Hi Victoria
To me Facebook is simply a tool like many other tools - although I can understand that for many people it has "always been there" and that imagining a world without it can perhaps be iconoclastic?

Let's remember that over the years people have moved away from mainframe computers to MS-DOS pcs; from Lotus Notes and D-Base to MS-Offfice; from different accounting and purchasing systems to integrated tools like SAP; from punchcards to reading embedded chips in someone's wrist. Change and evolution is normal. What is different here and why should Facebook not follow a normal long-term business cycle like many other products?

It strikes me as normal for individuals and companies to bring new products onto the market and for customers choose to migrate from Facebook to other tools if the new tools are more attractive to the customer (for whatever reason).

Affect. Not effect. You can't "effect something" in that sense, only "affect". Sorry, not a great deal to say on the actual subject but here we are.

In reply to Maria:

I'm sure the many readers whose fist language is not British English and who are not dyslexic will be ecstatic at your perspicacity and elucidation Maria.

Unfortunately you missed out the apostrophe before "Sorry", signifying your deletion of the possessive "I'm", and "we" are not "here" we are "there", since we were not with you when you wrote; therefore you too get a only a B+.

Two mee meenin iz mor improtint than crost teas an dottid eyes butt eech to hiz ur hur owun.

P'

In reply to Peter:

Perhaps my perceived arrogance comes from the fact that English is not my first language, and I merely observe native speakers being careless with it. Native or not, I just expect better from someone who does professional comms on CIPD's behalf for a living, that's all. I live in a world where people are "recruiting for HR Manager's", and "should of listened" etc. and it does grind my gears.

In terms of my own background, I have had to take an English test to be able to enter this country (the UK), and I chose to do Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency in English, which I passed successfully. This is (for information), arguably, the most difficult exam for non-native speakers of English in the world, so that mark will do me (and the Home Office) just fine. Ironically, none of the British people I asked to do a trial go at that managed to actually pass it. But never mind.

I also come from a place of speaking 4 languages, whereas most Brits I know only speak English (just), so I demand of them to do that well, at least. Call me unreasonable :)

Petty arguing aside, I am actually very interested to hear your thoughts on the subject. We had a similar discussion with my team at work about standards of communication and quality of writing we should expect of HR professionals. Two of us were for maintaining a perfect style, whereas one of was of the opinion that, actually, it doesn't matter if someone starts an email with "peter" instead of "Peter", or doesn't bother styling an employee's change of hours letter beyond the legal minimum. Is it old-fashioned of me to expect a high standard of writing in HR?

In reply to Maria:

Personally speaking I am much more interested in someone’s contribution to the debate than being marked on my English skills ( native or not).

I must admit I do find it somewhat discourteous to pick up a debate from six months ago on this point and not to use the opportunity to add value to the actual subject matter.

It would be a huge shame, for me, if people were put off making valuable contributions for fear of a misplaced apostrophe or a misuse of vocabulary.

I am definitely with Peter on the point ( for me) that getting the meaning across is by far the most important point - sadly we probably all fall short in the sights of the gods of grammar :-)

In reply to Keith:

You didn't notice my two optionally missed colons and the un-used comma then Keith? :-)

(That last being a horizontal smiley face, not bad punctuation).

Do you have a view on the Oxford comma now becoming prevalent?

In reply to Maria:

Maria: You have every reason to be proud of your achievements linguistically and overall, however it is important to recognise the English, possibly more than any other language in the world, is a dynamic melting pot of dialects and adopted phraseology, and has been since the Anglo-Saxons landed and forced the Celts (preceding invaders) to take Gallic (or Gaelic) to the (then) wilds of Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

The rigid "rules of English" (as taught when I was at school) have a bewildering number of conditionalities built into them and scholars still debate (almost to the point of violence) issues such as the Oxford Comma and the use of semi-colons.


HR operates in an internationalised business environment in which 90% -plus of word-processing is done in "American English" (now there IS a contradiction in terms), and where English's value as a lingua-franca (another adopted term) would be vastly undermined by insisting on translations being in perfect "Queen's English" (Ooops, 'sorry: The origins of our Royal family are German, so our Queen's English isn't really English either, is it?). Equally damaging would be to insist on all communications between HR Professionals (on these pages or elsewhere) being in perfect English, because (again) what is "perfect" English? and how many people in this country either speak it, or would understand it?

I too am appalled at some of the English teaching happening in our schools, but there is a very great difference between any or all of us knowing the OED cover to cover and being able to converse with the people who live around me, on the North-East coast of England, who speak with a dialect of lilting beauty whose every third word has a Viking root and is used almost nowhere else but here!

