and the one meant by the speaker, so I am able to respond appropriately most of the time. I think my voracious reading has also helped me to better interpret spoken words, so do read more.

It would be nice if everyone would be more precise in their speech, but that isn't going to happen, so we need to try to adapt to partially scrambled speech and text.

I actually don't believe the OP experiences difficulty with written text.

I believe he is a stickler for precision in writing. He wants it to be absolutely clear at all times, with no ambiguities--"straight to the point," if you will. He also believes in good structural grammar.

Perhaps we should meet the Grammarians halfway--by editing what we write more. The Grammarians, correspondingly, should be more flexible in parsing text, and use context to discern seeming ambiguities.

If anything, quite the opposite - look to Sartre's La Nausée - specifically, the autodidact (not the nature of autodidactism per se, but the literary appetite of the autodidact in La Nausée).


Maybe I didn't make myself explicitly clear in my opening post: I'm not actively seeking advice from others pertaining to my own experiences - I'm simply curious if others have/have had similar experiences.


Any advice given suggesting 'dumbing down' could be rebutted with its antithesis i.e. 'learn to construct proper sentences'.


Only twice have I picked on grammar/semantics/syntax on this forum - both instances were pertaining to the definitions of the titles of threads - which were important threads, in terms of ASD's. The first was 'Is Self-Diagnosis Okay/Valid/a Good Thing?' - key to such a debate is the nature of the definition of the term 'self-diagnosis' - let's not get into the debate again - the point is that the very essence of the thread is determined by the interpretation of those terms (and to the other terms - which, in this particular instance, were clearly meaning 'a positive value').



The second thread was 'Are Most Self-Diagnoses Correct?' - on this occasion I avoided the 'self-diagnosis' label and focused on the nature of 'correctness' - which is in fact very important to such a topic, namely:

1) Who is ascribing 'correctness'?
2) What standards are adhered to in the ascribing of the term 'correct' to a suspicion (or 'claim', as the author put it)
3) Is 'correctness' determined by an external other, or can one confirm one's own correctness?
4) If one can confirm one's own correctness, how do they objectively judge whether an emotionally-held position can be used to determine the correctness of an objectively-required procedure?

etc etc - all very interesting questions in their own right - which are worth consideration not specifically in relation to autism, but in the general sense, and in the potentiality of their application(s) - the result of which can be an amalgamation of the underlying conclusions pertaining to the questions synthesised with the original thread question.

The product of raising the question of what is meant by 'correctness' was not met with enthusiasm.


Let's not get back into any of the two issues mentioned above - I'm highlighting the issues solely for the purposes of making a point.


I'd never trawl through individual posts correcting grammar - for two main reasons:

1) I'm too busy
2) The implied meaning is understood without correction


However, when the entire nature of a thread is based on false assumptions/oversights relating to terms used to define the very argument itself (I use 'argument' in the philosophical sense), no satisfactory conclusion will ever be reached. Stage 1 is agreeing on what the labels stand for. This is quite the opposite of trolling - it is reasoned, informed, rational consideration of the subject matter and its constituent units.

Hi Guzzle,

When you read the word “this” referring to some piece of writing they want to share with you, you can imagine that the person who is sharing it with you is in right next to you and pointing to the piece they want to show you, or maybe they’re putting the entire piece in your hands.

Did I explain that well?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here; it’s interesting to me to know how other people understand written words and spoken language. Language is both a science and an art, and I think that's one of the reasons why language fascinates me.

I believe language is a "science" and an "art" as well.

I'm more inclined toward the "artistic" aspects of language.

I do believe one should seek to head off ambiguity by editing one's writing--though, in the "writing as art" camp, there's much room for "poetic license."

It makes no difference to me, whether a post is written like this:

'Hello! How was your day today?'

or:

'u w0t m8?'

Perfectly grammarized posts frustrate me because a trait I dislike about myself is that I over-edit when not purposefully avoiding doing so.