Re: e-mail symbols

[palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)]

> Prosaic: 1a.  Consisting of or characteristic of prose.
> b. Matter-of-fact; straightforward.

Point granted. It's an error I've made before. I
admitted that I was no Mark Twain. It is interesting
to note that you understood my posting completely
even though I made that error, and that no emoticon
was necessary to convey the meaning. English is
sufficiently redundant that my intent was clear.
People like me who do not write perfectly can still
communicate in this medium.

I'm pleased to say that my children have benefitted
from their parents' old fashioned ideas about
language. Two are in tenure track positions* and a
third (with 28+ publications at age 33) is looking
for one with a high degree of success. He only
applies to first class places and has made two short
lists already. He has a permanent position now and is
working in a prestigious government laboratory**. Our
fourth child is in law school and already has an MA
in English literature. All have benefitted greatly
from their early language training. My parents did
not go to college, but they did pay some attention
to my English errors. I'm only trying to pass on my
best advice for the benefit of young people. I do
think that my children's success in a very difficult
game speaks favorably to the matter of the value of
good language skills. I think they should be
encouraged by parents and teachers at every opportunity.
If you think that this is a silly, out of date idea
then you haven't marked laboratory notebooks or talked
to employers of coop students as I have.

It has been said that English is the greatest gift our
parents conferred on us. Even almost completely
unilingual churls like me can travel throughout the
world and reasonably expect to find some competent
speakers of the language everywhere. We should cherish
that gift and feel some responsibility to pass it on
to our own children. Those of us who teach have an
additional responsibility to reinforce that attitude
in our teaching. That is the message I did not get
across, at least not to everybody. I think Rick got it
and that he objects to it, even though he writes quite
well himself. I think I understand him, and I have
noticed that he does not use emoticons frequently,
even if he did in that piece.

I'm afraid I'm one of those people called vulgarly a
"shit disturber". It is my way of trying to get people
to think about something when I perceive that there is
a need for them to do so. I have pointed to the small
danger I see in teaching children to use emoticons in
their communications. Their skills in standard English
may atrophy (or never develop) given the sanction of
emoticons by their teachers. Did anyone else notice
the danger? Was I way off base (as Rick seemingly
thinks I was) in noting it?

Leigh

* in philosophy of science and linguistic anthropology

** in observational astrophysics