Is it just me? Lately many of the things I read contain glaring errors. It first hit me while reading Tim Tyler's Memetics.
"If memetics explains only explains the imitation of observed behavior, ..." (p 96)
"Perhaps biological an cultural differ..." (p 173)
"Genetic engineers can now take information form wherever they like..."
"However, not everyone seems agree that ..." (both on p 184)
"The upright gait hypothesis hypothesis is interesting for several reasons." (p 206)
I thought, "Didn't the editor even read this? Who was this?" But, lo, no editor was credited. There was no editor! Is this a new cost-cutting trend in publishing?
But the news lately has been just as bad.
It is original from the Andean area of South Africa and widely grown in both the north of Chile and Argentina and the south Mexico, especially Ecuador.
That sample was from today's Science Daily. Yesterday I noticed four or five glaring errors. This is disorienting, even a little scary. Has literacy decline has crossed a tipping point?
This toilet probably doesn't need to be cleaned very frequently!
I don't expect people to babysit me and it is my responsibility to use The Elements of Style manual. However, I continue to make horrid mistakes and I work hard to learn the accepted styles. I, too, notice glaring errors on A/N. My goal is to have a strong voice in the public square. To do that, we have to show that we know the basics of English. We are not bumpkins with a fourth-grade education. I appreciate those who correct me. I wonder if others feel as I? I know, those who correct English get a label, such as, "Word Police" or worse.
What say you?
I'm always appreciative of anyone pointing out errors I've made (especially as my proofreading skills continue to erode). But I tend not to point out others' mistakes unless I know they want me to.
I agree that having a strong voice involves not distracting our audience with misspellings, grammar mistakes, or gratuitous weirdness. It's analogous to the "vanilla" fonts used in newspapers, that become invisible; you notice the message, not the typeface.
In other words, newspapers don't do this:
And I too appreciate corrections!
(When I quote people, I usually silently correct obvious typos.)
Do you, Grinning Cat. I have often wondered what I should do. Perhaps a quiet correction is best. I would appreciate a loud bit of information to correct my errors. It is nice to know how you, each one of you, feel about grammar and whether to correct or not.
This one's like a classic. It's a lot like "Get your government hands off my Medicare."
I almost never point-out writing mistakes of others because I know I'm far from perfect.
I appreciate my mistakes being corrected, as long as the intent is to help me, and not just to put me down.
I understand and agree at some level with what you say. We are a tight knit group and eager to learn. At least, that is why I am here. I also hope to have a well informed group who knows how to communicate and able to express ourselves to a larger group with confidence and competence.
My granddaughters are wonderful at correcting me, especially when I correct them and I am wrong. There is something special about being wrong and learning from them.
Back to ScienceDaily: two bits of carelessness, in an article copied from a University of Amsterdam press release, caught my attention today. Just because materials used by ScienceDaily "may be edited" doesn't mean they will be!
"Previous research showed that not only adult humans, but also newborn babies can detect the beat in music. This proved that beat induction is congenital and can therefore not be learnt. In their experiments with rhesus monkeys, the researchers used the same stimuli and experimental paradigms from previous research conducted on humans and babies."
(The comma in the first sentence wasn't what bothered me. There's a difference between "is not learned, as far as we've seen" and "cannot be learned". And the last sentence isn't talking about baby (nonhuman) animals!)