4 ms·

> Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. I wish English had better grammatica

by acchow 14y ago

> Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. I wish English had better grammatical structure. I had to re-parse that sentence 5 times. > Poor people have clutter not because they're too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. FTFY. EDIT: I parsed it wrong. Fixed.

untothebreach 14y ago
Thank you, I had the same issue
- ARobotics 14y ago
  Actually, the above rephrasing is wrong and completely changes the meaning. The original author wasn't saying poor people have less clutter he was saying they have more, but for a reason. Maybe this wording is clearer: The reason poor people have clutter isn't because they're too dumb to see the virtue of living simply, they have it to reduce risk.
frooxie 14y ago
> Poor people have less clutter What? This is about poor people having MORE clutter, not less.
nwatson 14y ago
I think he's actually saying: "Poor people actually do indeed have a lot of clutter. Not because they don't see how they could live simply and how that would improve their outlook -- but because they have to have the clutter (the junk they've accumulated) because they might need that junk in the future, and the risk of throwing anything away is too great."
habitue 14y ago
This is a textbook example of a garden path sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence. Another example is "The horse raced past the barn fell"
columbo 14y ago
IMO The actual way to word it (to be correct with the author's intent would be to say something like this: Poor people hoard items because they cannot afford the risk of buying a replacement. Living simply is a virtue given to the wealthy; when necessary they have the income, knowledge, or time available to meet a given task. The poor have only their physical inventory and cannot rely on other sources.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I think this really resonates. I talked with a homeless guy who was pulling two shopping carts full of 'stuff' and asked him what was up with that. He had stuff that he could barter with other people for things he needed, he had stuff for dealing with different kinds of weather, he had stuff to disguise the stuff he really didn't want to get stolen, and stuff that he might need for a variety of contingencies. I was really humbled by it because I had been ready to "explain" why carrying all that stuff wasn't helping his cause of living simply. He completely changed my perspective on it. I asked what was the one thing he needed and he said a pocket knife with a can opener. I got him two at a Big Five (which was where he was hanging out), one to use and one to trade for something down the road. More 'stuff', but with a purpose sadly.
lifeformed 14y ago
The original sentence makes more sense if spoken aloud, because you can foreshadow the last part of the sentence with your tone.
- acchow 14y ago
  Absolutely correct. But to speak it aloud properly, I need to parse it properly first :p If this were a podcast, I would have no issue understanding if spoken with the tone you mentioned.
Pitarou 14y ago
I'm an English teacher, so I'll bite. That sentence is bursting at the seams. There are too many words between "Poor people have clutter" and "they have it to reduce risk", so the reader loses track of the context. Maybe a really good writer could make that sentence work. But the rest of us can do just as well by breaking it down into smaller chunks: > Poor people aren't dumb. They understand the virtue of living simply. But they also know the regret of discarding something, only to find they could have used it. They know the fear of repeating that costly mistake. (In a later edit you can discard the chunks you don't need, condense the rest and, with any luck, you'll have a much pithier sentence.)
- bobwaycott 14y ago
  Your suggestion has a nice staccato rhythm, somewhat building pith as it goes. I like the way it flows. I'd write something like: > As with carrying, so with owning in general. Poor people aren't too dumb to see the virtue of living with less; they own more to reduce risk. Keep it focused on ownership (not clutter), with a slight nod back to the original article to which the author is responding. From my vantage point, 'have clutter' unnecessarily problematizes communicating the core idea--poor people aren't too dumb to appreciate the value of living with fewer possessions. I suggest eschewing 'clutter' altogether, because it implies messiness in addition to more things, increasing the negative tone. This is the only place 'clutter' shows up in the text--a conspicuous word choice in the midst of an article discussing quantity of possessions as a signal of one's wealth (as opposed to the organization and tidiness of one's possessions). A poor person with cleaning compulsions might own more to mitigate risks, but have it neatly tucked away and unobservable, thus making the messy, rich person with fewer possessions look like the one with clutter. Note: Getting sidetracked by comments on sentence structure may be the signal that I've successfully procrastinated other work long enough.
  - Pitarou 14y ago
    > Note: Getting sidetracked by comments on sentence structure may be the signal that I've successfully procrastinated other work long enough. Tell me about it. Anyway, how's this: > The rich have savings accounts and insurance; the poor stockpile junk.

