Duz Speeling End Gramer Kountz&;#063;

A frequently asked question in the writing world is "Do spelling and
grammar really matter all that much?"

To some degree, yes, they matter. If the errors are so numerous that
they prevent me from being able to read and comprehend the writer's
work, then indeed they will affect how much I enjoy it, and on sites
such as this one, how highly I rate it. Before you decide that I am
some sort of insane grammar nazi, I know that I'm far from perfect on
my grammar and spelling. However, I at least make the effort to double
check words that I'm not sure of. I also have 'comma diarrhea' and am
working to limit my use of those lovely little punctuation marks.

An interesting point about spelling is: which form is correct? British
or American? I hold that both are, a la Mark Twain, who felt that
British and American were separate languages entirely, and who
discoursed brilliantly on this subject in a short piece entitled
"Concerning The American Language" (which you can find all over the
web, just do a search).

Keeping in mind that there are fundamental differences between both
languages in not only the written forms, but the spoken as well, Twain
has a valid claim. For example, the British hold that "colour" and
"neighbour" and "foetus" are correct spellings of their American
counterparts, "color", "neighbor" and "fetus". So which is correct?
Both are. It all depends on which country you are in and which very
distinct language you are speaking.

"But WAIT!" you say. "Which language? They're both bloody ENGLISH!" To
this, I can only say that they are both English in the way that Italian
and Spanish are both Latin. They share so many of the same roots that
an Englishman can understand and American without too much effort (and
vice versa), but they are different enough that they simply cannot be
considered the same language.

My favorite example here would be the word "biscuit". If an Englishman
orders a biscuit with his tea in New York he gets a dinner roll. If an
American orders a biscuit with his steak in London he gets a cookie. Or
how about an order of fries with your burger? In London you order
chips. In New York, fries. If you order chips in New York, you get a
bag of what the English call crisps.

Even when words are spelled the same often the pronunciation changes so
drastically that people from these two locations can converse and end
up staring blankly at each other in misunderstanding. For example, in
America we might say (and please, forgive my phonetic spelling here, I
am trying to make a point!): "I took rowt 23 down to the museum to see
an exhibit of paintings by Van Go, but when I arrived the skedjool said
I was too late so I had a glass of clahray and whined about it." The
British person would say: "I took root 23 down to the museum to see an
exhibit of paintings by Van Goff, but when I arrived, the shedjool said
I was too late so I had a glass of claritt and whinjed about it."

Now, where was I going with this. Oh yes. Spelling and grammar, are
they important or not.

The answer is, yes, they are most definitely important. In order to
convey meaning, words must be used properly. If they are not, then all
sorts of confusions can occur. Poor knowledge of the language can often
have disastrous results, take the word "inflammable" as a prime
example. Inflammable, of course it means not capable of burning, right?
Wrong. It means very much capable of burning to a cinder. Suppose you
saw a sign: Inflammable Materials Area, and you threw a cigarette butt
onto the ground. Conflagration and instant You-Barbecue! So an
understanding of the words that you use is important.

Understanding of spelling is important as well. "I went to the see"
implies going to Rome and visiting the Pope, while "I went to the sea"
means you went and saw the ocean.

Even worse than using the wrong version of a word's spelling is
misspelling a word so completely that nobody can understand it without
breaking their chain of concentration and painfully deciphering what
you intended to say. One or two such errors can be easily forgiven, but
when a piece of written work is rife with these sorts of mistakes it
can destroy the continuity of the read, causing the reader to either
give up in disgust or only 'get' a small portion of what you were
trying to convey.

When I read another writer's work and come across major errors, I ask
myself a few questions.

The first one is: "Is it clear to me that this person is a native
speaker of the language in which they are writing?" If the answer is
"No, they are not", then I am a lot less rigid about the structure of
the piece I am reading. People learn a language by practice and they
improve with practice. Leeway should always be given to newcomers to a
language and to the young who are still developing their word
skills.

The next question that I ask myself is: Did the writer appear to make
an attempt to use words, punctuation, or spelling with consistency? If
they are writing an article about Mississippi and they spell the name
of the state seven different ways there is no consistency and I must
decipher their word seven different times, which relates back to the
continuity mentioned previously. However, if they spell it as
Misissipee consistently then once I have figured out that they are
talking about Mississippi it won't slow me down and break my
concentration the next time I see it in their piece. So leeway is given
when it is clear that the person really thinks this is how it is
spelled and is not just doing a slapshot approach with Misisipy,
Missisippy, Missussippi in hopes of hitting on the correct spelling at
some point in the writing.

The third question that I ask myself is: Do I know for a fact from
reading this person's prior work, that they usually
spell/punctuate/whatever far better than they have done today? If so
then a little leeway can be given because i know that somebody's carpal
tunnel is acting up, or somebody hasn't slept for a few days. If not
then I have to ask myself if I can sit back and not try to help them
improve by having an email correspondence with them and offering to
help them with their wordsmithing.

In reading back over this so far I sound like a pretentious and
rambling bore, so I will end this with one last comment:

When it comes to truly creative writing, I try to overlook spelling and
grammar very liberally. Poetry and fiction are (to me) things that
grammar rules can vary widely in. If the piece in question is a news
article or a review of a book or film, something based solidly in
checkable fact, then I am tougher. I expect the wordsmithing to reflect
good fact checking, because the basic facts can't be conveyed well if
they are dropped in a puddle of muddy water and stirred up.

I would now like to offer up a few simple rules of grammar that should
make your writing experience (and your audience's reading experience)
more coherent and pleasurable. These are:

it's is used for it is

its is possessive (no apostrophe!)

you're is for you are

your is possessive

they're is for they are

their is possessive

there is a place

who's is for who is

whose is possessive (are you seeing a pattern here?)

whom is a direct or indirect object. Use it the same way you
would
use her or him. ex: "To whom are you giving it?"

'it' is the direct object - the thing being acted upon. 'whom' is the
indirect
object - the recipient of the direct object.

to is used as follows: "We are going to the store." "I gave it to
her."

too is used in place of also, or in extremes: "That's too weird!" "Are
you going there too?"

two is a number: "I have two apples. I gave one to her. Now she
has one too! That's too nifty!"

I'd like to close here with a quote from my old friend Todd, which
should clear up any confusion that this article has left you
with.

"It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It
isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs." -- Todd
Satogata, 1994