3 ms·

You haven't asked for feedback, but here you go anyway: If you're wanting to write proper English, you should first write English correctly. For example, sente

You haven't asked for feedback, but here you go anyway: If you're wanting to write proper English, you should first write English correctly. For example, sentences begin with capital letters. Your parenthetical word should have been "reasonable," not "reasonably." If your English were correct, one might think that readers just aren't putting in the needed effort. Since your English contains multiple errors, I believe that's asking too much of readers.

mdp2021 4y ago
But pwinnski, I do not need to explicitly ask for feedback: I write here /expecting/ feedback (and to possibly give further feedback of mine). Otherwise, I would not publish. Now: «sentences begin with capital letters»: yes, not always. In the specific case, a colon was placed and a LineFeed-CarriageReturn for highlighting - the sentence was judged as clearer in two lines. Please note that conventions are local and hardly objective: for example, the French add spaces around (some) punctuation, the Germans invert the acute quotes (those which I use for quoting, '«' and '»')... The parenthetical was set as 'reasonably', an adverb, because it was meant to be joined to the verb at the end, 'chosen', and placed in that position to modify 'all'. It means that you cannot write 'all terms were chosen' because that would be possibly literally false, but they are substantially so - "a particular effort is taken in choosing the terms - reasonably", with an accent on "more effort is spent on some than on others". As you see, those you noted are intended choices. You are calling them "«errors»", they are more "deviations". To "err" is more random, like the Brownian motion of those who are lost; to "deviate" is more conscious - and done because the statistical norm, that of consuetude, that of the patterns for GPT (etc.), did not fit. -- If you, like many of us, fiddled with music: yes, like Schoenberg said, first you know the "general rule", then and only then you break it - I largely agree, especially if you mean "you have to be competent to hack".
- pwinnski 4y ago
  So both wrong and stubborn about it. You clearly have a goal other than effective communication, and I wish you well in pursuit of that goal.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    "Wrong" (as per language in use), you have to prove it. Frequentism does not count: it should be already understood that this purpose is not to adhere to language in use. "Stubborn", makes a contradiction, if you - correctly - understand that the goal is different. The goal in fact is more than «effective communication», but "correct expression". And as you should know, "wrong" means "twisted", but I am the one who is attempting to "make it straight". Language "in use" will be followed as much as it fits with the prevailing goal of correctness. A philologist is not an ethologist. For the other goals that you could adopt, consider "cleanness of thought". And of course, I thank you for your best wishes in the pursuit!

mdp2021 4y ago

But pwinnski, I do not need to explicitly ask for feedback: I write here /expecting/ feedback (and to possibly give further feedback of mine). Otherwise, I would not publish. Now: «sentences begin with capital letters»: yes, not always. In the specific case, a colon was placed and a LineFeed-CarriageReturn for highlighting - the sentence was judged as clearer in two lines. Please note that conventions are local and hardly objective: for example, the French add spaces around (some) punctuation, the Germans invert the acute quotes (those which I use for quoting, '«' and '»')... The parenthetical was set as 'reasonably', an adverb, because it was meant to be joined to the verb at the end, 'chosen', and placed in that position to modify 'all'. It means that you cannot write 'all terms were chosen' because that would be possibly literally false, but they are substantially so - "a particular effort is taken in choosing the terms - reasonably", with an accent on "more effort is spent on some than on others". As you see, those you noted are intended choices. You are calling them "«errors»", they are more "deviations". To "err" is more random, like the Brownian motion of those who are lost; to "deviate" is more conscious - and done because the statistical norm, that of consuetude, that of the patterns for GPT (etc.), did not fit. -- If you, like many of us, fiddled with music: yes, like Schoenberg said, first you know the "general rule", then and only then you break it - I largely agree, especially if you mean "you have to be competent to hack".

pwinnski 4y ago
So both wrong and stubborn about it. You clearly have a goal other than effective communication, and I wish you well in pursuit of that goal.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  "Wrong" (as per language in use), you have to prove it. Frequentism does not count: it should be already understood that this purpose is not to adhere to language in use. "Stubborn", makes a contradiction, if you - correctly - understand that the goal is different. The goal in fact is more than «effective communication», but "correct expression". And as you should know, "wrong" means "twisted", but I am the one who is attempting to "make it straight". Language "in use" will be followed as much as it fits with the prevailing goal of correctness. A philologist is not an ethologist. For the other goals that you could adopt, consider "cleanness of thought". And of course, I thank you for your best wishes in the pursuit!