4 ms·

It’s an open offer for someone who understands better to clarify or confirm incase OP has missed something from their calculations.

0des 5y ago
It's confusing when people end what appears to be a declarative statement with a question mark, not sure why I'd get in trouble for asking.
- Hoppetosse 5y ago
  It can also be an artifact of a foreign language. The french interrogatory form can be the same as the declarative. It seems likely in this case, their use of "therefore" is equivalent to the fench "alors" which is often employed to "interrogate a declaration"
- someotherperson 5y ago
  It's the written equivalent of uptalk[0], I wouldn't say it is uncommon at all. It would only really be confusing the first time you come across it -- like most things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal
  - stan_rogers 5y ago
    Not without an ellipsis it's not.
- SirHound 5y ago
  You're not in trouble?
- some0x80070005 5y ago
  Generally speaking, this situation does not seem confusing for many native speakers. The question mark indicates uncertainty about the statement instead of asking “<Statement>. Can anyone refute this or provide insight to the original significance?”. In this case, the author drew a conclusion about other data which seems to make the original article seem less important or less significant, but instead of declaring it as a fact outright, the author is choosing to mark it with uncertainty instead which will invite a discussion if they are wrong on some aspect of it.
  - 0des 5y ago
    > this situation does not seem confusing for many native speakers English was not my first language, and this peculiar phrasing confused me. Asking for clarity seems like a natural thing to do in this situation.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      It is, but it came of as criticism to me, because using the question mark this way is quite common here on HN and elsewhere.
      - 0des 5y ago
        I apologize heartily for offending you, that is not my intent.
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        You did not offend me(with the first post) and I did not downvote you. I just explained, why you received negative feedback - basically missunderstanding. But talking about missunderstanding: I understand your last comment as snarky, unwarranted sarcasm. This I would downvote.
        necovek 5y ago
        FWIW, does not read sarcastic from the sidelines. And as mentioned elsewhere, the entire thread seems like a good natured discussion: perhaps it felt different without the original "edit".
      - Freak_NL 5y ago
        It seems to be a rather recent phenomenon here on HN (broadly speaking) and for me it falls pretty much in the same category as other overly familiar and rude language patterns such as 'AF' (short for 'as fuck') or 'tho', 'cuz', or 'w/' instead of 'though', 'because', or 'with'. There is a rudeness in making it one of these faux-questions filled with implications instead of clearly stating what it is you want to say.
- ivanbakel 5y ago
  >not sure why I'd get in trouble for asking. Both of your comments can be construed as linguistic pedantry. Particularly, saying "it's confusing" rather than e.g. "I find it confusing" is pretty prescriptive - and it just sounds like you're doubling down on your first comment. If you want to ask a question about a feature of language, it helps to add the context that you're unfamiliar with the language itself. Otherwise, most readers will assume that you're attempting to correct the user you're replying to. Commenting on people's use of language is considered quite rude in most internet communities - not least because of the number of ESL users.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  I used this process, and came up with the numbers, 140 and 250, and they are kind of close in my opinion, though I'm not 100% sure. What do you think? shortened, becomes: I used this process, and came up with these numbers, 140 and 250, and they are kind of close? Why you got in trouble: people thought you were criticizing the original comment for hiding a statement to look like a question. (A common underhanded tactic to do and a common criticism - "was that a question?".)

0des 5y ago

It's confusing when people end what appears to be a declarative statement with a question mark, not sure why I'd get in trouble for asking.

Hoppetosse 5y ago
It can also be an artifact of a foreign language. The french interrogatory form can be the same as the declarative. It seems likely in this case, their use of "therefore" is equivalent to the fench "alors" which is often employed to "interrogate a declaration"
someotherperson 5y ago
It's the written equivalent of uptalk[0], I wouldn't say it is uncommon at all. It would only really be confusing the first time you come across it -- like most things. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal
- stan_rogers 5y ago
  Not without an ellipsis it's not.
SirHound 5y ago
You're not in trouble?
some0x80070005 5y ago
Generally speaking, this situation does not seem confusing for many native speakers. The question mark indicates uncertainty about the statement instead of asking “<Statement>. Can anyone refute this or provide insight to the original significance?”. In this case, the author drew a conclusion about other data which seems to make the original article seem less important or less significant, but instead of declaring it as a fact outright, the author is choosing to mark it with uncertainty instead which will invite a discussion if they are wrong on some aspect of it.
- 0des 5y ago
  > this situation does not seem confusing for many native speakers English was not my first language, and this peculiar phrasing confused me. Asking for clarity seems like a natural thing to do in this situation.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    It is, but it came of as criticism to me, because using the question mark this way is quite common here on HN and elsewhere.
    - 0des 5y ago
      I apologize heartily for offending you, that is not my intent.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        You did not offend me(with the first post) and I did not downvote you. I just explained, why you received negative feedback - basically missunderstanding. But talking about missunderstanding: I understand your last comment as snarky, unwarranted sarcasm. This I would downvote.
        necovek 5y ago
        FWIW, does not read sarcastic from the sidelines. And as mentioned elsewhere, the entire thread seems like a good natured discussion: perhaps it felt different without the original "edit".
    - Freak_NL 5y ago
      It seems to be a rather recent phenomenon here on HN (broadly speaking) and for me it falls pretty much in the same category as other overly familiar and rude language patterns such as 'AF' (short for 'as fuck') or 'tho', 'cuz', or 'w/' instead of 'though', 'because', or 'with'. There is a rudeness in making it one of these faux-questions filled with implications instead of clearly stating what it is you want to say.
ivanbakel 5y ago
>not sure why I'd get in trouble for asking. Both of your comments can be construed as linguistic pedantry. Particularly, saying "it's confusing" rather than e.g. "I find it confusing" is pretty prescriptive - and it just sounds like you're doubling down on your first comment. If you want to ask a question about a feature of language, it helps to add the context that you're unfamiliar with the language itself. Otherwise, most readers will assume that you're attempting to correct the user you're replying to. Commenting on people's use of language is considered quite rude in most internet communities - not least because of the number of ESL users.
Gravityloss 5y ago
I used this process, and came up with the numbers, 140 and 250, and they are kind of close in my opinion, though I'm not 100% sure. What do you think? shortened, becomes: I used this process, and came up with these numbers, 140 and 250, and they are kind of close? Why you got in trouble: people thought you were criticizing the original comment for hiding a statement to look like a question. (A common underhanded tactic to do and a common criticism - "was that a question?".)