Like a precious child, our language needs nurturing and caring for, but it will grow, like it or not, as it has done throughout the millennia. What it will grow into we cannot know, but equally cannot prevent. Meanwhile we can protect it, and try to guide it, but we have no right to put it in chains, or to stop it associating with it's dialect-friends and those who speak them; the Scots, the Geordies, the Mackams, The Welsh, the Brummies the Iris....

...Or those who take the considerable time and trouble to learn our language diligently and become part of our community.

I love our language; but I love it most for its ability to communicate ideas and emotions with precision, not for its perfection, because at heart it is neither perfect or precise; it is the ***-child of a dozen wars and invasions and too many colonisations; it expresses precision because it has borrowed at least two words for every item, every emotion, every thought and every action. (In some cases five or more!).

Please, be irritated (as I am) by those who abuse it; guide those who want (or need) to use it better; but do not needlessly criticise those who, it whatever terms they may use; in whatever role they speak; have something of importance to say.

As do most of those contributing here.

P

P.S. For those unsure: "Affect" is the verb. "Effect" the noun. what we are doing is "affect"-ing an outcome, the result is our affect's "effect".

See: www.bing.com/search

In reply to Maria:

Hi Maria
Are you under the impression that Keith is paid to contribute to these discussions? You referred to “someone who does professional comms on CIPD’S behalf for a living”.
(BTW, while we’re correcting each other’s choice of verbs, you don’t do comms, you make them).

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

I think it was from the headline of the original posting Elizabeth: "...effect the world of work". Although of course "...have an effect on the world of work" would be correct.

This discussion takes me back sixty years to "O" level GCE English classes at school!

Returning to the original topic of this thread and the effect of Facebook and its use by businesses: Like any other "new" product, both individuals and organisations have explored its possibilities, discovered its defects and become bored with its fading novelty. This is a pattern common to (almost) every innovation and should be of no great surprise. Facebook's use by business reflects the very simple fact that it costs nothing to use!

….The drawback being its comparatively poor security and easy accessibility to those other than the intended recipients of messages. That same vulnerability having been exploited by employers accessing their employees' communications with family and friends regarding their employer!

So those who used Facebook to slag off their boss/partner/mother-in-law, or to boast about their high-speed driving/successful thefts from supermarkets/avoidance of tax etc. etc. etc. have discovered that Facebook has its (major) drawbacks as a stomping-ground and have moved on (or back) to other forms of communication.

Clearly, the accessibility of international. interpersonal communication on demand is not going to go away; Pandora's box is well and truly open (for better or worse), and so Businesses, like the trolls and boy-racers, will find new avenues to achieve their objectives. Facebook itself will survive as long as it is making someone some money (like any other venture) and then vanish like Woolworths.... But on-line communications will not cease, any more than the loss of "Woolies" ended retailing; it simply moved on to new territories ("Amazon" and other on-line resources), and so, eventually, will the current utilisation of Facebook.

Facebook has been in decline for quite a while anyway, it's really a platform for older people now - myself included! Younger people, although they've moved to different platforms, are also more aware of the affect that social media has on their lives and it's not uncommon for them to be more conscious of what they're spending their time on. Some are disconnecting from social media entirely which isn't at all what was expected from the generation that's been brought up digitally. Both the company I work for, and my husbands company (both marketing/media/advertising) are starting to realise that sticking stuff on social media to reach people just isn't the answer anymore, where 5 years ago maybe it was thought that everything else would be obsolete by now.

In reply to Meg:

Oh, I really should read the comments first. If I'd realised this was a Facebookesque grammar fight I'd have brought popcorn ;)

In reply to Meg:

I'm not fighting anybody! :-) Quite the opposite. I'm saying that we should use correct English wherever possible, but not be unnecessarily hyper-critical, and certainly not exclusive of linguistic variation, whether that be caused by education, dialect, national-origins or any other factor, unless the issue is of critical importance (which it rarely is).

The only linguistic hang-up I have is if anyone abuses the word "Peter" by shortening it to "Pete". 

But pass around the popcorn anyway, and we'll see what sort of fight we can generate over Facebook.

P

In reply to Peter:

Ooh you’d hate me in real life then, I have a pathological inability not to shorten people’s names!

In reply to Meg:

Lol!

Everyone gets away with it the first time :-)

That's why I habitually sign my informal communications (here and on hard copy) with just "P"; because I found years ago that signing anything "Peter" seemed to invite a "friendly" shortening to "Pete". Invariably well intentioned, but pulling some unfortunate strings :-)

Even then, however, I have in the past had a couple of replies mistakenly extending the "P" into a word... Which I won't repeat here!

P