There’s actually a name for people who perceive proper punctuation as being passive aggressive. They’re called “morons.”
Edit: in the name of further research I asked my wife, who is a non-punctuation texter, what she thought about this. Here’s what I got.
Results of Conversation with Mrs. jubilationtcornpone
Me: “If someone sent you a message that had a period at the end, would you think they were angry with you?”
Her: “Like now? No. When I was younger? Yes.”
Me: “Why would you think that when you were younger?”
Her: “Hmmm. I don’t really know. I guess because women tend to read between the lines, even if there’s nothing there. And because people like to have something to complain about and little miscommunications are an easy target.”
Me: “Ok. So why doesn’t it bother you now?”
Her: “Probably because I met you and you always use punctuation. You know <mutual friends husband>? She knows when he’s mad at her just based on specific words he uses in texts or just the way he says something.”
Me: “So if you start using punctuation, I should be concerned?”
Her: “Like if I say “I’m fine.” With a period and everything?”
Me: “Yes.”
Her: “Yeah. That means I’m not fine.”
Me: “That’s a lot of pressure to put on a period.”
Her: “True.”
Me: “But you already know I’m going to infer nothing from that. I probably won’t even notice.”
Her: “Yeah. I know. That’s why l would just tell you.”
Me: “Fair enough.”
Her: “You’re just one of those people who says exactly what they mean. There’s no cryptic message or anything.”
What is “proper punctuation”? Isn’t it context dependent?
Not every instance of written language is written in complete sentences.
A sign that says “SALE” is normal, but a sign that says “Sale.” would be unusual, maybe some kind of marketing or design choice.
Social convention around IMs and chat rooms in the early versions of live chat, in the 90’s, capitalization and punctuation were not ordinarily used. Multiple sentences per message were also not the norm.
Text messages have always been somewhere between 90’s style IMs (uncapitalized and unpunctuated phrases, not full sentences) and a full email message (full salutations and signatures). The convention depends on the context, and autocorrect has changed what is or isn’t normal.
So a text message response that says “that’s fine” conveys a distinct message from one that says “That’s fine.”
That’s how human communication works. Trying to start every text message with “Dear Jake,” and ending it with “Sincerely, Raymond Holt” would be weird.
That weirdness is, of course, the whole joke about Holt starting and ending his texts that way.
At the end of the day, despite my spending way too much time in this thread defending the mandatory use of periods, I have to admit that it doesn’t really matter how you write a text to your friends.
But proper grammar is important when you need to communicate clearly with a large audience who might not be aware of the colloquialisms and informal conventions you’re used to and it’s better to have a strict system of rules to make sure everyone can understand. Which is why primary and secondary schools teach the English language and an overall decline in literacy is cause for concern.
So yeah, context is important, but there are many contexts where proper grammar is required.
No, they’re called people who know how to write, as the point of writing is to communicate ideas and emotions, not to be a pedant about ever changing rules.
There may be an informal convention among some people that using a period at the end of the last sentence in a text is passive aggressive, but it’s far from universal and far from being a rule.
Seems like it’s just as pedantic to expect people who have habitually used correct punctuation for decades to adopt this convention without ever being told and then blaming them for not abandoning an immensely useful part of written language for no apparent reason.
Idk, but this definitely isn’t new. I’m 31 and have been removing periods from texts for a decade to help convey tone. It’s like how women use (over use?) exclamation points in emails, because periods come across as aggressive and curt. The same is true in text, but instead of exclamation points, I’m able to just leave a sentence without punctuation so it doesn’t come across as angry, annoyed, or frank.
This has been well documented for a long time, but true media literacy dictates you try to ignore these rules in texts from Gen X and Boomers, otherwise they’re going to come across as very rude over text with their periods and ellipses.
You eventually restated my point. It’s a convention used among a portion of the population, documented in articles and studies, but not taught or a part of formal grammar.
At some point a set of fairly strict rules is important for a written language, as your point with Gen X and Boomers helps to illustrate, because it makes sure you can be understood by a broader audience when clarity is required. Punctuation is a fundamental part of that.
