MAN And MACHINE
Why you should one pay a journalist with a PhD in English and 25 years experience grading papers and teaching developmental English and more advanced courses to edit your work, PLUS a computer, rather than relying exclusively on MS Word or the supposedly all mighty Grammerly? For now, let's just say that no matter how many algorithms machines can work at once, or how many millions of words and phrases they can crunch, they can't think as a person thinks. Computers are a bit like former Pes. W: "We don't do nuance." How many of you, calling customer service, would rather speak to a human being rather than being given choices A-D by a mechanical voice? When you want to talk about E. There. I thought so. The recipient or recipients of your text would rather hear from a human being as well. Writing involves not only being "correct," but communicating from the heart. Some geeks might disagree, but computers don't have hearts. If I haven't convinced you yet, consider
A Couple of Cliches.
(I know, English teachers are always supposed to be against cliches. True, it shows a lack of originality. But here are a couple of old maxims you might keep in mind, nevertheless.)
Ask yourself if you really want your paper to be perfect. A computer cannot and will not write the perfect paper for you. I (plus computer) can and will. Most of the time. Otherwise you get a discount. How's that?
A Couple of Cliches.
(I know, English teachers are always supposed to be against cliches. True, it shows a lack of originality. But here are a couple of old maxims you might keep in mind, nevertheless.)
- You get what you pay for.
- If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Ask yourself if you really want your paper to be perfect. A computer cannot and will not write the perfect paper for you. I (plus computer) can and will. Most of the time. Otherwise you get a discount. How's that?
Before we go on, let me mention that I'm just making an informal statement of opinion; this is definitely not a scholarly essay. As for always speaking in perfect standard English, I've read that in England, only something like 1-1.5 percent of the population speak Received English. Or what we in America would call the King's English or "hoity-toity" English. Of course, in the U.S. we have all sorts of dialects that grow out of where we live. But at the level of the media, news, politics, it's essential that speakers and writers use SAE. It promotes understanding amongst people's of different cultures who speak different dialects.
The term "busted"'is informal, and inferior to "broken" (more will understand the term "broken"). Similarly,the slang term, "busted" is inferior to "arrested." Of course, if you're "broke," meaning out of money, then perhaps speaking SAE is the least of your worries.
The term "busted"'is informal, and inferior to "broken" (more will understand the term "broken"). Similarly,the slang term, "busted" is inferior to "arrested." Of course, if you're "broke," meaning out of money, then perhaps speaking SAE is the least of your worries.
Okay, I've mentioned Word and Grammarly. I think by the year 3000 machines may have caught up with humans in terms of language. In writing, it's probably prudent to use Word, and perhaps even Grammerly, if you your grammar background is particularly weak. And Word can weed out the obvious problems, but be aware, Word can steer you wrong. I imagine most of the time it's a bug, but who knows? Some mistakes may have been the result of bored programmers. But Word has cut down on deviations from Standard English, except people still rely on it too much. Just because there's no squiggly line doesn't mean there's no mistake! Here we have an example of what I call a New Age Typo: The reign in Spain falls mainly on the plane. How unfortunate for air travelers and for those with total faith in their programs. I grant you: maybe word processors have advanced enough to catch that. And maybe, if you buy the hype that Grammerly is far stronger than Word, you'll luck out. But I doubt it. I have read that in competitions, human experts plus computers come out first, especially when it comes to nuance of meaning. I probably read that in a highly distinguished source such as Wikipedia, but I've also read it in The Innovators, by Walter Isaakson, Steve Jobs biographer. In any case, why not use the computer and the expert, especially with very important papers?
