Caltrans Grammar Error

On 2011-04-08, Patrick Scheible > wrote:
> gpsman > writes:
>
>> On Apr 7, 5:39=A0pm, Larry Scholnick > wrote:
>> > On Apr 7, 6:15=A0am, gpsman > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Apr 6, 1:51=A0pm, Larry Scholnick > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
>> >
>> > > > I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City. The
>> > > > message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effectiveness=
>> .
>> > > > The message was:
>> >
>> > > > $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT
>> >
>> > > Non sequitur. =A0You have no method of determining its effectiveness
>> > > either way.
>> >
>> > Some of us who recognize spelling and/or grammatical errors on signs
>> > tend to discount the message when it contains an error.
>>
>> Then thats by choice.
>>
>> > I know that I am in the minority, but I am not alone.
>>
>> Your counting 3rd graders?
^--- HAHA!


> How many third graders do you know who text while they drive?
>
> -- Patrick

gpsman > writes:

> On Apr 8, 1:28=A0pm, Patrick Scheible > wrote:
> > gpsman > writes:
> > > On Apr 7, 5:39=3DA0pm, Larry Scholnick > wrot=
> e:
> > > > On Apr 7, 6:15=3DA0am, gpsman > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Apr 6, 1:51=3DA0pm, Larry Scholnick > =
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
> >
> > > > > > I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City.=
> The
> > > > > > message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effective=
> ness=3D
> > > .
> > > > > > The message was:
> >
> > > > > > $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT
> >
> > > > > Non sequitur. =3DA0You have no method of determining its effectiven=
> ess
> > > > > either way.
> >
> > > > Some of us who recognize spelling and/or grammatical errors on signs
> > > > tend to discount the message when it contains an error.
> >
> > > Then thats by choice.
> >
> > > > I know that I am in the minority, but I am not alone.
> >
> > > Your counting 3rd graders?
> >
> > How many third graders do you know who text while they drive?
>
> Oddly enough it's exactly the same number as the 3rd graders I know
> unable to parse "its not worth it" due to the missing apostrophe.
>
> Does that missing apostrophe render that simple message ambiguous or
> unintelligible to you?

I can figure out what they meant to say. Is writing so that someone
can probably figure out what you meant the standard for literacy now?

-- Patrick

On Apr 8, 5:27*pm, Patrick Scheible > wrote:
> gpsman > writes:
> > On Apr 8, 1:28=A0pm, Patrick Scheible > wrote:
> > > gpsman > writes:
> > > > On Apr 7, 5:39=3DA0pm, Larry Scholnick > wrot=
> > e:
> > > > > On Apr 7, 6:15=3DA0am, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 6, 1:51=3DA0pm, Larry Scholnick > =
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
>
> > > > > > > I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City.=
> > *The
> > > > > > > message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effective=
> > ness=3D
> > > > .
> > > > > > > The message was:
>
> > > > > > > $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT
>
> > > > > > Non sequitur. =3DA0You have no method of determining its effectiven=
> > ess
> > > > > > either way.
>
> > > > > Some of us who recognize spelling and/or grammatical errors on signs
> > > > > tend to discount the message when it contains an error.
>
> > > > Then thats by choice.
>
> > > > > I know that I am in the minority, but I am not alone.
>
> > > > Your counting 3rd graders?
>
> > > How many third graders do you know who text while they drive?
>
> > Oddly enough it's exactly the same number as the 3rd graders I know
> > unable to parse "its not worth it" due to the missing apostrophe.
>
> > Does that missing apostrophe render that simple message ambiguous or
> > unintelligible to you?
>
> I can figure out what they meant to say.

1. How would you otherwise interpret "its not worth it"...?

2. How would you interpret "it not worth it"...?

3. How would you interpret "it worth it"...?

> Is writing so that someone
> can probably figure out what you meant the standard for literacy now?

For those who can extrapolate directly from a likely typo to a
standard of literacy, what are the other options...?
-----

- gpsman

> "Steve Sobol" > wrote
>
> Really? It means "the end of lands" - it ISN'T gramatically incorrect,
> just odd.

But it's normally spelt "land's end", meaning the end of "the land"
(singular). There are a couple places in Provincetown, MA, which go by that
name.

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto

> "Larry Scholnick" > wrote
>
> I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
>
> I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City. The
> message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effectiveness.
> The message was:
>
> $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT

The story eveyone's missing is that the ticket for texting is about half the
ticket for a carpool lane violation. Anyone care to defend the wisdom of
that?

--

Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto

In article > ,
Paul D. DeRocco > wrote:
>
>Lots of people don't get apostrophes. It's quite common for businesses with
>possessive names to leave off the apostrophe before the S. And many people
>don't know when to put an S after the apostrophe and when not to. (Lands'
>End is a peculiarly unique error.)

