Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: English is tough but its "grammer" is even tougher[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Fwd: English is tough but its "grammer" is even tougher
- From: valentin.shustov(--nospam--at)csun.edu
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:35:52 -0700
--- Begin Message ---
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: English is tough but its "grammer" is even tougher
- From: valentin.shustov(--nospam--at)csun.edu
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:32:42 -0700English looks very tough and its "grammer" seems even tougher. I do not mean the "grammer" as the "grammar" but the "grammer" as a non-traditional spelling of the word "grammar" introduced by Scott Maxwell in his two messages of 2 Sep 2003 devoted to better English for engineers. Thanks!! The following is the list of this and other upgrading of the English Spelling in those messages: "grammer" (4 times), "intented", "otherwords", "momuments", "techinical" (2 times), "sophmore", "sypathize", and "sentances". One of the Scott's messages was addressed to Alden Manipula who also engaged non-traditional "sentace", "sentances", "ridiculouos", and "legelese" in his response. Gail Kelley who, actually, started the discussion on engineering schools that "put a very low premium on teaching engineers to speak and write correctly… which is one reason engineers get very little respect", used only one irregular word "polical" in the short message of 31 Aug 2003 against my usage of the word-combination "aspired position". However, my search in Google for the word-combination "aspired position" resulted in 29600 entries. It is widely used in different personnel questionnaires and human recourses related literature. What a pity! Write safely, Valentin Shustov, Ph.D., P.E. http://www.ecs.csun.edu/~shustov/ ----------------- Original Message----- From: valentin.shustov(--nospam--at)csun.edu Sent: at 17:40:00 on 29 Aug 2003 To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: Advance Degrees and Structural Engineering I agree with Dennis Wish on the necessity of educating people, primarily, of U.S. for the structural engineering and other similar jobs rather than using cheap foreign brains and skills. However, I am skeptical about a possibility of any dramatic improvement in this direction unless the following improvements in the upper branches of government take place: Any aspirant for the U.S. presidency or for a gubernatorial position in states like California should: 1. Pass an IQ test. 2. Be licensed (like, e.g., CE or SE) for the aspired position. Period, Valentin Shustov ---------- On 31 Aug 2003, Gail Kelley wrote: From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: Re: Advance Degrees and Structural Engineering A good understanding of the English language would be a handy thing for anyone in the US, even if they are not aspiring to a polical position. "aspired" is not an adjective. It is the inflected form of the intransitive verb "to aspire". As in "He aspired to the position". Unfortunately, engineering schools put a very low premium on teaching engineers to speak and write correctly. Which is one reason engineers get very little respect. Gail Kelley ----------- On 2 Sep 2003, Scott Maxwell wrote: From: Scott Maxwell smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: Re: English is tough So, let me get this straight... After we went through this whole bit (by some) that too much time in undergraduate engineering education is wasted on non-engineering things like humanities (which includes English to my knowledge), we have decide that colleges don't do enough to "teach engineers to speak and write correctly," eh? (And it still bothers me to no end that to my knowledge the comma is supposed to be inside the quotation marks for "proper" grammer...it just ain't be lookin' write...pun and mistake intented) No wonder schools can't get it right...we don't even seem to really know what we want (other than to make future engineering students attend college for about 25 years to the cost of $1.5 million so that they can become experts at EVERYTHING meaning that we [the engineering profession] don't have to expend any effort to mentor, train, or educate our young engineers). Now, this is were I will point out that in my mind (in otherwords, to my understanding) things like being able to read and write correctly are supposed to be taught to kid PRIOR to entering college. Thus, for all intents and purposes, engineers should be just as well spoken (and written) as any other profession, with the exception of those that major in English. The primary difference MIGHT be that engineering schools don't REINFORCE what was taught in K-12 as well as some other majors do. After all, we tend to spend most of our class time dealing with numbers rather than words. Thus, since engineers tend to get a nice 4 year period of little writing, we are allowed to get sloppy with our use of the English language. And, FWIW, I personally don't buy the notion that engineers don't get respect because we don't speak or write correctly. I personally maintain that the biggest reasons that we don't get respect is that 1) not too many people really understand what engineers do and 2) we don't really do it for the respect, unlike some architectural designers that do elaborate designs that end up being momuments to their egos (not all do this but many do...I have dealt with quite a few even in my young career). Regards, Scott Ypsilanti, MI --------------- On 2 Sep 2003, Alden Manipula wrote: From: "Alden Manipula" amanipula(--nospam--at)novagroupinc.net To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: RE: English is tough Technical writing was a required class when I went school, which wasn't = too long ago. It was only a semester and was, IMHO, a very good class. We worked on writing engineering reports, manuals, letters to clients, etc. = We basically practiced to write short, concise, to the point documents. = But what railroaded me was when I started working. I would write my letters and reports that explained things simply. = Doing my best to do what I was taught in school. When my boss would proof read = them they always came back with a lot of red marks that resulted in my report being substantially longer and not concise at all. =20 For example, the following sentace: The beam is exhibiting a deflection greater then one inch at midspan. Why do I have to write a run on sentence to explain all that when all = the supporting information is already in the paragraph? Basically, I was = told I had write like this because of lawyers who nit pick sentances in a court room. Now, I've never been in court to defend a sentence before, but = this seems ridiculouos. =20 I think part of the problem is most engineers think they have to write = in legelese to cover their butts. Go Blue. Alden Manipula ------------- On 2 Sep 2003, Scott Maxwell wrote: From: Scott Maxwell smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: RE: English is tough Alden, Technical writing was also a required course while I was at Michigan as an undergrad. I also had to take a freshman English class. But, then the freshman English class was much more of a composition/creative writing/writing class that something more "technical" like grammer. The grade in that class was more a function of pleasing the instructor by writing in a style that they liked rather then "writing correctly". I also had to write techinical reports for my basic geotect/soils class and for my hydraulics class. Again, the format and techinical content of the reports was much more important than the grammer...at least in the scores/grades. I also had a variety of other classes here and there that had some sort of written report (did a paper on the Cypress Viaduct collapse during the Loma Prieta earthquake in course covering design for dynamic forces). The last class that I had that really covered the "technical" aspect of the English language was my freshman English class in high school. I did not make the honors English class that year, which like the honors English classes I had as sophmore and junior was more of a composition/writing and literature course rather than things like grammer. To be honest, I consider my freshman high school English course better and much more useful than anything that I had in any of the honors English course that I took. As to writing on the job, I understand and sypathize. But, in reality, that is nothing. I am helping someone out doing a little research on car emission issues. As a result, I had to read parts of the 1977 Clean Air Act. Let's just say that reading the law out of Congress (full of lawyers and "legal speak") made reading _ANY_ model building code provision seem crystal clear. It was only about 6 pages of stuff to read, but there were so many run on sentances and other "legal speak" that my head was literally hurting. No wonder lawyers make so much money...any one that can sit there and read (or write) that blather deserves to be paid large sums of money. Just six pages of it and I was looking for the nearest cliff to jump off of...it managed to be mind numbing and painful at the same time!! Regards, Scott Ypsilanti, MI
--- End Message ---
- Prev by Subject: English is tough but its "grammer" is even tougher
- Next by Subject: Re: English is tough but its "grammer" is even tougher
- Previous by thread: RE: English is tough but its "grammer" is even tougher
- Next by thread: horizontal bar distance below top of wall?