3 ms·

Hey I’m guilty of going on unpopular nit-picky language rants, but I’ve learned something over the years after doing more historical language research: there ar

by dahart 2y ago

Hey I’m guilty of going on unpopular nit-picky language rants, but I’ve learned something over the years after doing more historical language research: there are almost no rants about language abuse that are correct, they are almost always incorrect. And this one is incorrect, I’m sorry to say. The first mistake is assuming a comma has a well defined right and wrong usage. It doesn’t. Your favorite pet use of comma is not the only use of a comma. There are lots of valid uses of comma that have overlap with other punctuation marks, and with lack of punctuation marks too. Language is extremely fluid and is defined by usage and changing over time. It is not defined by style guides or dictionaries or what we think we learned in school. Personally I think it has become far more fun to be a language pedant once I’ve embraced that fact that there’s rarely ever such thing as wrong usage, and started to look for the interesting uses in the past and the in present to think about how things have changed before and how they might change in the future. Other examples of incorrect rants include how to use the semicolon (lots of ways), whether to use two spaces or one between sentences (either, who cares), whether using literally figuratively is wrong (it’s not), whether using the word really as an emphatic rhetorical question is acceptable (it is), whether the word myriad can be followed by the word of (it can), etc., etc., etc.. Come join the side of enjoying how weird language is and how many different flavors it comes in, and how as long as someone gets their point across, nothing else matters, though some people make really beautiful language and also communicate well while breaking all the “rules”.

xanderlewis 2y ago
Your whole comment boils down to ‘you should never be allowed to comment on another’s’ language use’. Which is particularly nonsensical, as you also explain how commas have other ‘valid uses’. I thought there were no rules at all! …or are there only rules sanctioned by you? > as long as someone gets their point across, nothing else matters This is just classic. It’s the standard boilerplate response to any criticism of bad grammar (which this is, I’m afraid). I’m not foolish enough to believe that there are God-given rules for language, but when the non-conformity adds nothing and simply makes the text more difficult to read it’s worth pointing out. I mean, seriously, why is a comma better than any of the alternatives here? It isn’t.
- dahart 2y ago
  I’m sorry I made you feel defensive. (Though maybe take a moment to consider how the author feels in response to your comments...) I’m not at all saying you can’t comment on language. It is possible to break language rules, this just isn’t one of those cases. I’m saying if you’re going to criticize someone for their language on the basis of perceived language rules, you should either be certain you’re correct about your complaint, or be prepared to receive counter-criticism. In this case, your top comment is factually incorrect, the usage of the comma was not wrong above, according to the rules and usage of commas. > why is a comma better than any of the alternative here? It isn’t. Your complaint boils down to the writing has other alternative choices that you would prefer. That’s fine. It’s pure opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion. I’m not arguing the sentence in question is the best way to write it, I’m pushing back on your incorrect claim that it’s wrong. It wasn’t wrong, it wasn’t non-conforming, the usage of comma in the article matches what sources say about comma. Maybe before criticizing or arguing further, take a moment to review what a few sources say about the comma and it’s legitimate uses. [1] For the comma to be wrong, it must break all of the acceptable uses, not just any of them. IMO it’s also worth reading about why language prescriptivism itself is considered bad by many people. [2] Reasons include prescritivism being overly dogmatic, classist, racist, regional preference, and doesn’t adapt with changing language. It’s fair for you to say it could be better written. It’s not fair to try to justify your opinion by claiming valid language use is breaking language rules. And my actual point was the part about leaning into descriptivism and away from language policing other people. I have done both, and I’m just saying you’ll probably be happier — I am — if you realize that following prescribed language rules aren’t what makes writing good or bad, and that legitimate usage is broader than you imagine. It’s also helpful when discussing language clarity to take the viewpoint that some of the burden of successful communication is on the receiver, and that when the reader or listener has an open mind and assumes there are multiple interpretations, it becomes easier to choose a good faith interpretation that makes the most sense in context. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Critic...
  - xanderlewis 2y ago

by dahart 2y ago

xanderlewis 2y ago

Your whole comment boils down to ‘you should never be allowed to comment on another’s’ language use’. Which is particularly nonsensical, as you also explain how commas have other ‘valid uses’. I thought there were no rules at all! …or are there only rules sanctioned by you? > as long as someone gets their point across, nothing else matters This is just classic. It’s the standard boilerplate response to any criticism of bad grammar (which this is, I’m afraid). I’m not foolish enough to believe that there are God-given rules for language, but when the non-conformity adds nothing and simply makes the text more difficult to read it’s worth pointing out. I mean, seriously, why is a comma better than any of the alternatives here? It isn’t.

dahart 2y ago
I’m sorry I made you feel defensive. (Though maybe take a moment to consider how the author feels in response to your comments...) I’m not at all saying you can’t comment on language. It is possible to break language rules, this just isn’t one of those cases. I’m saying if you’re going to criticize someone for their language on the basis of perceived language rules, you should either be certain you’re correct about your complaint, or be prepared to receive counter-criticism. In this case, your top comment is factually incorrect, the usage of the comma was not wrong above, according to the rules and usage of commas. > why is a comma better than any of the alternative here? It isn’t. Your complaint boils down to the writing has other alternative choices that you would prefer. That’s fine. It’s pure opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion. I’m not arguing the sentence in question is the best way to write it, I’m pushing back on your incorrect claim that it’s wrong. It wasn’t wrong, it wasn’t non-conforming, the usage of comma in the article matches what sources say about comma. Maybe before criticizing or arguing further, take a moment to review what a few sources say about the comma and it’s legitimate uses. [1] For the comma to be wrong, it must break all of the acceptable uses, not just any of them. IMO it’s also worth reading about why language prescriptivism itself is considered bad by many people. [2] Reasons include prescritivism being overly dogmatic, classist, racist, regional preference, and doesn’t adapt with changing language. It’s fair for you to say it could be better written. It’s not fair to try to justify your opinion by claiming valid language use is breaking language rules. And my actual point was the part about leaning into descriptivism and away from language policing other people. I have done both, and I’m just saying you’ll probably be happier — I am — if you realize that following prescribed language rules aren’t what makes writing good or bad, and that legitimate usage is broader than you imagine. It’s also helpful when discussing language clarity to take the viewpoint that some of the burden of successful communication is on the receiver, and that when the reader or listener has an open mind and assumes there are multiple interpretations, it becomes easier to choose a good faith interpretation that makes the most sense in context. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Critic...
- xanderlewis 2y ago