Language War - Part 1

On September 18, 2007, I declared Language War on Aunty I. I was compelled to do this as a preemptive measure to what I was sure was going to be an imminent syntactic assault on the grammar contained in an email I had written her.

Two and a half months have since passed, and it's a merciless and bloody battlefield out there in the digital ether! The serenity of Tokyo proper has been scathed and scarred with the malicious mêlée of missives back and forth across the broadband spectrum. A multitude of violent verbs and nouns and adjectives have been volleyed at yours truly, and all I've had to defend myself with from Aunty I's attacks is my copy of the Australian Macquarie dictionary and the confidence I have in my (some would say "superior") English language abilities.

I submit, as Exhibit A, round 1 of this semantic scrum!
(I've used pseudonyms for the email exchange. Also, my comments on her previous emails are the ones in red, unless it isn't already obvious.)

-------------------------------------------------

From: Kallun
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 3:00 PM
To: Aunty I
Subject: Language War

Dear Ms. Aunty I,

Please be informed that as per the email exchange dated August 24, 2007, I have compiled the following emails, and will now proceed to highlight what I believe to be failings, flaws, and other offensive foibles in the language contained therein.

That is all.

Thank you.

Kallun

---

From: Aunty I
Sent: 14 September 2007 17:06
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: The silence is deafening...

jesus. this is really very bad!!

[Comment] Ignoring the blasphemy, both sentences violate capitalisation protocols. Additionally, "really very bad" is either a redundant (ie: double) hyperbole, or it is missing a comma.

---

From: Aunty I
Sent: 13 September 2007 16:42
To: Kallun
CC: Aunty M
Subject: RE: The silence is deafening...

I am lost in the world of paperwork. Good times!

Actually, going quite OK.

Sorry for the long silence.

How are those housewarming party plans coming, you two?!

[Comment] The sentence - "Actually, going quite OK" - lacks a subject. Please rectify this at your earliest convenience, as I am still quiet unsure as to 'what' is "going quite OK" (sic).

Finally, "you two?!" can be either a question, or an exclamation. It cannot be both.

-------------------------------------------------

Aunty I responded with the following: (I've replace my surname with my first name.)

-------------------------------------------------

From: Aunty I
Sent: 18 September 2007 21:44
To: Kallun
Subject: RE: Language War

Dear Mr Kallun,

You are a pedant who does not appreciate the intricacies of modern English language usage, including the appropriate use of relaxed grammatical standards in informal e-mail correspondence.

I would, however, have been able to accept your comments with good grace, had it not been for the sad lack of attention to basic rules of spelling, grammar and consistency in your message below.

First, in your e-mail below, you referred to me initially as "Ms. Aunty I", suggesting that you proposed to adopt the spelling and stylistic practices of the United States of America. If this was your intention, then in your first comment in red, "capitalisation" should have been spelt "capitalization", and "ie" should have been spelt "i.e.".

Second, please re-acquaint yourself with the use of colons, as "(ie[sic]: double)" demonstrates incorrect use of the colon, you ignorant loon.

Third, in the comment, "[Comment] The sentence - "Actually, going quite OK" - lacks a subject.", dashes were used incorrectly in place of em-dashes. If you are, at this moment, asking yourself, "What the hell are em-dashes?", then perhaps, you young whippersnapper, you will find it necessary to admit that you have chosen to declare Language War on a formidable opponent.

Finally, please clarify the meaning of "quiet unsure", as used in the sentence below:

Please rectify this at your earliest convenience, as I am still quiet unsure as to 'what' is "going quite OK" (sic).

In short, Mr Kallun, your scathing comments on others' alleged failings would be better received, and far more persuasive, if delivered in a manner free from basic errors. Your pitiful effort below begs the inference that the writer is patently unqualified to form judgments on the correct use of the English language.

Nahni nahni nah nah.

Yours sincerely,

Aunty I

-------------------------------------------------

Stay tuned for further developments... Victory is in sight!