Elements of Style in English
in [Lisp]
|
From: Rob Warnock on 3 May 2010 03:43 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: +--------------- | One problem with english being widespread is that it is a language in | which is easy to attain understandability, but very difficult to attain | comprehensive mastery of the huge laundry list of often arbitrary | grammatical and usage norms. As a result, non-native speakers often | fall into the trap of believing that it is easy to master. It is not. | Such people my go for years repeating errors without realizing it | because native speakers will understand their intended meaning, but not | correct their grammar and/or usage. +--------------- Heh. Sounds a lot like Common Lisp... ;-} ;-} -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: James Hogg on 3 May 2010 03:55 Stan Brown wrote: > Sun, 2 May 2010 22:31:36 -0400 from Raffael Cavallaro > <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com>: > [addressing Xah Lee] >> Please stop trumpeting your broken english as some sort of stylistic >> choice. It's not. It's obvious to native speakers that it's not. You >> don't *choose* to write "punctuations" instead of "punctuation," or >> write sentences with two verbs and no relative pronoun. You just don't >> know any better. > > I think you're being too charitable. These kinds of errors are not > matters of idiom or failing to master strange exceptions; they are > failure to master basic grammar. The difference between singular ad > plural, and the need for a verb to have a subject, are first-semester > stuff in any European language. And in later semesters, students go on to learn that many languages have subjectless verbs. -- James
From: Nick on 3 May 2010 05:16 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2010-05-02 23:05:05 -0400, Xah Lee said: > >> The question, of whether my >> writings are above average among professional writers, is absolutely a >> question that can be answered with a definitive yes or no > > OK then, definitively no; they're quite amateurish, and well below the > quality produced by most professional writers. Agreed. OTOH if he's the same Xah Lee who wrote the web pages about adding new major modes to Emacs, they are more than good enough to make his pages entirely comprehensible and very useful. > warmest regards, > > Ralph > > P.S. I don't have time to keep up with your seemingly endless > outpourings of inchoate verbiage, so I'll likely make this my last > response. If "seemingly endless outpourings of inchoate verbiage" are your warmest regards, I'd hate to be frozen out by you. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
From: Xah Lee on 3 May 2010 05:32 On May 2, 10:59Â pm, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-02 23:05:05 -0400, Xah Lee said: > > > The question, of whether my > > writings are above average among professional writers, is absolutely a > > question that can be answered with a definitive yes or no > > OK then, definitively no; they're quite amateurish, and well below the > quality produced by most professional writers. > > warmest regards, > > Ralph > > P.S. I don't have time to keep up with your seemingly endless > outpourings of inchoate verbiage, so I'll likely make this my last > response. Thanks for visiting Xah's Edu Corner. Xah â http://xahlee.org/ â
From: Amethyst Deceiver on 3 May 2010 06:55
On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT), Xah Lee <xahlee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 2, 9:06�am, Raffael Cavallaro ><raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: >> On 2010-05-02 08:50:48 -0400, Xah Lee said: >> >> > The >> > only firm advice i can give about writing, besides knowing basic >> > grammar and spelling, is >> >> What you don't seem to realize, or possibly wilfully ignore, is that no >> native speaker would want your advice on writing because almost every >> post of yours betrays a faulty grasp of elementary english grammar. You >> have to know the rules before you can creatively break them, and you >> don't know the rules yet. > >What you don't seem to realize, as with most pedants, is that writing >serves a purpose, a purpose of communication, and when a piece of >writing, communicated exactly what the writer wants the reader to >feel, understand, with no hiccups in the reading process, that writing >is successful. More over, if the style per se, persuaded the reader, >tickled his mind, hit her brain, or boiled his blood, that writing is >great. By that definition, you fail. |