sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) (01/03/85)
Fellow Jews
The title of this posting is called Mareet Iyeen and is my
best attempt to transliterate the term. I apologize if it is
not the preferred spelling. The point of this posting is as
follows. Mareet Iyeen is the law requiring us to be careful
of our actions lest they be misconstrued to *appear* wrong
even if they were not. For example, one should not go into a
McDonalds to buy a Coke while wearing a kippah because some
one may not realize that you are not eating there. They may
think that because a kippah wearer is going there he is
going to eat and a kippah wearer would only eat where it is
Kosher and therefore McDonalds is Kosher. The example is
contrived and arguable, but I believe it makes the point.
Why do I bring this up? I've been reading net.religion
.jewish for a while and I find that many of the writers
have excellent things to say. However, how they say it
leaves much to be desired. My complaint focuses on 2
things:
1. POOR spelling, and
2. personal attacks.
The second one has been a problem for a while in many
newsgroups. I would like to say that we should set an
example and *try* to refrain from these. I won't say it
because the very anonymous nature of the net seems to make
these attacks easier and more common (also more virulent;
I'm sure that a lot of what is being said in writing would
*never* be said to a person's face)
The first point is really what prompted me to write this. I
doubt I would have bothered except that it has become truly
distracting from otherwise very informative articles. When
you post something, why not proofread it once before
posting. There have been some mistakes that people should
be embarrassed about. Without mentioning the names of the
perpetrators, let me cite 2 examples:
- the use of homonyms ("there" when you mean "their" or
"they're", etc.)
- typos
The first type of error will be caught if you proofread
before posting. The second type will be caught if you use
UNIX's "spell" program (or its equivalent on other systems).
This is not too much to ask, I believe, and it would also
serve as an example of the calibre of people that I think we
are and should attempt to represent.
Finally, if people would go through their postings once
before sending them it would have an additional benefit: it
would force you to read what you've written and consider
whether it really is necessary to go through with posting
the attack that was written in haste. You won't regret
pulling it out.
A little musar never hurt any one.
Sam Saal
...!ihnp4!eisx!smsabeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (01/04/85)
I can't agree too much for the need to improve the spelling and grammar (not to mention usage) of the postings. Unfortunately, many who consider themselves to be quite impressive cannot even express themselves at the common level. While net.religion.jewish is not at the level of The Jewish Press (for those who are unfamiliar, The Jewish Press is a family-owned newspaper written for religious Jews in English and expressing a very Boro-Park-ish point of view), where spelling and grammar are concerned. I no longer subscribe to the Jewish Press primarily because of the poor quality of the publication. Opinions and facts are not easily distinguished. Ungrammatical sentences must be second-guessed to uncover the true intent of the authors. Spelling is atrocious. Editors fail to eliminate verbal diarrhea in contributors' essays. Lastly, there is a low quotient of thought-provoking articles in The Jewish Press. Unfortunately, among the religious community there is a significant number who are not articulate in any language. In the right-wing yeshivas English is neglected and students commence their careers unable to speak unaccented or proper English. Especially for the lesser students there is great difficulty in distinguishing the language to which a given word belongs. The result is that such words as "bei" are incorrectly used, viz., "I stayed by the Cohens last Shabbos." In this example, the speaker may not realize that the German or Yiddish preposition "bei" is not the same word as the English preposition "by." (There is no way that the use of "by" is correct in this example) We should not be surprised that such people are unemployable in normal American businesses such as the ones in which most readers of this newsgroup are employed. The religious community, mostly in Brooklyn, NY, suffers additionally from the handicap that it is descended from parents who themselves did not speak English. This community, while in competition with the mainstream of Americans in the quite external ways of conspicuous consumption and extravagant dressing habits, has not yet picked up on the more important ways in which it is inferior to educated Americans. I imagine some will say that "Torah learning" is more important than improving one's language skills in a foreign tongue. To them I bring up two main points: First, neither Hebrew nor any other language compares to English. English is the most advanced language in recorded history. There are more words in the English language by far than in any other language and articulate speakers of English may express more with their choice of words than speakers of other languages. But uneducated listeners cannot discern the extent of their meaning. Second, thought follows language. We are able to manipulate ideas in our minds routinely only with the help of established words. Any person who is not articulate in any language will suffer because of it in the quality of their thought processes. It is often observed in Israel that Israelis are "doers" while "Anglos" (Americans, British, etc.) are more thoughtful. While this is necessitated in the case of the Israelis by the dire circumstances with which Israel must constantly cope, it is also brought on by the limited nature of the Hebrew language. There is, I would argue, superiority to the English language separate from the military superiority of the English speakers in the United States during WW II. This superiority commands respect among Israelis and is responsible for the dramatic addition of English words to the Hebrew language as spoken in Israel. I have strayed from the original topic (we are discussing spelling and grammar, not style and composition). It is nevertheless important to maintain a decent level of spelling and grammar, at least in my opinion. --J. Abeles
reingold@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/04/85)
Abeles writes:
...such words as "bei" are incorrectly used, viz., "I stayed by
the Cohens last Shabbos." In this example, the speaker may not
realize that the German or Yiddish preposition "bei" is not the
same word as the English preposition "by." (There is no way that
the use of "by" is correct in this example)
It is sad for me to note that, in his diatribe against poor English, Abeles
is somewhat misguided when it comes to the word "by." Webster's Unabridged
accepts the meaning "at the house of." Specifically, the third edition
says it is dialect while the first and second editions say it is obsolete.
