4 ms·

That still doesn't address my point. If these are not rules of English, then what are these (style) rules based on? What is the justification for not using how

That still doesn't address my point. If these are not rules of English, then what are these (style) rules based on? What is the justification for not using however at the beginning of a non-dependent clause ('sentence')? If it's not actual rules of English grammar and also not what writers that are generally recognised as 'good' writers do, then what value could it have?

watwut 8y ago
It makes texts easier to read. Grammar is not about readability nor meaning nor pleasure, it is purely about syntax. Analogy is that syntactically correct code does not imply maintainability nor means the code is pleasant to work with. Plenty of good writer followed those rules. Many of people break those rules and create completely crappy text. In here, few writers are cherry picked as examples why long sentences are fine - most of those sentences are for purely emotional hit and frankly, none of those sentences came across as somehow all that much awesome to me. They are the kind of sentences I normally glaze over. Really, James Joyce breaks those rules, is considered good writer, but the fact is that most readers suffer as they attempt to read it. Now, you can go on trying to simulate what he did, but readers will suffer. He had success with it, because he knew why is he breaking the rules and had elaborate system for it. You can have non-minimalist style and it can work well too. I think that simply in practice, people tend to use non-minimalist style when they don't know what they are doing and end up with long hard to understand texts. --------------------- However part says something different then you think. According to book, however may mean either "nevertheless" or "whatever way or to whatever extent". When however comes first, it means in whatever way or to whatever extent. So, the explanation is in how they understood the meaning of the word depending of where it is placed in 1918. And you can use it, if you use the word with proper meaning. Also, however is in chapter with following intro: "Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing. As illustrated under Feature, the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement." Elements of style have explanations in it and is free on the internet.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  There are many things which are simply factually incorrect. However as 'not being able to mean "nevertheless" when at the beginning of a main clause' is utter fabricated balderdash. It has been able to be used like this for at least a few hundred years in English, and you can find examples of this use from Shakespeare and Burke and so on. And it's not as if Strunk & White couldn't have checked on this in 1918, such examples are given in the OED's 1899 edition. And this is not an explanation: "Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing. As illustrated under Feature, the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement." What justification do they give for what they consider 'bad style' or 'careless writing'? I do wish they could have followed their own recommendations, especially as concerns the last clause, for this is nothing but vague generality, and a mistaken one at that.

watwut 8y ago

It makes texts easier to read. Grammar is not about readability nor meaning nor pleasure, it is purely about syntax. Analogy is that syntactically correct code does not imply maintainability nor means the code is pleasant to work with. Plenty of good writer followed those rules. Many of people break those rules and create completely crappy text. In here, few writers are cherry picked as examples why long sentences are fine - most of those sentences are for purely emotional hit and frankly, none of those sentences came across as somehow all that much awesome to me. They are the kind of sentences I normally glaze over. Really, James Joyce breaks those rules, is considered good writer, but the fact is that most readers suffer as they attempt to read it. Now, you can go on trying to simulate what he did, but readers will suffer. He had success with it, because he knew why is he breaking the rules and had elaborate system for it. You can have non-minimalist style and it can work well too. I think that simply in practice, people tend to use non-minimalist style when they don't know what they are doing and end up with long hard to understand texts. --------------------- However part says something different then you think. According to book, however may mean either "nevertheless" or "whatever way or to whatever extent". When however comes first, it means in whatever way or to whatever extent. So, the explanation is in how they understood the meaning of the word depending of where it is placed in 1918. And you can use it, if you use the word with proper meaning. Also, however is in chapter with following intro: "Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing. As illustrated under Feature, the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement." Elements of style have explanations in it and is free on the internet.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
There are many things which are simply factually incorrect. However as 'not being able to mean "nevertheless" when at the beginning of a main clause' is utter fabricated balderdash. It has been able to be used like this for at least a few hundred years in English, and you can find examples of this use from Shakespeare and Burke and so on. And it's not as if Strunk & White couldn't have checked on this in 1918, such examples are given in the OED's 1899 edition. And this is not an explanation: "Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing. As illustrated under Feature, the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement." What justification do they give for what they consider 'bad style' or 'careless writing'? I do wish they could have followed their own recommendations, especially as concerns the last clause, for this is nothing but vague generality, and a mistaken one at that.