• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Writers' Workshop General Chat Thread

It has. It's part of the Common Core reforms. Included is education on how to do math problems that, frankly, is a great way to make certain we don't have any scientists or engineers in the future. It's part of why several states, including my own, have abandoned the idea in defiance of the federal government.
 
I'd rather school had taught me more basics and stuff like that. Year 9, which is the first year of high school/college here, went straight into analysing texts, which is all very well and good but it's not a wholly useful school in the real world. That generally was my issue with school was that little of it was stuff that was actually of benefit unless you were then going to go on and study that subject further.
 
We barely touched on rules when I was in school. It was assumed that we knew them already, and if we didn't, "just write how you speak, it'll work most of the time." I may owe the way my dialogue is written to that.

It's only getting worse, too. I've seen my niece's homework from a variety of subjects, I'm surprised she knows how to bash two rocks together let alone do math or write properly. I guess @Caitlin; is doing all of the proper teaching without the help of the schools, cause I'd never learn a thing with the way the kids are being taught now.
 
I remember when I did some work experience at the Jobcentre, and was surprised to see how many twenty-somethings I met couldn't use a word processor, send an e-mail, or use capital letters. This is the Facebook generation, mark you, people about the age of the average Workshop regular.

What level of literacy one considers to be basic tends to depend upon one's profession, I've noticed. From what I've seen, being in the "real world" for six or seven years, it kind of caps out at formal CV language for most people. That's far below a lot of grammatical or technical language, and, I would suggest, isn't enough to fill out a curriculum up to high school level. It may well also be the case that whoever is reading the CV couldn't tell you what an Oxford comma is and wouldn't be remotely interested in that knowledge in an employee.

So I suppose my point is, it depends what kind of rules are being taught. You can't just turn the clock back about thirty years and expect that to be appropriate to modern day literacy. It's far more important now to know that a space comes after a full stop in typed writing than it is to know how to lay out a letter. Those lower working-class sods I was giving 30 minute crash courses to didn't need to know the difference between a semi colon and hyphen. Apostrophe's (Just kidding) and roughly where to put a comma was what was going to help them earn an honest day's pay
 
We barely touched on rules when I was in school. It was assumed that we knew them already, and if we didn't, "just write how you speak, it'll work most of the time." I may owe the way my dialogue is written to that.

Same here. For my Communications degree at university, we were expected to have good grammar and spelling and my tutors were always stunned by the fact we didn't know certain things. One tutor from England even said "you have a fantastic education system here, you should know this" and I remember thinking what a load of bull that was. My English teachers probably were my best teachers at school but we never got taught grammar, not once.
 
Same here. For my Communications degree at university, we were expected to have good grammar and spelling and my tutors were always stunned by the fact we didn't know certain things. One tutor from England even said "you have a fantastic education system here, you should know this" and I remember thinking what a load of bull that was. My English teachers probably were my best teachers at school but we never got taught grammar, not once.

I had an English teacher give up on trying to teach us spelling rules or grammar simply because we kept bringing up too many exceptions. For example, "i before e except after c" is at best a polite suggestion simply because the exceptions outnumber the words that actually follow the rule. And let's not forget you can speak like Yoda and still effectively communicate.

Luckily, they didn't teach us "write how you speak," but I think that's because most of us spoke like scriptwriters for a certain Penn and Teller show that used to be on Showtime.

I think part of why some English courses focus so much on analyzing texts is because English has a nasty habit of beating up other languages in dark alleys and then rifling through their pockets for spare vocabulary. Which explains why "colony" and "bologna" rhyme, but "tough" and "though" do not.
 
Funnily enough, my degree touched on this. When you compare Welsh kids to English, learning those respective languages, Welsh kids learn more, faster, thanks to the consistency of rules when it comes to pronouncing and spelling words. After a while though (I forget when, but it's not that long) it plateaus out and English catches up.

It's because of this that I have such a dim view of the idea of teaching correct English. So much of the "rules" aren't rules at all because they don't apply with any consistency. They're conventions, sometimes stylistic conventions that only apply in certain genres. Sometimes you can find rules that have no purpose at all other than to artificially create a "correctness" that wouldn't otherwise exist (This means you, split infinitive). To my mind, it's better to and more useful teach style rather than rules.