by acchow 14y ago

untothebreach 14y ago

Thank you, I had the same issue

ARobotics 14y ago
Actually, the above rephrasing is wrong and completely changes the meaning. The original author wasn't saying poor people have less clutter he was saying they have more, but for a reason. Maybe this wording is clearer: The reason poor people have clutter isn't because they're too dumb to see the virtue of living simply, they have it to reduce risk.

frooxie 14y ago

> Poor people have less clutter What? This is about poor people having MORE clutter, not less.

nwatson 14y ago

I think he's actually saying: "Poor people actually do indeed have a lot of clutter. Not because they don't see how they could live simply and how that would improve their outlook -- but because they have to have the clutter (the junk they've accumulated) because they might need that junk in the future, and the risk of throwing anything away is too great."

habitue 14y ago

This is a textbook example of a garden path sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence. Another example is "The horse raced past the barn fell"

columbo 14y ago

IMO The actual way to word it (to be correct with the author's intent would be to say something like this: Poor people hoard items because they cannot afford the risk of buying a replacement. Living simply is a virtue given to the wealthy; when necessary they have the income, knowledge, or time available to meet a given task. The poor have only their physical inventory and cannot rely on other sources.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
I think this really resonates. I talked with a homeless guy who was pulling two shopping carts full of 'stuff' and asked him what was up with that. He had stuff that he could barter with other people for things he needed, he had stuff for dealing with different kinds of weather, he had stuff to disguise the stuff he really didn't want to get stolen, and stuff that he might need for a variety of contingencies. I was really humbled by it because I had been ready to "explain" why carrying all that stuff wasn't helping his cause of living simply. He completely changed my perspective on it. I asked what was the one thing he needed and he said a pocket knife with a can opener. I got him two at a Big Five (which was where he was hanging out), one to use and one to trade for something down the road. More 'stuff', but with a purpose sadly.

lifeformed 14y ago

The original sentence makes more sense if spoken aloud, because you can foreshadow the last part of the sentence with your tone.

acchow 14y ago
Absolutely correct. But to speak it aloud properly, I need to parse it properly first :p If this were a podcast, I would have no issue understanding if spoken with the tone you mentioned.

Pitarou 14y ago

I'm an English teacher, so I'll bite. That sentence is bursting at the seams. There are too many words between "Poor people have clutter" and "they have it to reduce risk", so the reader loses track of the context. Maybe a really good writer could make that sentence work. But the rest of us can do just as well by breaking it down into smaller chunks: > Poor people aren't dumb. They understand the virtue of living simply. But they also know the regret of discarding something, only to find they could have used it. They know the fear of repeating that costly mistake. (In a later edit you can discard the chunks you don't need, condense the rest and, with any luck, you'll have a much pithier sentence.)

bobwaycott 14y ago
Your suggestion has a nice staccato rhythm, somewhat building pith as it goes. I like the way it flows. I'd write something like: > As with carrying, so with owning in general. Poor people aren't too dumb to see the virtue of living with less; they own more to reduce risk. Keep it focused on ownership (not clutter), with a slight nod back to the original article to which the author is responding. From my vantage point, 'have clutter' unnecessarily problematizes communicating the core idea--poor people aren't too dumb to appreciate the value of living with fewer possessions. I suggest eschewing 'clutter' altogether, because it implies messiness in addition to more things, increasing the negative tone. This is the only place 'clutter' shows up in the text--a conspicuous word choice in the midst of an article discussing quantity of possessions as a signal of one's wealth (as opposed to the organization and tidiness of one's possessions). A poor person with cleaning compulsions might own more to mitigate risks, but have it neatly tucked away and unobservable, thus making the messy, rich person with fewer possessions look like the one with clutter. Note: Getting sidetracked by comments on sentence structure may be the signal that I've successfully procrastinated other work long enough.
- Pitarou 14y ago
  > Note: Getting sidetracked by comments on sentence structure may be the signal that I've successfully procrastinated other work long enough. Tell me about it. Anyway, how's this: > The rich have savings accounts and insurance; the poor stockpile junk.