Omitting periods in text is a technilogical colloquialism. I’m not arguing that. But that doesn’t mean, as the poster that I first replied to implied, that people who omit periods from texts are the only ones who “know how to write”.
Over-use of exclamation points is another poor habit, since they can mark something that’s important regardless of it being a positive or negative. With quoted speech it could be something that’s either angry or joyful. Using them to convey a non-threatening tone shouldn’t be required. I get that it is in some cases, and I belive that indicates a problem with our overall literacy and a renewed misogyny in the workplace.
Whether this is a result of the medium of communication or a decline in literacy is up for debate, but word choice and context should do the bulk of conveying tone and relying on punctuation for that purpose understandably looks like an indicator of poor literacy.
At some point a set of fairly strict rules is important for a written language
Given that English has become the lingua franca without having a strict set of rules, reality would say otherwise. If a strict set of rules was that important then French would be the most commonly used language.
Over-use of exclamation points is another poor habit, since they can mark something that’s important regardless of it being a positive or negative. With quoted speech it could be something that’s either angry or joyful. Using them to convey a non-threatening tone shouldn’t be required. I get that it is in some cases, and I belive that indicates a problem with our overall literacy and a renewed misogyny in the workplace.
You realize that its just you who’s having problems? You are claiming that other people have literacy problems, when they communicate with each other just fine, and it’s you who are struggling to communicate effectively. They are not having problems with being misinterpreted, just you are.
Whether this is a result of the medium of communication or a decline in literacy is up for debate, but word choice and context should do the bulk of conveying tone and relying on punctuation for that purpose understandably looks like an indicator of poor literacy.
No, people insist on strict rules so that they don’t have to change or learn new things, and can blame other people when they communicate poorly. The English language constantly changes, and authors constantly break the “rules” that your elementary school teacher taught you to effectively communicate ideas. That has literally always been the case, from Shakespeare, through Cormack McCarthy, to the past several decades of online communication.
You seem to think a centralized style and grammar book like the French have is the only way to have strict set of grammatical rules.
An overwhelming number of English textbooks and stylebooks agree on the use of a period. We’re not talking about something esoteric here, it’s how you end a sentence. Omitting them is poor writing. Claiming artistic licence or understandability doesn’t change that in the vast majority of cases. I’m not calling those who omit them baby-killers or anything. It’s just poor writing that people have grown accustomed to seeing.
Writers like McCarthy, Twain, and Joyce have the chops to communicate exceptionally well despite breaking these rules, not just because they broke them. The people in the office next to yours mangling emails don’t.
And literacy rates are on the decline in the US. Take that however you will.
Can you point me to this institution that decides on the rules of the English language? What’s it’s address? Where does it publish these rules?
There may be an informal convention among some people that using a period at the end of the last sentence in a text is passive aggressive, but it’s far from universal and far from being a rule.
It is a natural result of reading both versions, noticing that one sounds more formal and has a sharp ending, and noticing that since you can write either one, if they’re ending it sharply they must be doing so intentionally. If you use the full availability of communication options available, it inherently sends that signal, if you follow rules for the sake of following rules though, then it limits that option so doesn’t send that signal.
Seems like it’s just as pedantic to expect people who have habitually used correct punctuation for decades to adopt this convention without ever being told and then blaming them for not abandoning an immensely useful part of written language for no apparent reason.
You had literally decades to adjust and change, this isn’t new, it’s been the case since at least the early 00s when cell phones and instant messengers became a thing.
YOU made the initial claim about this “new” meaning, onus is therefore on you to substantiate it.
For my defense, I’ll start with Elements of Style, the OECD, and any other English dictionary or grammar book.
Because if you really want to play “who has the best evidence for their case”, you’re gonna lose to several hundred years, and millions of written documents.
