3 ms·

There are no hard rules with grammar. Just conventions. If we understood what the person meant, then they succeeded at their goal of communicating.

roflc0ptic 10y ago
That's true, but the convention for educated English speakers has it that it should be "you and me", or "us". They may have succeeded at communicating facts but they also conveyed some slight ignorance to some subset of people reading it. Definitely wouldn't have taken the time to point it out, though.
miles 10y ago
By all means! At the same time, there may be something to be said for writing well. I was reminded of this thread: Rare is the leader who can actually write well https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429298 and especially part of a comment by Alex3917[1], quoting 37signals's Getting Real[2]: "If you are trying to decide between a few people to fill a position, always hire the better writer. It doesn't matter if that person is a designer, programmer, marketer, salesperson, or whatever, the writing skills will pay off. Effective, concise writing and editing leads to effective, concise code, design, emails, instant messages, and more." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429352 [2] http://gettingreal.37signals.com http://gettingreal.37signals.com
kakarot 10y ago
except he was specifically being pedantic. You can't combat pedantic criticism with "But grammar is just conventions". Grammatical pedantry deals with exactly those conventional nuances.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  It wasn't pedantry about grammar, it was pedantry about meaning. If a Russian with bad English grammar tried to correct your code, would you try to correct his use of "was" rather than "were"?
  - kakarot 10y ago
    No, it was grammar. Because the grammar shaped the meaning. But when you are dealing specifically with meaning or context and not formal conventions, it is considered a semantic, not pedantic. I don't generally correct people's grammar mistakes these days because I myself have laxed quite a bit in favor of "progressing" my language a bit. But I especially wouldn't correct a foreigner just because, only if I felt they would be receptive to the advice. I would certainly appreciate the same when using a language I'm not familiar with.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      It was simply a factually incorrect statement. It was about grammar as much as "fish ride bicycles" is about grammar. edit: It actually wasn't incorrect at all... I'd lost track of the original statement:) It was just something that would be obvious to people who understood basic chemistry. Either way, it wouldn't be a question of grammar (any more than "some fish swim in the ocean.")
alasdair_ 10y ago
>There are no hard rules with grammar. Just conventions. If we understood what the person meant, then they succeeded at their goal of communicating. If I have to put a lot of effort at decoding what someone says, it's less likely that I'll bother. I'm sure we could all decode l33tspeak but that doesn't mean someone who uses it "succeeded".
adrianN 10y ago
Only because it's called the Geneva Convention that doesn't mean that you shouldn't follow it.

roflc0ptic 10y ago

That's true, but the convention for educated English speakers has it that it should be "you and me", or "us". They may have succeeded at communicating facts but they also conveyed some slight ignorance to some subset of people reading it. Definitely wouldn't have taken the time to point it out, though.

miles 10y ago

By all means! At the same time, there may be something to be said for writing well. I was reminded of this thread: Rare is the leader who can actually write well https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429298 and especially part of a comment by Alex3917[1], quoting 37signals's Getting Real[2]: "If you are trying to decide between a few people to fill a position, always hire the better writer. It doesn't matter if that person is a designer, programmer, marketer, salesperson, or whatever, the writing skills will pay off. Effective, concise writing and editing leads to effective, concise code, design, emails, instant messages, and more." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=429352 [2] http://gettingreal.37signals.com http://gettingreal.37signals.com

kakarot 10y ago

except he was specifically being pedantic. You can't combat pedantic criticism with "But grammar is just conventions". Grammatical pedantry deals with exactly those conventional nuances.

pessimizer 10y ago
It wasn't pedantry about grammar, it was pedantry about meaning. If a Russian with bad English grammar tried to correct your code, would you try to correct his use of "was" rather than "were"?
- kakarot 10y ago
  No, it was grammar. Because the grammar shaped the meaning. But when you are dealing specifically with meaning or context and not formal conventions, it is considered a semantic, not pedantic. I don't generally correct people's grammar mistakes these days because I myself have laxed quite a bit in favor of "progressing" my language a bit. But I especially wouldn't correct a foreigner just because, only if I felt they would be receptive to the advice. I would certainly appreciate the same when using a language I'm not familiar with.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    It was simply a factually incorrect statement. It was about grammar as much as "fish ride bicycles" is about grammar. edit: It actually wasn't incorrect at all... I'd lost track of the original statement:) It was just something that would be obvious to people who understood basic chemistry. Either way, it wouldn't be a question of grammar (any more than "some fish swim in the ocean.")

alasdair_ 10y ago

>There are no hard rules with grammar. Just conventions. If we understood what the person meant, then they succeeded at their goal of communicating. If I have to put a lot of effort at decoding what someone says, it's less likely that I'll bother. I'm sure we could all decode l33tspeak but that doesn't mean someone who uses it "succeeded".

adrianN 10y ago

Only because it's called the Geneva Convention that doesn't mean that you shouldn't follow it.