Amazon.com Widgets

Should people with bad grammar be expected to learn proper grammar?

Asked by: Akira1014
  • Grammar is important.

    The key to thriving in modern day society is communication and typing a message that resembles this: hi r u redy 2 go? - should not be acceptable. I'd rather people take additional coursework if needed to improve their grammar than spend 10-90 years trying to decipher ehatever it is they just said to me.

  • Bad Grammar Can Make Speech or Text Unintelligible

    Rules of grammar exist so people can understand each other. I know a lot of the time what someone says can be understood but people pick it apart for grammar anyways and use this as an excuse to ignore the actual arguments.

    While I don't approve of that I still recognize that grammar is important. There have actually been times when I've had to ask a person on the internet to clarify their meaning, sometimes a couple of times, because the person didn't use correct grammar.

    Bad grammar really can cross the line into unintelligible text or speech. Telling exactly where that line will be when talking to this or that person is difficult so it's better to just use correct grammar in the first place.

  • Yes they should

    We are taught for a good portion of our lives on how to write, read and talk proficiently. Why people can't be bothered to speak appropriately and use actual words instead of SLANG and other words found on Urban Dictionary is beyond me...But I find bad grammar very unattractive and I believe it shows a sense of immaturity and lack of intelligence.

  • Grammar is important. But spelling and the habit of shortening words should also be top priorities, too.

    We should also focus on spelling, too, especially considering how people started shortening words during texting for the sake of speed. However, we now see that there is a cost for such "convenience".

    Grammar should also be improved. Especially with examples such as: "me and you" (you and me), "he don't want to work" (he doesn't want to work). These two examples should suffice for an understanding of what is happening as of now.

    All in all, this is a short response, but I hope it suffices for you to understand what I mean. As a matter of fact, I am also concerned with my grammar and spelling, too. Therefore, I do not consider myself higher than anyone. I hope those who read this may find themselves in my situation and start to work for a future with logical and grammatical responses.

  • Grammar is important. But spelling and the habit of shortening words should also be top priorities, too.

    We should also focus on spelling, too, especially considering how people started shortening words during texting for the sake of speed. However, we now see that there is a cost for such "convenience".

    Grammar should also be improved. Especially with examples such as: "me and you" (you and me), "he don't want to work" (he doesn't want to work). These two examples should suffice for an understanding of what is happening as of now.

    All in all, this is a short response, but I hope it suffices for you to understand what I mean. As a matter of fact, I am also concerned with my grammar and spelling, too. Therefore, I do not consider myself higher than anyone. I hope those who read this may find themselves in my situation and start to work for a future with logical and grammatical responses.

  • Improved versatility of those who have a better grasp of the English language is more efficient than expecting those with bad grammar to improve.

    To expect of them to speak with good grammar when they are already unable to speak good grammar is as to expecting a fry cook of 30 years to cook as well as a chef belonging to a Michelin star restaurant. Sure they can learn in due time, but if they have identified themselves to speak with poor grammar, and if they are of an age that suggests this issue has been going on for a while now, and for some reason, it works for them. So, instead of expecting them to speak with good grammar, those who have a leg up in their command of the English language should be able to decipher the message containing poor grammar, such that it balances out in the end- 1) those speaking with poor grammar get along with those speaking poor grammar, 2) those speaking with poor grammar apparently understand those speaking with good grammar (because, as the previous naysayer had pointed out, to those who use poor grammar, the meaning is likely more important that the structure), 3) if the ideal situation comes to be, as mentioned before, then those speaking with good grammar (get off your high horse) should be able to understand those speaking with poor grammar. And voilá, effective communication is achieved in all ways without those speaking with poor grammar having to improve themselves in the slightest. Though that said, if good grammar is a means required to achieve a SPECIFIC end, e.G., good grades for an English test, then yes, good grammar ought to be learned. But in GENERAL, grammar as a function of communication that ensures uniform interpretation between individuals need not be enforced to the point of "good", as long as communication is achieved- the ends justify the means (again, as the preceding dissenter had pointed out).

  • The meaning of a message is more important than the message itself.

    Even though having a good grammar is indeed important, no message should be dismissed because someone put a 't' in the wrong place or used ''i'' instead of ''I''. Additionally, the written (just as the spoken) language is something that evolves and has always evolved. What may be good grammar today can be bad grammar ten years from now and people tend to keep on using the grammar that they have been taught to use.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.