Despite the problems it causes with teaching, the mutability and variety of English is also what makes it the most expressive language there is. It's pliant and mouldable, without too many rules getting in the way of being able to creatively play around with words. It accepts the inevitable limitations of the roman alphabet when it comes to replicating phonemes and so allows you to spell and say foreign sounds with relative ease
 
Well, I stumbled on some old writing of mine, from around 2010. It's astonishing how far I've come since then, yet it's evident that not much has changed at the same time. It's embarrassing, but here it is if anyone's interested. It's Warcraft related, so most people here probably wouldn't understand what's going on since I made no attempt to explain practically any of the details. I expected readers to know what half of the crap in it already was.

Anyone else have some really old work floating around? The worse it is, the better!
 
I have at least one story I can think of, and never shall it see the light of day ;) Not least because I don't even think I have the digital copy any more

Here's a strangely coy definition from the OED Online: "bawd, n.1: One employed in pandering to sexual debauchery; a procurer or procuress; orig. in a more general sense, and in the majority of passages masculine, a ‘go-between,’ a pander; since c1700 only feminine, and applied to a procuress, or a woman keeping a place of prostitution."

In other words ... a pimp, surely? Rather strange since pimp is clearly defined as "Originally: a person who arranges opportunities for (illicit) sexual intercourse; a procurer. Now: a man who takes a proportion of the earnings of a prostitute, usually in return for arranging clients, providing protection, etc."
 
I have at least one story I can think of, and never shall it see the light of day ;) Not least because I don't even think I have the digital copy any more

Here's a strangely coy definition from the OED Online: "bawd, n.1: One employed in pandering to sexual debauchery; a procurer or procuress; orig. in a more general sense, and in the majority of passages masculine, a ‘go-between,’ a pander; since c1700 only feminine, and applied to a procuress, or a woman keeping a place of prostitution."

In other words ... a pimp, surely? Rather strange since pimp is clearly defined as "Originally: a person who arranges opportunities for (illicit) sexual intercourse; a procurer. Now: a man who takes a proportion of the earnings of a prostitute, usually in return for arranging clients, providing protection, etc."

I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in the U.S. we just use "madam" for that role. Men are pimps, women are madams. From Merriam-Webster online: "madam, n. 3: the female head of a house of prostitution." It's also often used to refer to a woman running an escort service.
 
I've never heard "madam" used in that context, and I'm from the U.S. At least, I certainly hope it's not a blatant, common reference to that, because I just sent in some work to the Department of Justice that said "madam" like 50 different times. >_> And that's exactly what I need, the government coming back to me for calling their clients prostitutes... :p
 
It's pretty common, actually. Here's just one news story that does it:


If you want a lot of fun facepalming, google the D.C. Madam.

Strangely enough, despite the prostitution tie, the term still carries an inherent respect to it. So, I think you're safe.

Edit: Removed one of my links I had posted after doing a second look at the subject matter. Unfortunately, it's rather hard to discuss the topic without getting into some areas even I'm not comfortable with.
 
So I watched the new Samurai Jack, and the one thing that disturbed me the most was the birthing scene in the first episode.

And also, I'm not liking Aku's new voice so far.
 
HNNNNNNRGH DID SOMEONE MENTION SAMURAI JACK

I've waited twelve years for this and I don't plan on doing any solid critique until I've seen the entire thing. I've been riding this hype train for months. And given that Mako Iwamatsu can't ever be replaced (though Greg Baldwin is doing his best), I like to believe that Aku is so depressed after 50 years that he's lost his usual boisterousness (hence the "new" voice).
 
HNNNNNNRGH DID SOMEONE MENTION SAMURAI JACK

I've waited twelve years for this and I don't plan on doing any solid critique until I've seen the entire thing. I've been riding this hype train for months. And given that Mako Iwamatsu can't ever be replaced (though Greg Baldwin is doing his best), I like to believe that Aku is so depressed after 50 years that he's lost his usual boisterousness (hence the "new" voice).

At least Aku has his own shrink

The same can't be said for Jack tho
 
Back
Top Bottom