Stansfield123 wrote:

Can you? What about someone who associates two random things that have very little logical connection to each other (language learning and being obsessed enough with spelling to become a human spell checker), and insists that you can use them interchangeably to draw conclusions about a person? Can you be skeptical about what they have to say?

Oooh, let's hate on the grammar nazis because grammar&spelling are useless and in no way show something about the user's language ability.

Its=It's can be a typo, sure. Or it can be a basic inability to tell the difference between its and it's, which is a pretty basic grammar thing. Or an inability to spell it. Or just an inability to tell one's own mistakes when proofreading his own article. So an honest mistake, a problem with grammar, a problem with spelling, or a problem with observation. You choose to say that it's an honest mistake, whereas I choose to interpret it at one of the latter 3(why is "it's" the only typo in the article?).
If it is a grammar issue, then it means that somehow in a lifetime of exposure this guy can't get basic grammar as long as it sounds the same (clearly an issue which Japanese would not have). If it is a spelling issue, then it's again, a problem in which being exposed to something for a lifetime cannot fix his basic mistake. If it is a proofreading issue, then you have to wonder how much effort is put into his articles(if there was no proper proofreading done), or how much observational skills this guy has (as it is easier for him to learn a language via exposure and observation than to notice an obvious mistake in a short article....which is unlikely).

Khatz doesn't have a typo issue, Khatz can barely express himself in written language. Maybe it's one of those "I write highly colloquially so that people think I'm a cool guy" things, but even so the lack of coherency in his writing is flabbergasting. I've seen 5th graders with more coherent essays. Not to mention non-spelling mistakes such as not coordinating verbs with their subjects, missing out important articles, atrocious use of ortography, etc. He rarely has any typos, so he clearly proofreads what he's writing there.

Again, if it were just some guys writing angry blogs about their mothers I would not care at all. But I can't take someone who does not master his own language seriously as a language expert. Even if it's Khatz's second language, that just makes it worse; if his prolonged exposure to English did not help him get past such a basic level, how can you expect it to work with other languages?

High-school ad hominems(jealous), really? When someone says "Don't do it the way the others do it, do it MY WAY" it sounds awfully much like he's claiming to be as an expert in the field.

Zgarbas wrote:

High-school ad hominems(jealous), really? When someone says "Don't do it the way the others do it, do it MY WAY" it sounds awfully much like he's claiming to be as an expert in the field.

Lol. True that.

blackbrich wrote:

Was It's/its really the big deal? There's people in college in the US who don't know the difference, even among people who do know the difference, most don't care. Unless they were writing a formal paper which he obviously is not. Even then you still see that error in them from time to time.

I've always wondered what makes Khatzs writing so incoherent to people? Do they read the same things that I've read?

I've only read a couple things, but every other sentence it seems like he mentions my mom. It's really obnoxious. It seems like his one friend on youtube has rubbed off on him.

I personally found Khatz's blogs entertaining to read and quite enjoyed his tongue in cheek humour. I'd go as far as to say that if it wasn't for reading his blog, I wouldn't still be learning Japanese today, 4 years later. While I don't agree with many of his methods, anything that gets people into learning Japanese is a good thing in my eyes.

...Do you have some sort of spelling-related trauma?
This is rather pointless, so I'll just leave you to your happy place.

(I mean, I could just call you a bigoted holier-than-thou persistent yokel since it's clear that we're just going personal about this. But I'm not. Because arguing with yokels never amounts to anything but my disappointment in people's ability to talk about discrepant ideas. )

Ad hom functions when instead of listening to what the other person says you start attacking his character. When one even bothers explaining it, and yet the best comeback is "you're a grammar nazi who probably disregards everything using spelling" is an ad hominem. Combined with my reading on other recent stanfield posts, it is clearly a waste of time to discuss it. It is easy to ignore a discussion and revert to "you're just jealous", "you're probably a horrible no-lifer" or "your mother is made of elderberries" but it is just such a waste of everyone's time.

I have no intention of wasting my time reading any more of Khatzu's articles, which would reap absolutely no benefit, and yes, since I give everything a shot, I have read some of it, at least enough to form that opinion. Please do not confuse my disregard of khatzu with a personal grudge; he is in no way a person who would deserve any of my personal emotions. I am just stating that when talking about a method promoted by a certain person, and bringing forth extracts from that certain person, disregarding it due to that person's lack of ability in a related field to their "specialty" is also a reasonable option. I have also bothered explaining my opinion and yet that was ignored in favor of exaggerations and ignoring facts for ridiculous simplification.

I frankly do not care about what someone who is not listening to what I say and amplifies it to ad hominem level says. Poor debate skills, however, make me nauseous. And that's the end of that ^^.

And that's your friendly explanation about why I would ignore being a mod for one post and call someone a yokel.

Zgarbas wrote:

Ad hom functions when instead of listening to what the other person says you start attacking his character.

No, that's not what the ad hominem fallacy is.

dtcamero wrote:

listen zgarbas your english is probably better than mine which is an amazing accomplishment for someone in a second language. you have a good 6,000 words more than I if that vocab test is a reasonable measure... however perhaps the charm of colloquial english is something attained in a native upbringing in the english language. It's an aesthetic distinction rather than an academic one... one he prefers writing in and I, as one graduate degree-holding native english speaker, find very readable.

As a second-language learner of English I can assure you that your native upbringing does not, in fact, bestow upon you the unique power of understanding the charm of colloquial speech. I for one find Khatz to be quite entertaining.

Last edited by Zlarp (2013 January 24, 3:04 am)

Khatz's sarcastic writing is one of the first things that attracted me to his site (which stopped me from giving up as a beginner). I will admit I don't bother checking in on his site much these days... But to say that "he can barely express himself in written language"... Are we supposed to take that comment seriously?

Perhaps you (mis)understand "written language" to mean academic style, or something...

Or perhaps you simply meant to say that you don't "like" the way he writes. Plenty of other people have said as much here before. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that.

And Zlarp, I agree with you, in fact, it also goes the other way... There are also native speakers who don't get certain kinds of humour or modes of expression in their first-language either.

@Zgarbas

The prose on AJATT is not to your taste.  That's fine.  People should not attack you for not liking it.  De gustibus non disputandum est.

But it seems to me like you are conflating being a skilled writer with being fluent in a language.  Khatzamoto's writing is not professional.  It is about becoming fluent, not professional (or professorial).  It is is playful and creative.  It is filled with odd colloquialisms and lame humor.  It is meant to be fun, and only taken semi-seriously (all this is IMHO).  He has a lot of good ideas (and probably some bad ones too).  Many people (including myself) find what he has to say worthwhile.  It is fine if you do not.  Unlike some others here, I assume that you have no issue with others finding value in what he has to say.  You were just expressing your opinion, correct?

btw: Most native speakers of any language are not polished writers.  Is that not true in Romania?

CJ

And there's always the chance of bringing it back from the dead .

cjon256: They'd better be if they want to be taken seriously. Luckily, there are jobs which don't involve writing.

Hyperborea wrote:

the probability of an AKATT sycophant claiming that the method (any method, it doesn't matter) was invented by Khatz approaches 1.

Did that post get deleted?  I don't see it.