3 ms·

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

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
  > It’s pure opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion. Exactly! So I’m not even sure why you commented. > dogmatic, classist, racist Oh dear…
  - dahart 2y ago
    > I’m not even sure why you commented. Why did you? Since you asked, I shared my opinion, same as you shared yours. You invited the sharing of opinions. Don’t criticize others if you can’t handle being criticized. If you agree your comment was pure opinion, that implies you knew all along that the article was not “abusing” the comma per se. I don’t know what ‘oh dear’ is supposed to mean, but did you read either Wikipedia article? The first one supported the article’s use of comma, and the second one explains my brief summary you quoted. It’s not my opinion, but that of many language experts that policing other people’s use of language necessarily imposes class, race, and region preferences on others. You should probably be aware of that fact when you choose to share your opinion on other people’s writing, especially when your opinion doesn’t seem to be backed up by the encyclopedia article on commas.

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
> It’s pure opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion. Exactly! So I’m not even sure why you commented. > dogmatic, classist, racist Oh dear…
- dahart 2y ago
  > I’m not even sure why you commented. Why did you? Since you asked, I shared my opinion, same as you shared yours. You invited the sharing of opinions. Don’t criticize others if you can’t handle being criticized. If you agree your comment was pure opinion, that implies you knew all along that the article was not “abusing” the comma per se. I don’t know what ‘oh dear’ is supposed to mean, but did you read either Wikipedia article? The first one supported the article’s use of comma, and the second one explains my brief summary you quoted. It’s not my opinion, but that of many language experts that policing other people’s use of language necessarily imposes class, race, and region preferences on others. You should probably be aware of that fact when you choose to share your opinion on other people’s writing, especially when your opinion doesn’t seem to be backed up by the encyclopedia article on commas.