6 ms·

<pedantry> It wasn't a pedantry tag. And yours is differently misspelled! </pedantry>

by buckminster 6y ago

Hydraulix989 6y ago
Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
- steve_g 6y ago
  But sometimes it's OK to break the rules.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Not with -pedantic enabled, that’s kind of the purpose.
  - Hydraulix989 6y ago
    Unless you're already calling someone else out for a spelling mistake.
- ryankemper 6y ago
  I'll terminate this by being so pedantic that we cross over into non-pedanticism. Per descriptive linguistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description), the assertion that it's wrong to start a sentence with a conjunction is incorrect. Ditto for splitting infinitives, ending a sentence with a preposition, etc. (Descriptive linguists basically define the rules of language to be how humans actually use the damn language. It turns out such a philosophy saves you from falling into a lot of traps)
  - giantDinosaur 6y ago
    Unfortunately merely noting 'descriptivism' as if it solves the issue of linguistic prescription doesn't help that much. We prescribe all the time, like it or not, language isn't a free for all at the individual level. It's also _descriptively_ true that many people regard certain rules as inviolable, which certainly means that prescription is, in some sense, completely reasonable: comply, or we'll refuse to accept you. How does 'I'll do whatever I damn want' really handle that? It can be true that it's 'valid' on one level, while being wrong on another.
    - rendall 6y ago
      I immediately dismiss as gauche and lacking credibility anyone who even hints at a prescriptivist rule, so my acceptance goes against prescriptivism. These rules make writing unclear, stolid, dull and uninteresting for no real benefit. In my opinion, parroting prohibitions against split infinitives, ending with a preposition, "snuck is not a word", "'they' is only plural", etc etc not only shows a profound lack of education, this shows an inability to learn, since these so-called "rules" are widely and easily known to be made up whole cloth. To my mind, this is a person who absorbed Elements of Style (perhaps even second-hand from a misinformed high school teacher) and called it a day, believing they understand how English is properly written. Serious red flag for me.
      - asdffdsa 6y ago
        "I immediately dismiss as...lacking credibility anyone who even hints at a prescriptivist rule" Isn't this a prescriptivist rule? Imagine a highly skilled author who recognizes a younger one that misuses a semicolon or has poor grammar; the older says to the younger, "only write with perfect grammar". By doing so, the younger learns more precisely the elements of the English language and the purpose of each device (semicolon, period, comma, etc.). After, the younger becomes a much better writer, and integrates that new knowledge with his or her existing writing. In this way, prescriptivist rules help inexperienced writers hone in on their weaknesses and draw focus to some facet they lack. Any harsh prescription is kind of a red flag for me, because you have to judge yourself by that harshness (fall on your own sword, so to speak). Or, as what usually happens, hold some hypocritical double standard or semantic loophole which pardons yourself while incriminating others.
        rendall 6y ago
        << Imagine a highly skilled author who recognizes a younger one that misuses a semicolon or has poor grammar; the older says to the younger >> I cannot imagine a highly skilled author who never employs split infinitives. Show me that person. Regarding semicolons, here is Kurt Vonnegut's opinion on them: "Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." Is that good advice? Perhaps for some writers, it actually is; but it's not about the semicolon, really, but about stilted, bad writing. << Isn't this a prescriptivist rule? >> I was responding to the previous comment "It's also _descriptively_ true that many people regard certain rules as inviolable, which certainly means that prescription is, in some sense, completely reasonable: comply, or we'll refuse to accept you." My direct answer is "It's the prescriptivists 'refusing to accept' who should worry about acceptance, since they are failing on so many levels it's hard to know where to start"
  - hnal943 6y ago
    How many pedants are descriptivists?
    - thomasfedb 6y ago
      Few
  - ooobit2 6y ago
    It depends on the use. That last sentence is fine, as the complete thought is apparent. But I just split this sentence from the one prior to it. Do any of these last two make sense? Likely as much as this sentence does. The best approach is to think about the way we read aloud, as I have with this sentence, the words and punctuation we see on a page. This paragraph makes better use of sentence structures that frame a complete thought. That said, the prior paragraph did the same but separated too many closely-related thoughts that would have been better understood in fewer, more additive sentences. Key takeaways: News anchors vary the pitch and phrasing of their speech because a typical monotonous speaking voice is too predictable to our hearing sense, so we naturally pay less attention to droning speech. Writing works similarly for the brain. Failing to work with subordinate and additive structures, vary sentence and paragraph length, and start and end thoughts with unexpected phrases, makes any writing more difficult to sustain interest. So, start your sentences with hieroglyphs, smoke signals, or whatever works to engage and re-engage a reader after every period. Just make sure you frame complete thoughts and limit the number of breaks mid-thought.

