tyler presley

The final word that is used by presidents and presidential candidates is the word “legal vote” which is relevant to the 2000 election of George Bush and Al Gore. In the 2000 election there was a dispute between the parties on what was to be considered a legal vote. This dispute eventually made it to the Supreme Court. This was a big issue because Al Gore wanted a recount in certain Florida counties. According to the Supreme Court ruling in this case a legal vote is “those in which there is a clear indication as to who the voter is voting for.” In some cases however, there was a clear intent on who the person was voting for but they did not follow the directions on the ballots. So my question is should they be counted if they did not follow the directions of the ballot? Gores word choice for the term legal vote was his own opinion that the ballots in which the directions were not followed should not be counted instead of what the actual ruling of the court was.



This new paragraph is alot easier to understand and is more clear about the subject on which im going to discuss. I decided to use easier words instead of trying to elaborate on a subject using fancy and confusing words. I decided not to base my whole paragraph on the court case that decided the actual meaning for the term and more on what Gore's perspective of the word ment.

Devin Kelley

George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language” is centered on the argument that politicians have twisted modern English to manipulate public feeling. Politicians are using ‘dead metaphors’ (Orwell, 159) that have no real value to them anymore. The use of 'dead metaphors' and typical words does not create a vivid image for the reader; this creates a very vague and very meaningless sentence that does not afford the listener or reader a fair chance to understand. These vague statements bring entire paragraphs to meaningless because of our inability to actually make anything of them; so then people just take it for what the speaker wants them to. Orwell argues that this improper use of language in politics, the dishonest use of language, is leading to our public's’ ‘foolish thoughts’ (Orwell, 157)

This opening paragraph seems to be pretty straightforward. It seems like it is sort vindictive and assumptive; however that is part of the argument strategy Orwell uses. The orignal had a sentence or two that seemed redundant. Another sentence really had no place in the paper. So without those, this seems to be a little better.

Blakes Blog

Usage Wars are very important for people in America to learn. The Usage Wars will have an effect on every person living and working in America. All of the schools will have to teach a different style of writing if the language is changed. Many other things will change in the country. Newspapers will be written in a different writhing style. This means that all writers and editors will have to change. These are just a few examples; however, all writing in the country would change.
This paragraph is much shorter and more to the point. In the first part of each sentence there is a clear subject and strong verb. The sentences run into each other very good. It is really easy to understand the point of each sentence. The topics in the paragraph flow well. The first sentence has the main idea of the whole paragraph. This paragraph is much more organized and has no sentences that are off topic.

Usage Wars are very important for people in America to learn. The Usage Wars will have an effect on every person living and working in America. All of the schools will have to teach a different style of writing if the language is changed. Many other things will change in the country. Newspapers will be written in a different writhing style. This means that all writers and editors will have to change. These are just a few examples; however, all writing in the country would change.

This paragraph is much shorter and more to the point. In the first part of each sentence there is a clear subject and strong verb. The sentences run into each other very good. It is really easy to understand the point of each sentence. The topics in the paragraph flow well. The first sentence has the main idea of the whole paragraph. This paragraph is much more organized and has no sentences that are off topic.

Revised

Americans should care a lot about these usage wars because it affects our everyday life. If the usage wars were to lean towards the prescriptivist side, then we would have more focus on correct grammar spelling and the standard written rules of English would be deemed “The Bible” of the latest generations. In a prescriptivist world, you would be judged more on your ability to use these grammar rules correctly than on your creativity, or even discourse community: “A fellow snoot I know likes to say that listening to most people’s English feels like watching somebody use a Stradivarius to pound nails.” This could make getting a career in which the employer holds these strict prescriptivist values a lot harder. When people place more focus on your standard written English above that of the actual meaning of your text, they could lose the point of the piece altogether.


Americans should care about these usage wars due to its relevance in our everyday life. If the usage wars resulted in a prescriptivist victory, then Americans would focus only on the correctness of their grammar; spelling and the standard written rules of English would be deemed “The Bible” of the latest generations. In a prescriptivist world, each would be judged more on their ability to use these grammar rules correctly than on creativity, or even discourse community: “A fellow snoot I know likes to say that listening to most people’s English feels like watching somebody use a Stradivarius to pound nails.” This quote shows that many prescriptivist feel annoyed when others disuse standard written English Consequently, obtaining a career in which the employer upholds strict prescriptivist values is suddenly more difficult. When people place more focus on standard written English above that of the actual meaning of their text, they lose the point and, more importantly, the depth of the piece altogether.

weekly blog Ethan Flater

People should care about the usage wars, because the only way people can become successful and taken seriously in life is through writing and language. As Wallace puts it we can become successful in the way we present ourselves to other people. Whether this is through writing or through conversation we must be able to do both successfully. People who use the correct grammar are going to be more successful and taken seriously than the people that write in their own dialect, because of this we must write in SWE the writing of power. This allows people to be taken seriously in what they write and present in their work. As people we can be successful on both sides when it comes to different situations. If we need to change our dialect to fit in to a different part of society a descriptivist is going to be more successful than a prescripivist, but if we write a paper or a resume a prescriptivist is going to do much better than a desriptivist. It is in these ways that we should care about the usage wars so we can be successful on both fronts. Only by having knowledge on both sides can we be successful.

This paragraph starts out pretty well because it explains my next point that i am going to make aboutthe usage wars. Some of the corrections I did delt with some unclear wording and i reorganized the sentences to flow better with the ideas i am trying to show.

Grant McCloskey Week #8

“So they utilize terms that will keep them neutral, trying not to offend or make anyone mad. At the same time they are letting the people that are really listening draw their own conclusion about the speech, even though it may be totally different from what they intended.  I can understand why they are tempted to do such things though.“- Open Doors Grant McCloskey

In this paragraph there is no clear subject. If you were to put this paragraph on its own, the reader would have no clue what the subject is. I refer to politicians as they in the entire paragraph. 

Also the second sentence in the paragraph is long and drawn out. In reading that sentence a reader may be more worried about running out of breath wile reading it, rather than comprehending it. That sentence would be better split into two to add to the over all clarity to this paragraph.

Finally the end of the paragraph seems to me to be vague in the content. I need to explain more at the end not just how I understand and leave it at that, I need to explain why I understand. The reader doesn’t know what I am thinking wile writing; I need to be more thorough in my explanations.  

“So politicians utilize terms that will keep them neutral, trying not to offend or make anyone mad. At the same time politicians are letting the people that are really listening draw their own conclusion about the speech. Even though it may be totally different from what they intended.  I can see why speakers will do this to get what they want.“- Open Doors Grant McCloskey Re-Do