Posted on 04/06/2016 1:20:07 PM PDT by Morgana
Scientists have found that people who constantly get bothered by grammatical errors online have "less agreeable" personalities than those who just let them slide.
And those friends who are super-sensitive to typos on your Facebook page? Psychological testing reveals they're generally less open, and are also more likely to be judging you for your mistakes than everyone else. In other words, they're exactly who you thought they were. That sounds pretty obvious, but this is actually the first time researchers have been able to show that a person's personality traits can actually determine how they respond to typos and grammatical errors, and it could teach us a lot about how people communicate (or miscommunicate) online.
"This is the first study to show that the personality traits of listeners/readers have an effect on the interpretation of language," said lead researcher Julie Boland from the University of Michigan. "In this experiment, we examined the social judgments that readers made about the writers."
The researchers took 83 participants and asked them all to read email responses to an ad for a housemate, which either contained no errors or had been altered to include typos (e.g. "teh" instead of "the") or grammatical mix-ups, such as too/to or it's/its.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencealert.com ...
I don't think it proper, however, to use more than one form in the same article.
You forgot two, to, and too.
It is a new arrival that was never used 25 years ago. The original context of its use was people trying to sound really smart since they were fresh out of college.
Another one that I just loathe is "having said that". I fricking know you just said that why say "having said that".
It is if one instance is a verb and the other is a noun.
The tenant hereby agrees:How awkwardly to avoid split infinitives
(i) to pay the said rent;
(ii) to properly clean all the windows;
(iii) to at all times properly empty all closets;
(iv) to immediately any litter or disorder shall have been made by him or for his purpose on the staircase or landings or any other part of the said building or garden remove the same.
If one can’t avoid splitting an infinitive without creating garble, one should rephrase the entire sentence to avoid using an infinitive.
Better than I.
I shoulda put a sarc tag on it! :-)
Its to much four me too understand
“I was suppose too make a comment. But I can’t do it in lame mans terms, so, I won’t comment.”
These two bother me the most. It’s (Supposed!) and, using term that the writer has never read.
Similar posting I saw recently, “It’s a doggy dog world.”
I know. Thank you.
Perhaps. Did I mix up the "mix-up" references in the article? No the references are both nouns.
Used as a verb, I see only "mix up" used. Does that then constrain one to use "mix up" for the noun? I think not. I did see an example where "mix up" is used for the noun meaning.
I'll have to entertain my linguist daughter with this problem.
The verb is “to mix up.”
The noun is “mix-up.”
How did you determine that?
Well, if you ever get Tooth ache just ask me to write a full page book review.
Pop! Straight out. Would save a fortune on the Dentist bill.
:D
You should be given the key to FReeperland for this public service.
I went up the mountain, and returned with the truth.
Thanks.
“Another one that I just loathe is “having said that”.”
That indicates one is going to say something contradictory or seemingly so to what had just been said. It is a way to indicate what was just stated was to put things in an overall or broader context.
What would be your alternative suggestion to use for such transitions?
What would be your alternative suggestion to use for such transitions?
However.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.