At school they teach you common rules of thumb for the English language, and formal writing styles for communicating in academic settings. Famously, and unlike French, the English language does not have hard set rules, and book writers constantly break the ones you’re taught in elementary school to more effectively communicate their ideas, or speak in a desired voice.
There’s actually a name for people who perceive proper punctuation as being passive aggressive. They’re called “morons.”
Edit: in the name of further research I asked my wife, who is a non-punctuation texter, what she thought about this. Here’s what I got.
Results of Conversation with Mrs. jubilationtcornpone
Me: “If someone sent you a message that had a period at the end, would you think they were angry with you?”
Her: “Like now? No. When I was younger? Yes.”
Me: “Why would you think that when you were younger?”
Her: “Hmmm. I don’t really know. I guess because women tend to read between the lines, even if there’s nothing there. And because people like to have something to complain about and little miscommunications are an easy target.”
Me: “Ok. So why doesn’t it bother you now?”
Her: “Probably because I met you and you always use punctuation. You know <mutual friends husband>? She knows when he’s mad at her just based on specific words he uses in texts or just the way he says something.”
Me: “So if you start using punctuation, I should be concerned?”
Her: “Like if I say “I’m fine.” With a period and everything?”
Me: “Yes.”
Her: “Yeah. That means I’m not fine.”
Me: “That’s a lot of pressure to put on a period.”
Her: “True.”
Me: “But you already know I’m going to infer nothing from that. I probably won’t even notice.”
Her: “Yeah. I know. That’s why l would just tell you.”
Me: “Fair enough.”
Her: “You’re just one of those people who says exactly what they mean. There’s no cryptic message or anything.”
Me: “That’s what I’m talking about!”
Her: “It is kind of nice actually.”
What is “proper punctuation”? Isn’t it context dependent?
Not every instance of written language is written in complete sentences.
A sign that says “SALE” is normal, but a sign that says “Sale.” would be unusual, maybe some kind of marketing or design choice.
Social convention around IMs and chat rooms in the early versions of live chat, in the 90’s, capitalization and punctuation were not ordinarily used. Multiple sentences per message were also not the norm.
Text messages have always been somewhere between 90’s style IMs (uncapitalized and unpunctuated phrases, not full sentences) and a full email message (full salutations and signatures). The convention depends on the context, and autocorrect has changed what is or isn’t normal.
So a text message response that says “that’s fine” conveys a distinct message from one that says “That’s fine.”
That’s how human communication works. Trying to start every text message with “Dear Jake,” and ending it with “Sincerely, Raymond Holt” would be weird.
That weirdness is, of course, the whole joke about Holt starting and ending his texts that way.
At the end of the day, despite my spending way too much time in this thread defending the mandatory use of periods, I have to admit that it doesn’t really matter how you write a text to your friends.
But proper grammar is important when you need to communicate clearly with a large audience who might not be aware of the colloquialisms and informal conventions you’re used to and it’s better to have a strict system of rules to make sure everyone can understand. Which is why primary and secondary schools teach the English language and an overall decline in literacy is cause for concern.
So yeah, context is important, but there are many contexts where proper grammar is required.
No, they’re called people who know how to write, as the point of writing is to communicate ideas and emotions, not to be a pedant about ever changing rules.
The rule hasn’t changed.
There may be an informal convention among some people that using a period at the end of the last sentence in a text is passive aggressive, but it’s far from universal and far from being a rule.
Seems like it’s just as pedantic to expect people who have habitually used correct punctuation for decades to adopt this convention without ever being told and then blaming them for not abandoning an immensely useful part of written language for no apparent reason.
Idk, but this definitely isn’t new. I’m 31 and have been removing periods from texts for a decade to help convey tone. It’s like how women use (over use?) exclamation points in emails, because periods come across as aggressive and curt. The same is true in text, but instead of exclamation points, I’m able to just leave a sentence without punctuation so it doesn’t come across as angry, annoyed, or frank.
This has been well documented for a long time, but true media literacy dictates you try to ignore these rules in texts from Gen X and Boomers, otherwise they’re going to come across as very rude over text with their periods and ellipses.
