posted
Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Clarity AND pedantry. It's possible to be precise without also being stuffy.
Ok you made me lol with that comment. Here I am trying to write an essay for Chinese class and pulling my hair out because its so hard to understand, so I browse this thread and come across "obfuscation" and of course I have to look that word up too.
DAMN YOU TOWER OF BABEL!!! ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!
That said, I think the problem with the word moderate is that the words liberal and conservative are always in a state of flux. Our founding fathers were considered liberal and yet their ideas in todays political arena are considered ultra conservative in many respects. Now yes it could be argued that they were also conservative in many of their views when compared to the mindsets of their time, thus the nation they created was blissfully moderate.
I really do not know how anyone holds on to eternal truths and yet remains open to the new truths that are revealed down the road.
I just think I am doing it I suppose Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
You need to go outside.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelegius, just count the number of commas in your sentences and attempt to halve it. At the moment reading your sentences gives me an odd impression that you're having an asthma attack.
Not the most convincing of argumentative tones.
Posts: 122 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
quote:Originally posted by Mintieman: Pelegius, just count the number of commas in your sentences and attempt to halve it. At the moment reading your sentences gives me an odd impression that you're having an asthma attack.
posted
While I recognize the comma, and the clauses which follow it, is out of vogue, it is, in fact, a valid piece of punctuation which saves one from the having to use parentheses every time one wishes to make a parenthetical comment.
Mintieman, if we are on the subject, your advice migh have been more elegently rendered as "Pelegius, just count the number of commas in your sentences and attempt to halve it: at the moment reading your sentences gives me an odd impression that you're having an asthma attack."
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know it's perfectly grammatical to leave commas out of some parentheticals, right? You could have written your previous sentence as "While I recognize the comma and the clauses which follow it is (sic) out of vogue, it is in fact a valid piece of punctuation which saves one from the having (sic) to use parentheses every time one wishes to make a parenthetical comment."
Far better, of course, is to leave out the parentheticals altogether; as in my example above, they tend to be used frivolously and often condescendingly -- which doesn't help people take you seriously, especially when you're doing ridiculously twee things like advising someone to join two sentences with a colon for "elegance" and using "one" all the time, as if you were an 18th-century textbook.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you write (sic) where you do not need it. The Latin "sic" means something like the English "thus" and is used in English to mean something like "it was found thu;" however, such use implies a mistake on the part of the origional writer. I admit to having made a mistake in the second case "the having" being nonsensical, but, in the first case, I was entirely correct to use "is" becouse "comma" is singular the clauses following the comma having no effect of the number of the verb.
Futhermore, the word "one" is standard English pronoun meaning "An unspecified individual." There is simply no other three-letter commonly understood word that means the same thing. To criticize the use of the word "one" to refer to an unspecified individual is a bizzare as criticizing the use of the word "you" in the second person vocative.
My old English/Latin/Philosophy/Ancient History teacher used to criticize thesauri, becouse, as he said, no word is exactly synonymous in both denotation and conotation. As usual, he was right.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are missing the point Pel, so let me make it nice and clear for you.
The way you speak can be summed up with a few "big words" (whose webster's definitions I am sure you can recite on command), like pedantic, pretentious, obfuscating, and condescendingly erudite. You also seem to have an compulsive preoccupation with commas, a condition which severely impacts the legibility of your writing. (see how annoying that was?)
You might notice that not many people on Hatrack write like you do. This isn't because they aren't as learned as you. In fact, it's the opposite. You might have a nice education in greek philosophy and old english, but that doesn't mean you have to be a condescending prick when you talk to people. I went to a private high school too (I'm assuming here, and I apologize if the assumption is wrong), but you don't hear me talking like a tool.
Like I said before, maybe you're just proud of your knowledge and don't mean to come off the way you do, but regardless of your intent, you do come off that way, and you need to re-evalutate the way you write if you want to have constructive debates on this forum and not piss people off left and right (and if you want to get anywhere when you go to university).
Also I'm sorry if I am speaking for the general population here and you all don't share my opinion.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Tom, you write (sic) where you do not need it. The Latin "sic" means something like the English "thus" and is used in English to mean something like "it was found thu;" however, such use implies a mistake on the part of the origional writer. I admit to having made a mistake in the second case "the having" being nonsensical, but, in the first case, I was entirely correct to use "is" becouse "comma" is singular the clauses following the comma having no effect of the number of the verb.
The subject of that sentence was "the comma and the clauses which follow it," which is a compound subject. That means it needs a plural verb.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could have been, but "and the clauses which follow it" were inserted after a comma, and were part of a parenthetical remark, not the subject.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that you set it off with commas doesn't make it parenthetical. The phrase "and the clauses which follow it" did not amplify or explain anything about the subject, "comma."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Using correct grammar is lovely; defending your usage is fine; correcting other people's usage can be pretty obnoxious (and will leave you subject to Davidson's Law).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grammar is for people without the imagination to make each sentence unique, as spelling is for people without the imagination to spell words more than one way.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
