Ban the grammar and spelling nazi's!

bhavv said:
Names can be spelled or translated in lots of different names, there is no universal spelling across every language for one name.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point somewhat. The reason there are lots of spellings in English of Gaddafi is there are lots of dialects of Arabic.

As Gaddafi is Libyan, that dialect should be the one to use to translate the name into English. Thus following that convention the correct spelling is Gaddafi.

For example if we used the Standardised Arabic it would be Gadhafi, if we used one of the dialects of Egyptian Arabic it would be Qaddafi.

In short, Gaddafi is Libyan so the correct transliteration of his name into English would be Gaddafi as we would, by convention, use his local dialect as the basis for that transliteration. English is not the basis and so the rules for transliteration are from the names original language so your little diatribe on relevant rules is pointless.

This is why Gaddafi is the most common spelling among Western linguists.

bhavv said:
Dont worry about what Castiel says tbh. He is just chatting his usual crap at me and wont admit when he is wrong.
Click to expand...

That is because I'm not actually wrong. You simply do not understand the point being made.
 
Last edited:
Gaddafi may be the most common spelling, but that doesnt make other spellings grammatically incorrect.

The spelling or misspelling of that or any other name also is not a grammatical law.

The only word in my sig that can be governed by English grammar is 'Signature', which is spelled correctly.

It is never 'grammatically incorrect' to misspell a name. It may be a mistake, an abbreviation or whatever else, but it isnt a grammatical error.

P.S. I have altered my signature for you.
 
Last edited:
It is pure laziness. Nobody is expecting perfect grammatical construct or even perfect spelling but there really is no excuse for not realising that a sentence begins with a capital letter and ends in a full stop. If you cannot be bothered to put the trivial level of effort into your post required to grasp this simple concept then you cannot be suprised when people extend a similar level of effort into reading what you've said.

Sure its unfair, but people judge. If you say..

hello my name is bob i live in doncaster and i like computers

Then people will rightly or wrongly judge you to be a bit dim, because it's so easy to have to said:

Hello, my name is Bob. I live in Doncaster and I like computers.
 
bhavv said:
Gaddafi may be the most common spelling, but that doesnt make other spellings grammatically incorrect.

The spelling or misspelling of that or any other name also is not a grammatical law.

The only word in my sig that can be governed by grammar is 'Signature', which is spelled correctly.
Click to expand...

Again you completely miss the point. The issue is over the correct use of dialect in the translation of the subjects name. In this case the correct (and remember we are being intentionally pedantic here) would be to use the subjects native dialect as the basis of that translation in which case the correct spelling using that accepted convention would be Gaddafi.
 
Castiel said:
Again you completely miss the point. The issue is over the correct use of dialect in the translation of the subjects name. In this case the correct (and remember we are being intentionally pedantic here) would be to use the subjects native dialect as the basis of that translation in which case the correct spelling using that accepted convention would be Gaddafi.
Click to expand...

Oh right. I get it.

I didnt actually miss the point, you did in your first criticism of my signature.

People referred to as 'Grammar Nazis' correct other peoples spellings of words within the English Language, they are not critical about the spellings of names, or words that aren't within the dictionary.

And did you even read the post I made regarding the English spelling of my name? It isnt spelled as a translation of its native dialect and never has been but I dont care.
 
If you can understand it why does it matter?

Is it really that aesthetically unappealing to you?

Or do you just like belittling people?
 
Castiel said:
Again you completely miss the point. The issue is over the correct use of dialect in the translation of the subjects name. In this case the correct (and remember we are being intentionally pedantic here) would be to use the subjects native dialect as the basis of that translation in which case the correct spelling using that accepted convention would be Gaddafi.
Click to expand...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...osed-to-spell-muammar-gaddafi-khadafy-qadhafi

Give it a rest.
 
