The Fat Controller returned my thesis, suggesting some changes and correcting some errors. One of my frequent “errors” was using the phrase these data show instead of the data shows.

My reply:

| Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, FC. I will work on this over the weekend.

| In the meantime, I beg to differ on a small point of grammar:

| That the word data is the plural of the singular datum - from the Latin meaning a given (thing).

| While the use of data as the singular form has become acceptable in general usage, in particular in US English, it is, nevertheless, incorrect and in my opinion, should never be used in scientific or academic texts.

| This is not to be confused with the incorrect usage of referenda as the plural of referendum. Referendum, as it is from the Latin meaning that which must be referred, is by its definition, a gerundive and therefore has no plural in Latin. Hence the correct English plural is, by default, referendums.

| Similar debates have been had for centuries as to whether the word trousers is singular or plural. No doubt this is fuelled by it’s being commonly prefixed by a pair of or two pairs of. It is my assertion that the word trousers is at once both singular and plural - singular at the top and plural at the bottom.

| Until such time as all nations have held referendums on trousers, can we agree to differ on data?

| Le gach deá-mhéin
| - Primal

His reply:

| You’re correct, Primal. I don’t know what I was thinking there.

| Lgd

| - Fat Controller

| ps. Permission to use the “trouser” one down the pub?

Having promised not to repeat the conversation to the parties concerned, I was asked by Goshia how her new friends, Aisling and Ellen, managed to hold down their jobs seeing as both were illiterate. Ireland, she surmised, was amazingly tolerant of people with serious learning difficulties. The reason for her concern: Text messages she received from them.

Much has been written in the media recently about the rise in usage of text speak in Irish school examinations. This phenomenon is common in most English speaking countries. Scotland and New Zealand, for example, are debating whether it should be permitted in some cases.

But every article I have read about this in the papers misses some important points.

How did text speak originate? SMS was a technology developed without a purpose. There were suggestions that service providers could use it to send customers important information about special offers, for example. When person-to-person SMS became possible in the late 1990’s not even the scientists, the service providers or the phone manufacturers could have predicted how popular it would become. It’s popularity was mainly due to it initially being free of charge. By the time the providers worked out how to charge for it, it had already taken hold. Furthermore, due to very high voice tariffs, it was still a cheaper way to communicate. This perception survives today despite being no longer true.

At that time the manufacturers were playing catch-up. Predictive texting had not yet evolved. Email however, was commonplace. People were used to composing long rambling messages. With SMS being limited to 160 characters, this wasn’t possible. The workaround was to truncate words or spell them phonetically. The English language lends itself to this. Text speak was born.

Today, every handset supports predictive text (T9). Every provider supports concatenated messages. It is just a easy to compose a properly punctuated message with fully spelled words as it is to use text speak. Yet text speak has already taken hold as it is perceived as being faster - another misconception.

What the journalists miss is that text speak is no longer a necessity. Yet they continue to attribute the poor spelling and grammar of our students to mobile phone text messaging. They also blame email, as do the State Examinations Commission. Since when did email every force a user to truncate their message? Since when has a short email been cheaper to send than a long one?

The technologies are being used as a scapegoat to avoid facing up to a dramatic cultural change. Everything now is in bites. Many get their news via sound bites on radio or TV. They scan headlines and don’t read articles. Websites are glanced at and if the content is not displayed in short snippets they are ignored. Yesteryear’s 5 minutes is today’s 5 seconds. I am not arguing if this is good or bad. It is just the way it is. Perhaps it is the way it has to be given that we all suffer from information overload.

The journalists also miss the fact that the education system is itself to blame. Young children are introduced to writing by being encouraged to spell phonetically. Mi mudr nd fadr r grat is totally acceptable. The problem arises when they are being taught correct spelling and grammar. They have to re-learn a skill they have already mastered. In any field, at any age, with any level of ability, it is far more difficult to learn a new method of doing a task you are already competent in. But this difficulty is compounded by trying to retrain older children in a skill they have acquired at their most formative age.

If technology is to bear some blame then so be it. Spell checkers, for example, may not pick up whether you intended to type through, true or the American thru. But should they have to? Is it not the purpose of the education system to teach this? Spell checkers are intended as an aid and only an aid.

My greatest fear is for when our students enter into the arenas of business, science or technology where English is the internationally accepted language and where almost all communication is written. Will they survive when competing against their peers with excellent standards of written English in growing economies such as India, China and Eastern Europe?

I had EuroNews on the TV this morning. Every 5 minutes or so they made the following announcement.

Boris Yeltsin will be buried live here on EuroNews today.

If they go ahead with it, it will be the best reality TV ever.

It reminds me of years ago when a work colleague sent out an all-employees email:

There will be a presentation for Pat O’Brien who is getting married in the conference room at 3 o’clock today.

The GM responded immediately:

The conference room shall not be used for religious services of any kind without prior permission from the management.

This week, Din-do ran an article by Kim Bielenberg about literacy levels amongst Irish students. He quoted economist Moore McDowell (yeah, yer man’s brother) who described some of his own students as barely semi-literate.

Dr. Martin O’Grady was also quoted: It is a big problem. Many students don’t even put capital letters at the start of sentences. They don’t know the difference between ‘their’ and ‘there’. They mix up ‘quiet’ with ‘quite’, and ‘being’ and ‘been’. (Sounds to me like Mr. Anonymous who comments regularly on all our blogs).

I am far from being a grammatical purist and don’t try to be, but I do try to use it’s-its, you’re-your and there-their correctly and I know where the shift key is.

As most of you know, I am a mature (read old) student. So I can bear witness to these poor standards. Luckily most of the group projects I have done have been with Chinese and Indian nationals, who write excellent English, so I have been spared the angst of having to collaborate on technical papers with illiterate Irish students.

However, I can also bear witness to another instance of illiteracy that Kim failed to mention. That of the lecturers. Of the six I had this academic year, only two knew the basics, such as the difference between there and their. If these lecturers were recently qualified Ph.D.’s or junior staff they could possibly be categorised as students, but they weren’t. Not that this would be an excuse.

So Kim, the next time you are interviewing Mr. McDowell and Dr. O’Grady, ask them about their colleagues too.

Something that really bugs me is when journalists use their instead of they’re or there; your instead of you’re and its instead of it’s. Ok, I admit, the latter case is so common that it can be excused, however there should be no confusion with the other two.

Their and your denote possession. e.g. Your cooking is excellent.

There denotes a location or a case when used as an adverb. e.g. Are you there? I agree with you there.

There can also be used as an pronoun. e.g. There is a fly in my soup.

(There can furthermore be used as noun, adjective and intejection … but let’s not labour the point).

You’re is a contraction of you are. e.g. Tell me you’re cooking for me tonight.

The tough one to remember is its and it’s.

The simple rule of thumb is that it’s is a contraction of either it is or it has, whereas its denotes possession. e.g. It’s said, and it’s been long said of The Curragh that its grass is short. This is equivalent to writing the folowing: It is said, and it has been long said of The Curragh that its grass is short.

Make sense? Clear as mud? I doubt it, but it’s off my chest now. (I feel tempted to say, so their! [sic])