<pedantry> It wasn't a pedantry tag. And yours is differently misspelled! </pedantry>

Hydraulix989 6y ago

Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

steve_g 6y ago
But sometimes it's OK to break the rules.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  Not with -pedantic enabled, that’s kind of the purpose.
- Hydraulix989 6y ago
  Unless you're already calling someone else out for a spelling mistake.
ryankemper 6y ago
I'll terminate this by being so pedantic that we cross over into non-pedanticism. Per descriptive linguistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description), the assertion that it's wrong to start a sentence with a conjunction is incorrect. Ditto for splitting infinitives, ending a sentence with a preposition, etc. (Descriptive linguists basically define the rules of language to be how humans actually use the damn language. It turns out such a philosophy saves you from falling into a lot of traps)
- giantDinosaur 6y ago
  Unfortunately merely noting 'descriptivism' as if it solves the issue of linguistic prescription doesn't help that much. We prescribe all the time, like it or not, language isn't a free for all at the individual level. It's also _descriptively_ true that many people regard certain rules as inviolable, which certainly means that prescription is, in some sense, completely reasonable: comply, or we'll refuse to accept you. How does 'I'll do whatever I damn want' really handle that? It can be true that it's 'valid' on one level, while being wrong on another.
  - rendall 6y ago
    I immediately dismiss as gauche and lacking credibility anyone who even hints at a prescriptivist rule, so my acceptance goes against prescriptivism. These rules make writing unclear, stolid, dull and uninteresting for no real benefit. In my opinion, parroting prohibitions against split infinitives, ending with a preposition, "snuck is not a word", "'they' is only plural", etc etc not only shows a profound lack of education, this shows an inability to learn, since these so-called "rules" are widely and easily known to be made up whole cloth. To my mind, this is a person who absorbed Elements of Style (perhaps even second-hand from a misinformed high school teacher) and called it a day, believing they understand how English is properly written. Serious red flag for me.
    - asdffdsa 6y ago
      "I immediately dismiss as...lacking credibility anyone who even hints at a prescriptivist rule" Isn't this a prescriptivist rule? Imagine a highly skilled author who recognizes a younger one that misuses a semicolon or has poor grammar; the older says to the younger, "only write with perfect grammar". By doing so, the younger learns more precisely the elements of the English language and the purpose of each device (semicolon, period, comma, etc.). After, the younger becomes a much better writer, and integrates that new knowledge with his or her existing writing. In this way, prescriptivist rules help inexperienced writers hone in on their weaknesses and draw focus to some facet they lack. Any harsh prescription is kind of a red flag for me, because you have to judge yourself by that harshness (fall on your own sword, so to speak). Or, as what usually happens, hold some hypocritical double standard or semantic loophole which pardons yourself while incriminating others.
      - rendall 6y ago
        << Imagine a highly skilled author who recognizes a younger one that misuses a semicolon or has poor grammar; the older says to the younger >> I cannot imagine a highly skilled author who never employs split infinitives. Show me that person. Regarding semicolons, here is Kurt Vonnegut's opinion on them: "Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." Is that good advice? Perhaps for some writers, it actually is; but it's not about the semicolon, really, but about stilted, bad writing. << Isn't this a prescriptivist rule? >> I was responding to the previous comment "It's also _descriptively_ true that many people regard certain rules as inviolable, which certainly means that prescription is, in some sense, completely reasonable: comply, or we'll refuse to accept you." My direct answer is "It's the prescriptivists 'refusing to accept' who should worry about acceptance, since they are failing on so many levels it's hard to know where to start"
- hnal943 6y ago
  How many pedants are descriptivists?
  - thomasfedb 6y ago
    Few
- ooobit2 6y ago
  It depends on the use. That last sentence is fine, as the complete thought is apparent. But I just split this sentence from the one prior to it. Do any of these last two make sense? Likely as much as this sentence does. The best approach is to think about the way we read aloud, as I have with this sentence, the words and punctuation we see on a page. This paragraph makes better use of sentence structures that frame a complete thought. That said, the prior paragraph did the same but separated too many closely-related thoughts that would have been better understood in fewer, more additive sentences. Key takeaways: News anchors vary the pitch and phrasing of their speech because a typical monotonous speaking voice is too predictable to our hearing sense, so we naturally pay less attention to droning speech. Writing works similarly for the brain. Failing to work with subordinate and additive structures, vary sentence and paragraph length, and start and end thoughts with unexpected phrases, makes any writing more difficult to sustain interest. So, start your sentences with hieroglyphs, smoke signals, or whatever works to engage and re-engage a reader after every period. Just make sure you frame complete thoughts and limit the number of breaks mid-thought.