Excellent grammar to Standard American English readers. When I noticed he spelled 'favour' as 'favor', it was a little tough to take at first, but I learned to be tolerant.

The people who make hiring decisions tend to be big fans of standard English.

OP never asked for advice on CV writing.

If the OP was unintelligible, he should be called out on it, but we all understood him, did we not.

OP asked for career advice. One of the responses he got suggested that you don't have to worry about spelling/grammar errors in your resume. Amazingly, this has triggered a multi-page defense of non-standard English that is of zero help to the OP, who hopefully has long since abandoned the thread.

Can even science or facts properly correct a dedicated corrector?

I don't agree with that.

The OP's question was answered well (in between the nonsense or interesting linguistics discussion, depending on who you ask).

Relative to AAVE, "He be workin'" is grammatically correct. It fits the structures that define AAVE. That's not the language generally used in business settings (within English language contexts), but that's a separate issue.

No, we're definitely arguing grammar. I think we both agree that the meaning is clear, just as "I is happy" is semantically comprehensible despite the grammar being incorrect.

If you concede that 'he be workin' is acceptable grammar in another dialect of the English language and state that correct is a fine way to describe grammar, my question is - when is grammar incorrect?



I share this view:

Sorry, there's no such thing as 'correct grammar'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-martin-gwynne

Grammar is incorrect when it does not conform to the expectations for the particular language/dialect that is being used in the culture/region where it is being used. A dialect doesn't exist simply because one person speaks in a certain way. Dialects are culturally-bound, so that there must be a culture that accepts this particular way of using language as its norm.

You're welcome to hold that view, but it's probably wrong. Taking an op-ed from a newspaper isn't a particularly strong move. I would accept statements like, "There is no such thing as 'proper English.'" But "correct grammar" exists.

It just doesn't exist in some sort of eternal way that defines the "correct" for all times and places. It's a deeply contextualized aspect of language. But to take it so far as to say that "correct grammar doesn't exist" is to deny that grammar plays a role in language at all.

The op-ed itself is fine once it gets into the meat of it, even if the title of the op-ed is stupid. (It was probably done that way to increase readership and make money.) The section you quoted doesn't actually support the argument that "correct grammar" doesn't exist. All it says is that there's debate over the meaning of grammar and debates as to which manifestations of language that it applies.

There may be no way to fully determine correct grammar but there is still plenty of incorrect grammar.

It's a fairly common type of mistake akin to thinking 'no correct answer' means the same as 'no incorrect answers'.

Is a person trying to understand other people or is a person on a quest condition other people's brains because they lack the wisdom and decency to try understand another person?

Morals. Do the grammar nits have them when being grammar nits? Or are they indecent because they lack basic respect and understanding for other people and ignore the diversity of human beings?

There's no reason to seek a "full determination" of correct grammar.

There's another error (which appears to be the one that was made in the application of the op-ed), which is that the existence of a correct answer must necessarily render other answers incorrect.

Similar questions may be asked of the anti-grammar nit population.

The value to thinking carefully about grammar is more about awareness than right-ness.

So understanding and respecting people realistically is a moral question? Why would it be immoral to confront people who don't act understanding and respectful because they feel entitled to "make a person aware"?

How much stigma do you think it takes to alter a person's language area of the brain? If stigma is not your goal, how are you controlling for it not to happen unintentionally by your method?

Since your sentences are syntactically correct but don't appear to have a coherent meaning, I don't really know how to respond. So as best as I can tell, it appears you're making useless noise. You may continue to do this, but you are likely to be ignored.

So you never previously thought about a relationship with grammar nittery and social stigma?

I'm just making awareness of how easy it is to understand one another regardless of grammar. You raise your awareness, I'll raise mine.

That's an interesting conjecture. I'm interested in your evidential basis. Is it my refusal to engage in certain forms of stupidity with you? If so, it would seem that you've drawn unwarranted conclusions.

Sadly, my awareness is not increased. As I have already explicitly noted, understanding is possible in spite of incorrect grammar. ("I is happy" is understandable and grammatically incorrect.)

So, if your statement is true, you will sadly remain in utter ignorance. My apologies for being unable to enlighten you any further.

OP -

The value of being alive can be measured in many ways. Some values do accrue disproportionately---or even exclusively---to the top 1% within competitive fields.

But others are available to anybody. For example, the experience of living an interesting life can be achieved by just giving unwavering commitment to a goal. Any goal, really; and it almost doesn't matter if you achieve it.

So I suggest you first focus on figuring out what you value.

Oh, you have provided all the evidence anyone needs right here.

Since that is exactly the standard that employers use, it isn't an issue at all.

OP should definitely make sure to tell any prospective employers that he doesn't think he doesn't believe he is well-suited for working for others. It is important that any employer is a good fit for him.

Yeah, you're right. The analysis I've provided really gives an indication of having no sense of linguistics as falling within a particular cultural context. None of the words I use even hint that I'm aware that such a thing exists.

But your sense of "grammar nittery" as being a tool of social stigma, and (by extension) socioeconomic oppression, seems to reflect more of your own inadequacies. It's not as if being aware of the existence of the differences between academic English and African American Vernacular English could serve any function to assist in the understanding of language and its usage, nor could there even be any inherent value to that understanding.

Also, Chinese food is cultural appropriation. Clearly, there's an abundance of unconsidered moral implications.

A noteworthy thing about grammar nits is the typical range of reasons they use that underly why a person might not use the grammar that they need. It's either they don't try or didn't get educated. Quite a narrow range and both are presumptuous. Even when either of these conditions are true, what evidence exists that suggests raising awareness, suggesting fear of not getting a job, or criticizing actually does anything to make their grammar more in line with what the nits desire?

How many millions of people exist which neither of those apply and don't provide the grammarists with the grammar they need? My recollection off hand that is 7-8 million Americans may not qualify for them due to a health condition.

It would be a bit more on-point to state that 1) social stigma is a very good thing, 2) that black people don't use AAVE on their CVs and 3) that the point is moot because no one here is actually using AAVE.

Does one's refusal to accept good advice imply that the one providing that advice is somehow at moral fault? I find this line of reasoning to be specious at best.

In the context of a poster desiring to be in the "1%" range, I do not see any relevance to this comparison. But relevance doesn't seem to be an interest of yours, so this is perfectly logical.

At best, it seems you're just fishing for a fight. And you got a bite. But now it doesn't appear you have the will to actually finish. Or perhaps you discovered the error of your ways. We shall see where you go from here.

It was an explicit example used in the conversation. Did you miss that in Post #72?

Or perhaps you are hanging on a point from a different aspect of the conversation that isn't directly tied to the point I'm making? I can't tell.