5 ms·
That’s because you have very few exposition to 1890 writing. When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clear
by tasogare 7y ago
That’s because you have very few exposition to 1890 writing. When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clearer it is than say, newspaper garbage for instance. No only in style, but also how they write to inform instead of writing to hide facts.
It’s even more striking when watching archive videos from the 60’. People speak more slowly, are more composed and use wider vocabulary. It might not be as caricatural as the movie Idiocracy portrayed it, but in a way I feel we’ve slided into what they predict.
- throwawaylolx 7y ago>When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clearer it is than say, newspaper garbage for instance. No only in style, but also how they write to inform instead of writing to hide facts. For this comparison to hold water, you should compare garbage newspapers from each period rather than different literary mediums.
- abtinf 7y agoI wouldn’t normally take apart an HN comment on grammar, but you are commenting on clarity of writing. If this is something you care about, than the following proofing may be useful. Format is (delete text)[insert text or comment]. ——————— That’s because you have very (few exposition)[little exposure] to (1890 writing)[writing from 1890]. When I read published (book)[books;otherwise “often” in next segment doesn’t make sense] from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often (stroke)[struck] by how much clearer it is than[,] say, (newspaper garbage)[awkward] (for instance)[redundant after using “than, say,”]. No[t] only in style, but also how (they)[unclear reference, refers to books but books don’t write, authors do] write to inform instead of writing to hide facts. It’s even more striking when watching archive videos from the 60’[s]. People speak more slowly, are more composed and use wider vocabulary. It might not be as (caricatural)[not a word and intended meaning unclear from context] as the movie Idiocracy portrayed it, but[,] in a way[,] I feel we’ve (slided)[slid] into what (they)[it] predict[s].
- iamacyborg 7y agoHe said he read something in French, so the obvious assumption is that he's French (or French Canadian). Being a grammar Nazi about what one can assume is a non-native English speaker's grammar is just plain 'ol dumb.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoI don't think they were being mean. To me that should have been a PM, but we don't have those here.
- sjg007 7y agoMy hypothesis is that our attention spans have decreased and this is a function of technological improvements. Because we seek out dopamine rewarding experiences we can satisfy that brain circuit by consuming novel content faster. We are basically attention seeking drug addicts. Take for example older movies vs modern movies. Today's special effects speeds up the pacing so that older movies feel boring. The same can be seen in TV shows. Seasame street is almost a case study where you can watch the change in realtime. Also older vs modern cartoons follow the same pattern. You could say it's almost frenetic. The effect holds for older vs modern video games as well although some games are different. YouTube as well. One interesting thing I've observed is that with games like Minecraft and YouTube that kids are starting to become content creators. Where kids use to put on plays for the family in the living room, they can now effectively do the same but for the whole world. It's really fascinating.