The Oxford English Dictionary accepts the meaning, also calling it
obsolete. The OED and the second and third editions of Webster's Unabridged
include a quotation from Shakespeare in which the word "by" is used in
precisely this way. Although it may sound strange to Abeles' ears, it is
correct, if archaic.teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (01/09/85)
long quote a end.
I really don't see your point here at all. Are you trying to say that
religious people from Boro Park, or wherever they are from, are less "thinkers" than their less religious counterparts. Since when does a large vocabulary
make someone smarter than another? All you do here is try to imply that
Americanized Jews are better than those who live in their self imposed ghetto.
One side point. Those of chassidik background happen to be just as
employable as those of American background. In fact they are sometimes better
workers, being more committed to doing a job right than to capitalism and
trying to make a buck.
Eliyahu Teitz.
> Unfortunately, among the religious community there is a significant
> number who are not articulate in any language. In the right-wing
> yeshivas English is neglected and students commence their careers
> unable to speak unaccented or proper English. Especially for the
> lesser students there is great difficulty in distinguishing the
> language to which a given word belongs. The result is that such
> words as "bei" are incorrectly used, viz., "I stayed by the Cohens
> last Shabbos." In this example, the speaker may not realize that
> the German or Yiddish preposition "bei" is not the same word as
> the English preposition "by." (There is no way that the use of
> "by" is correct in this example) We should not be surprised that
> such people are unemployable in normal American businesses such as
> the ones in which most readers of this newsgroup are employed.
>
> The religious community, mostly in Brooklyn, NY, suffers additionally
> from the handicap that it is descended from parents who themselves
> did not speak English. This community, while in competition with the
> mainstream of Americans in the quite external ways of conspicuous
> consumption and extravagant dressing habits, has not yet picked up
> on the more important ways in which it is inferior to educated Americans.
>
> I imagine some will say that "Torah learning" is more important than
> improving one's language skills in a foreign tongue. To them I
> bring up two main points: First, neither Hebrew nor any other language
> compares to English. English is the most advanced language in recorded
> history. There are more words in the English language by far than in any
> other language and articulate speakers of English may express more with
> their choice of words than speakers of other languages. But uneducated
> listeners cannot discern the extent of their meaning.
>
> Second, thought follows language. We are able to manipulate ideas in
> our minds routinely only with the help of established words. Any person
> who is not articulate in any language will suffer because of it in the
> quality of their thought processes. It is often observed in Israel that
> Israelis are "doers" while "Anglos" (Americans, British, etc.) are
> more thoughtful. While this is necessitated in the case of the Israelis
> by the dire circumstances with which Israel must constantly cope, it is
> also brought on by the limited nature of the Hebrew language. There is,
> I would argue, superiority to the English language separate from the
> military superiority of the English speakers in the United States during
> WW II. This superiority commands respect among Israelis and is responsible
> for the dramatic addition of English words to the Hebrew language as spoken
> in Israel.
> abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (01/09/85)
(quote at end) I don't agree with your reading of those dictionaries. The usage of the word "by" in English is incorrect in the sentence "I ate by the Cohens last Shabbos." The use described in the dictionary entries you dredged up is akin to "I stopped by the Cohens last Shabbos," which is correct English. The authorities writing in those dictionaries did not envision your interpretation, in my estimation. My American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Ed., doesn't list anything like what you found in those other dictionaries. While they are authoritative, the American Heritage Dictionary is an all-new dictionary of this century (1969) unlike any other popular dictionary, in my understanding. Take a look at one and read the Introduction. I think your usage was indeed an obsolete one which, in any case, would never have admitted the usage which I deemed incorrect. --J. Abeles > Abeles writes: > > ...such words as "bei" are incorrectly used, viz., "I stayed by > the Cohens last Shabbos." In this example, the speaker may not > realize that the German or Yiddish preposition "bei" is not the > same word as the English preposition "by." (There is no way that > the use of "by" is correct in this example) > > It is sad for me to note that, in his diatribe against poor English, Abeles > is somewhat misguided when it comes to the word "by." Webster's Unabridged > accepts the meaning "at the house of." Specifically, the third edition > says it is dialect while the first and second editions say it is obsolete. > The Oxford English Dictionary accepts the meaning, also calling it > obsolete. The OED and the second and third editions of Webster's Unabridged > include a quotation from Shakespeare in which the word "by" is used in > precisely this way. Although it may sound strange to Abeles' ears, it is > correct, if archaic.