3 ms·

Just a small nuance correction: monitors will not suffer, users will.

klodolph 8y ago
“Monitors will suffer” is a metonym, there’s no need to correct it, it was already correct. Metonymy is common in casual speech but less so in formal writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
- sorokod 8y ago
  Thank you for the link, it is very interesting. Having read the Wikipedia article, I think that metonym here is a bit too heavyweight for the simple thing expressed in the comment. Edit: personally I value simple and precise language. Constructs such as those mentioned in the Wikipedia article may convey similar meaning but the fact that they exist means that they allow for some variation in meaning and color which is unnecessary in this case.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Thank you for the link, it is very interesting. Having read the Wikipedia article, I think that metonym here is a bit too heavyweight for the simple thing expressed in the comment. Metonym is just a linguistic term. Such terms are not constrained to describe high uses of language by great masters of writing. They are merely names for specific constructs or linguistic phenomena. A drunken sailor swearing at someone at 3am could be using a metonym just as easily as Wallace Stevens.
  - jorvi 8y ago
    ‘[The performance of] the monitors will suffer’ is implicated here.
  - klodolph 8y ago
    You value precise and simple language, but other people value other things like clarity and brevity. It’s a tradeoff. Making something precise can mean adding extra words which sometimes, paradoxically makes it less clear and more difficult to understand. Even in extremely formal contexts like mathematical papers, it's inappropriate to be completely precise because it gets in the way of communicating ideas. And if we strongly preferred simple language, we would use https://simple.wikipedia.org/ https://simple.wikipedia.org/ instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/ The original statement is clear from context, since the literal meaning is semantically impossible (monitors are incapable of suffering).
    - mgsouth 8y ago
      So you're saying that overly pedantic writing causes clarity to suffer?
orbitur 8y ago
They’re not suffering much though. All these comparisons to USB and monochrome are ridiculous.

“Monitors will suffer” is a metonym, there’s no need to correct it, it was already correct. Metonymy is common in casual speech but less so in formal writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

sorokod 8y ago
Thank you for the link, it is very interesting. Having read the Wikipedia article, I think that metonym here is a bit too heavyweight for the simple thing expressed in the comment. Edit: personally I value simple and precise language. Constructs such as those mentioned in the Wikipedia article may convey similar meaning but the fact that they exist means that they allow for some variation in meaning and color which is unnecessary in this case.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Thank you for the link, it is very interesting. Having read the Wikipedia article, I think that metonym here is a bit too heavyweight for the simple thing expressed in the comment. Metonym is just a linguistic term. Such terms are not constrained to describe high uses of language by great masters of writing. They are merely names for specific constructs or linguistic phenomena. A drunken sailor swearing at someone at 3am could be using a metonym just as easily as Wallace Stevens.
- jorvi 8y ago
  ‘[The performance of] the monitors will suffer’ is implicated here.
- klodolph 8y ago
  You value precise and simple language, but other people value other things like clarity and brevity. It’s a tradeoff. Making something precise can mean adding extra words which sometimes, paradoxically makes it less clear and more difficult to understand. Even in extremely formal contexts like mathematical papers, it's inappropriate to be completely precise because it gets in the way of communicating ideas. And if we strongly preferred simple language, we would use https://simple.wikipedia.org/ https://simple.wikipedia.org/ instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/ The original statement is clear from context, since the literal meaning is semantically impossible (monitors are incapable of suffering).
  - mgsouth 8y ago
    So you're saying that overly pedantic writing causes clarity to suffer?

orbitur 8y ago

They’re not suffering much though. All these comparisons to USB and monochrome are ridiculous.