You eventually restated my point. It’s a convention used among a portion of the population, documented in articles and studies, but not taught or a part of formal grammar.
At some point a set of fairly strict rules is important for a written language, as your point with Gen X and Boomers helps to illustrate, because it makes sure you can be understood by a broader audience when clarity is required. Punctuation is a fundamental part of that.
Omitting periods in text is a technilogical colloquialism. I’m not arguing that. But that doesn’t mean, as the poster that I first replied to implied, that people who omit periods from texts are the only ones who “know how to write”.
Over-use of exclamation points is another poor habit, since they can mark something that’s important regardless of it being a positive or negative. With quoted speech it could be something that’s either angry or joyful. Using them to convey a non-threatening tone shouldn’t be required. I get that it is in some cases, and I belive that indicates a problem with our overall literacy and a renewed misogyny in the workplace.
Whether this is a result of the medium of communication or a decline in literacy is up for debate, but word choice and context should do the bulk of conveying tone and relying on punctuation for that purpose understandably looks like an indicator of poor literacy.
Given that English has become the lingua franca without having a strict set of rules, reality would say otherwise. If a strict set of rules was that important then French would be the most commonly used language.
You realize that its just you who’s having problems? You are claiming that other people have literacy problems, when they communicate with each other just fine, and it’s you who are struggling to communicate effectively. They are not having problems with being misinterpreted, just you are.
No, people insist on strict rules so that they don’t have to change or learn new things, and can blame other people when they communicate poorly. The English language constantly changes, and authors constantly break the “rules” that your elementary school teacher taught you to effectively communicate ideas. That has literally always been the case, from Shakespeare, through Cormack McCarthy, to the past several decades of online communication.
You seem to think a centralized style and grammar book like the French have is the only way to have strict set of grammatical rules.
An overwhelming number of English textbooks and stylebooks agree on the use of a period. We’re not talking about something esoteric here, it’s how you end a sentence. Omitting them is poor writing. Claiming artistic licence or understandability doesn’t change that in the vast majority of cases. I’m not calling those who omit them baby-killers or anything. It’s just poor writing that people have grown accustomed to seeing.
Writers like McCarthy, Twain, and Joyce have the chops to communicate exceptionally well despite breaking these rules, not just because they broke them. The people in the office next to yours mangling emails don’t.
And literacy rates are on the decline in the US. Take that however you will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States
Can you point me to this institution that decides on the rules of the English language? What’s it’s address? Where does it publish these rules?
It is a natural result of reading both versions, noticing that one sounds more formal and has a sharp ending, and noticing that since you can write either one, if they’re ending it sharply they must be doing so intentionally. If you use the full availability of communication options available, it inherently sends that signal, if you follow rules for the sake of following rules though, then it limits that option so doesn’t send that signal.
You had literally decades to adjust and change, this isn’t new, it’s been the case since at least the early 00s when cell phones and instant messengers became a thing.
You first.
YOU made the initial claim about this “new” meaning, onus is therefore on you to substantiate it.
For my defense, I’ll start with Elements of Style, the OECD, and any other English dictionary or grammar book.
Because if you really want to play “who has the best evidence for their case”, you’re gonna lose to several hundred years, and millions of written documents.
So you’ll point to a variety of different and conflicting sources?
The English language naturally evolves over time. You getting butthurt about improving your communication style accomplishes nothing.
Show me where those sources conflict on the use of a period.
Show me where they state that their rules are meant for informal communication.
Literally, read a fucking book.
You learned this shit at school. Did you think your teacher was making it up on the fly?
At school they teach you common rules of thumb for the English language, and formal writing styles for communicating in academic settings. Famously, and unlike French, the English language does not have hard set rules, and book writers constantly break the ones you’re taught in elementary school to more effectively communicate their ideas, or speak in a desired voice.
If somone struggles to understand what someone else means if they use proper punctuation, that sounds like illiteracy.
If someone struggles with understanding context, they are probably a sea beast.