Elements of Style in English
in [Lisp]
|
From: Marius Hancu on 3 May 2010 08:27 On May 2, 6:57 pm, Xah Lee <xah...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >As you can see, the target audience are people concerned about > writing and have read one or two of the mentioned styled guides. A relative "who" is needed: "and _who_ have read" or in a non-restrictive format: ", who have read ..." > In > general, they are college graduates, or involved in the writing > profession. Lack of symmetry: "or _people_ involved in the writing profession," is what is needed, IMO. "styles guides mentioned" would flow better. Marius Hancu
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 3 May 2010 11:31 On 2010-05-03 05:16:04 -0400, Nick said: > If "seemingly endless outpourings of inchoate verbiage" are your warmest > regards, I'd hate to be frozen out by you. Not wishing you to feel frozen out by my silence, I'll reply. ;^) He's a craftsman much of whose output is complaints about his primary tool, complaints he wouldn't have if he took the time to master that tool first. These frequent, ill-conceived complaints are what I characterized, perhaps a bit uncharitably, as "seemingly endless outpourings of inchoate verbiage." I think he would be happier, his screeds fewer, and these fora more pleasant if he dropped his defensiveness about his imperfect english and accepted that established grammar and usage are facilitators of clear communication, not impediments. I don't hate him. I think he's creative and bright in his own way. If I didn't care about him at all, if I thought he were beyond hope, I wouldn't take the time to try to get him to see how he's sabotaging himself and to change. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: His kennyness on 3 May 2010 11:41 Amethyst Deceiver wrote: > 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. Who gets more attention than The Mighty Xah, wherever his pen treads? hth, kxo
From: Tim Bradshaw on 3 May 2010 15:36 On 2010-05-03 12:25:42 +0100, Marius Hancu said: > is the 2nd strange only to me? No: the first one is a saying, basically. I don't think it's an issue of grammar but of recognition of that specific phrase or very minor variants.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 3 May 2010 15:38
On 2010-05-03 18:25:12 +0100, Lewis said: > And that is the heart of Xah's issues with everything in my experience > going back way too many years. He is driven enough to learn quite a bit > about a topic, but at the point where most people have an epiphany that > this is something they really want to know well, Xah has a moment where > he decides he is now an expert and doesn't need to learn anything else. Since we're doing psychiatry now, this is exactly the impression I get from Mathematica as well. That may not be coincidence. |