According to their website, it was a typo when they first started.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On 04/06/11 18:22, Brent wrote:

> On 2011-04-06, Patrick > wrote:
>> Steve > writes:
>>> @f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Larry Scholnick says...
>>> >
>>> > I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
>>> >
>>> > I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City. The
>>> > message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effectiveness.
>>> > The message was:
>>> >
>>> > $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT
>>> >
>>> > The word ITS (without the apostrophe) means Belonging to It; the
>>> > correct word is IT'S (with the apostrophe), which is a contraction for
>>> > IT IS. If the apostrophe can't be displayed on the sign, then replace
>>> > ITS with the words IT IS or remove ITS entirely, leavinge:
>>> >
>>> > $195 TEXTING TICKET - NOT WORTH IT

It sounds like one is for sale, with an ambiguous recommendation.
Better would be TEXTING TICKET - $195 - NOT WORTH IT or TEXT AND DRIVE?
$195. DO IT, WE NEED THE MONEY.

>>> > I'll let you know if I get a meaningful response from Caltrans.
>>>
>>> This is a very, very common grammatical error. You care, I care, but I
>>> don't know if anyone else cares.
>>
>> I care!

Me too.

> I don't really understand why people get so bent out of shape on
> it's/its and various other words that sound the same. Sure sometimes the
> person who wrote it does not know the difference but often they are just
> typos where the brain is thinking one thing and the hands just type...
> Sure proof reading should catch it, but nobody is perfect.

"Our word-processing service provides experienced proof
proof readers in addition to..."

Yeah, that was actually on an ad.

> I've read things where the words are used correctly and suddenly there
> is one that isn't. I know it was just a typo and read over it.

Sometimes it's a typo, but it's almost always abysmal ignorance.
WILLFUL ignorance, bordering (or perhaps sneaking over the border every
chance it gets) on stupidity since so many people have doubtless
corrected the user more than once. Or passive aggression, of course.

It's just wanting to see things done right, not sloppily.

--
Cheers, Bev
1010101010101010101010101010101010101
What do you think you're doing, Dave?
-- Hal 9000

On Apr 8, 8:29*pm, "Paul D. DeRocco" > wrote:
> > "Larry Scholnick" > wrote
>
> > I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
>
> > I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City. The
> > message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effectiveness.
> > The message was:
>
> > $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT
>
> The story eveyone's missing is that the ticket for texting is about half the
> ticket for a carpool lane violation. Anyone care to defend the wisdom of
> that?
>

Quantity! "The California Highway Patrol alone is writing more than
10,000 tickets a month." http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/police...d_driving.html

(Speaking of typos, one particular programmer would always spell it
quanitity. Now every time I see the word quantity I think of topless
ice skating.)

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...s-lanes-entra/

On Apr 6, 10:51*am, Larry Scholnick > wrote:
> I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
>
> I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City. The
> message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effectiveness.
> The message was:
>
> $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT
>
> The word ITS (without the apostrophe) means Belonging to It; the
> correct word is IT'S (with the apostrophe), which is a contraction for
> IT IS. If the apostrophe can't be displayed on the sign, then replace
> ITS with the words IT IS or remove ITS entirely, leavinge:
>
> $195 TEXTING TICKET - NOT WORTH IT
>
> I'll let you know if I get a meaningful response from Caltrans.

Better yet, they took my advice for their next campaign:

HANDHELD CELL
TICKET $159+
NOT WORTH IT

They could have repeated the flawed 3rd line from the previous
campaign:

ITS NOT WORTH IT

but they didn't!

On Apr 22, 2:11*pm, Larry Scholnick > wrote:
> On Apr 6, 10:51*am, Larry Scholnick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I had to send the following message to Caltrans:
>
> > I saw a Variable Message Sign on southbound i-405 in Culver City. The
> > message had a grammatical error that detracted from its effectiveness.
> > The message was:
>
> > $195 TEXTING TICKET - ITS NOT WORTH IT
>
> > The word ITS (without the apostrophe) means Belonging to It; the
> > correct word is IT'S (with the apostrophe), which is a contraction for
> > IT IS. If the apostrophe can't be displayed on the sign, then replace
> > ITS with the words IT IS or remove ITS entirely, leavinge:
>
> > $195 TEXTING TICKET - NOT WORTH IT
>
> > I'll let you know if I get a meaningful response from Caltrans.
>
> Better yet, they took my advice for their next campaign:
>
> HANDHELD CELL
> TICKET $159+
> NOT WORTH IT
>
> They could have repeated the flawed 3rd line from the previous
> campaign:
>
> ITS NOT WORTH IT
>
> but they didn't!

So... there no evidence they took your "advice"...?
-----

- gpsman