Mason- said:
Is it really that aesthetically unappealing to you?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. See here:

Deadbeat said:
I'm a writer, so I take the same artistic pride in prose that a painter does in fine canvas or an architect does in high quality stone. No architect would like to see stone with a beautiful grain & hue ground into dust, mixed with water and forced into squat, functional shapes, yet that's what some people insist on doing with written English.
Click to expand...
 
Deadbeat said:
Yes, it is. See here:
Click to expand...

Well I'm sorry to hear it, but tough ****.

When a poster is responding to someones post they are thinking about the subject at hand and what to reply, not whether his fellow OcUK'ers will think his phrasing and use of grammar is pleasing to the eye.

What you should read from his post is what is said, not whether you think it looks nice.

If all you care about is how something looks rather than the underlying meaning then my god this place is a joke.


People don't go up to people in the street and interrupt them and say "actually it's 'isn't it' not 'innit'". Because if you did you would probably get hurled a lot of verbal abuse, it's just another case of people hiding behind the internet. I love how people's behaviour changes between the internet and how they would act in real life.
 
_Jimlad_ said:
What is with all the quoting posts and then correcting grammar and spelling?

Surely it is not what ocuk forum is about in this day and age? I agree we should all do our best to make a post readable to the best of our ability, but if that is not to your 'standard' then surely just accept that you are more blessed in that area than the other chap.

It’s a low blow to point it out to someone, bit like telling the fat kid to lose weight when your both waiting for a bus.

It seems like it is on the increase and has happened to me a few times (will no doubt happen to this post, but i will see the funny side in that :D ) (just this once) Sadly i have seen a few members being targeted who clearly struggle in this area, and that is bang out of order. Correcting someone in this manner does two things… 1. Makes you feel better 2. Makes the poster look stupid. …. So surely that’s not on?

I do suffer with that side of things and it's really hard on forum to get your point across when you know people will pick apart your comments for the wrong reason.

If you give me a group of guys i will lead them to complete a project, give me something and i will fix. give me a MCP exam and i will ace it, give me a spelling test from junior school and will no doubt get them all wrong.

I hope the mods will see this, please let’s not alienate people or correct them like daddy used to correct your spelling... it's all getting a little middle classed on here.

I say if it reads it reads! - leave it at that! We all have our strengths and weekness's
Click to expand...

If a person is going to post, the least he/she can do is get their spelling correct, so that anyone reading it can understand what they are trying to convey, there is nothing worse than trying to read something full (or half full) of spelling mistakes, for often it means that you simply can't understand what the subject is about.

There have been times I have started reading posts and have simply given up because of this very issue.

Also, there are quite a few "aids" on the internet (one such is called a dictionary) to help with spelling corrections, so no real reason why a post should have such mistakes.
 
jbloggs said:
If a person is going to post, the least he/she can do is get their spelling correct, so that anyone reading it can understand what they are trying to convey, there is nothing worse than trying to read something full (or half full) of spelling mistakes, for often it means that you simply can't understand what the subject is about.

There have been times I have started reading posts and have simply given up because of this very issue.

Also, there are quite a few "aids" on the internet (one such is called a dictionary) to help with spelling corrections, so no real reason why a post should have such mistakes.
Click to expand...

"U dun't hav da logik" to work out what the spelling mistakes are actually meant to say?
 
bhavv said:
Oh right. I get it.

I didnt actually miss the point, you did in your first criticism of my signature.

People referred to as 'Grammar Nazis' correct other peoples spellings of words within the English Language, they are not critical about the spellings of names, or words that aren't within the dictionary.

And did you even read the post I made regarding the English spelling of my name? It isnt spelled as a translation of its native dialect and never has been but I dont care.
Click to expand...

No I did not miss the point at all, I was being intentionally pedantic as you were being in your own.

The correct spelling of any word that has been translated is subject to question, including your own, regardless of whether you accept the spelling or not.

Being pedantic, in English the correct way to spell القذافي is to transliterate from the subjects own dialect using the pronunciation of the name in the subjects original dialect as the basis for that transliteration.

This gives us a transliterated spelling of Gaddafi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom