4 ms·

Not to nitpick but you should not use informal contractions. (I'm) Omit the 'of' after 'all' unless you change the meaning of the sentence. (all of) You shoul

Not to nitpick but you should not use informal contractions. (I'm) Omit the 'of' after 'all' unless you change the meaning of the sentence. (all of) You should avoid using 'thing' - instead, name the entities under discussion.

verroq 13y ago
Natural language processing is hard.
tripzilch 13y ago
> Omit the 'of' after 'all' unless you change the meaning of the sentence. (all of) You mean like this? "(...) but disappointed that all them have been wrong (...)" Really? I'm not a native speaker, but that doesn't look right.
- Swizec 13y ago
  No, like this: "(...) but disappointed that all have been wrong (...)" As non-native speakers (I'm one too), we have a tendency to use English inelegantly and stuff too many words in sentences.
  - pjscott 13y ago
    Those extra words can help a sentence flow better. If elegance in language were simply a matter of maximal compression while following a set of grammatical rules, then writing would be a lot easier than it actually is.
    - Swizec 13y ago
      Elegance in language is not about using the fewest words that still follow grammatical rules. It's using as few words as possible while following all grammatical rules, having good flow, a good sound and the right emotional meaning. That's why good writing takes effort.
pjscott 13y ago
> Not to nitpick but you should not use informal contractions. (I'm) I disagree -- and who are you to say otherwise? > Omit the 'of' after 'all' unless you change the meaning of the sentence. (all of) If I said "all have been wrong", it would have been a bit more difficult to tell what that part of the sentence was referring to; "all of them have been wrong" includes a bit of helpful linguistic redundancy. > You should avoid using 'thing' - instead, name the entities under discussion. Again, this phrasing was done for stylistic reasons. "This thing" fits well in tone with "one hell of a".
- qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
  Just to clarify; I simply ran your post through the nitpickertool and posted its corrections as a reply. I agree with you that none of the corrections should be applied. I just found it humorous at the time I wrote my comment.

verroq 13y ago

Natural language processing is hard.

tripzilch 13y ago

> Omit the 'of' after 'all' unless you change the meaning of the sentence. (all of) You mean like this? "(...) but disappointed that all them have been wrong (...)" Really? I'm not a native speaker, but that doesn't look right.

Swizec 13y ago
No, like this: "(...) but disappointed that all have been wrong (...)" As non-native speakers (I'm one too), we have a tendency to use English inelegantly and stuff too many words in sentences.
- pjscott 13y ago
  Those extra words can help a sentence flow better. If elegance in language were simply a matter of maximal compression while following a set of grammatical rules, then writing would be a lot easier than it actually is.
  - Swizec 13y ago
    Elegance in language is not about using the fewest words that still follow grammatical rules. It's using as few words as possible while following all grammatical rules, having good flow, a good sound and the right emotional meaning. That's why good writing takes effort.

pjscott 13y ago

> Not to nitpick but you should not use informal contractions. (I'm) I disagree -- and who are you to say otherwise? > Omit the 'of' after 'all' unless you change the meaning of the sentence. (all of) If I said "all have been wrong", it would have been a bit more difficult to tell what that part of the sentence was referring to; "all of them have been wrong" includes a bit of helpful linguistic redundancy. > You should avoid using 'thing' - instead, name the entities under discussion. Again, this phrasing was done for stylistic reasons. "This thing" fits well in tone with "one hell of a".

qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
Just to clarify; I simply ran your post through the nitpickertool and posted its corrections as a reply. I agree with you that none of the corrections should be applied. I just found it humorous at the time I wrote my comment.