Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Capetan Mihali]

You are right, there are several standard English norms - what I was referring to was within these norms there are standardized grammars, spellings, syntax, etc.  Think here, textbook (American) English, for example.

and within american english, there's no standard by which all must follow. for example, consider punctuation: authors frequently abandon those rigid laws. one could, conceivably, correctly, use punctuation, and, therefore, it would, for sure, be correct, but it's really pretty awful, for the reader, to slog through, and, I don't think, it's reasonable to demand everyone to conform absolutely

Within American English, there's no standard which all must follow.  For example, consider punctuation:  authors frequently abandon these rigid laws.  One could, conceivably, use punctuation correctly, and therefore be sure to be correct.  But it's really pretty awful for the reader to slog through and it's not reasonable, in my opinion, to demand that everyone conform absolutely.

EDIT:  This is the cleaned-up version as far as syntax goes; the point you're trying to make remains unclear.

[LaCroix]

 the point is that writing rules are about readability: one should abandon the rules when necessary to make their document more readable. obsessive adherence to the rules can fuck the one's writing and actually make it less clear.

[Admiral Yi]

the point is that writing rules are about readability: one should abandon the rules when necessary to make their document more readable. obsessive adherence to the rules can fuck the one's writing and actually make it less clear.

Your post was supposed to illustrate something about adherence to the rules? 

[LaCroix]

the point is that writing rules are about readability: one should abandon the rules when necessary to make their document more readable. obsessive adherence to the rules can fuck the one's writing and actually make it less clear.

Your post was supposed to illustrate something about adherence to the rules? 

yeah, there are times when it just looks clunky. usually with phrases like: ", and therefore . . ." I could use additional commas there, but it breaks the sentence's flow. the rules should be a guiding tool but should also be disregarded when they take away rather than add to the sentence

[Capetan Mihali]

Your post demonstrated lack of adherence to grammatical rules as well as lack of adherence to the principle of communication (hence my attempt at a cleaned-up version to improve both), so it's a little mystifying.

[LaCroix]

Your post demonstrated lack of adherence to grammatical rules as well as lack of adherence to the principle of communication, so it's a little mystifying.

which grammatical rules? I disregarded the principle of communication with the thousand commas to that strict adherence to rules of punctuation don't always work and can hurt communication

[Admiral Yi]

Neither Mahilia nor I thought your comma in between every word was strict adherence to the rules of grammar, or even in the same area code.

[LaCroix]

with how I structured the sentences, they were. we can debate the punctuation usage once you show instances where you think I used improper punctuation

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think, it's reasonable.  You don't put a comma there for starters.

[LaCroix]

full section was "and, I don't think, it's reasonable . . ."

the sentence wasn't saying "I don't think it's reasonable"; rather, it was saying something like "and--I don't think at least--it's reasonable"

[Admiral Yi]

It's reasonable, you don't think?  Dude, that's not English.

[Martinus]

Languish First Law of Entropy: Any thread, sooner or later, develops into a discussion of syntax and semantics.

[Capetan Mihali]

You misused "by which" in the first sentence.  And the second sentence -- "one could, conceivably, correctly, use punctuation, and, therefore, it would, for sure, be correct, but it's really pretty awful, for the reader, to slog through, and, I don't think, it's reasonable to demand everyone to conform absolutely" -- does not use commas correctly to set off clauses. 

You seem to be under the impression that the correct use of commas is simply to set off any adverb, which is wrong.  For instance, the "correctly" shouldn't be set off with commas because it directly modifies "use" (and if we were being ultra-grammarians and refusing to split infinitives, it would read "one could, conceivably, use correctly punctuation...". 

The commas around "conceivably" are only stylistic, not grammatically-required; FWIW, I would either use no punctuation there, i.e. "one could conceivably use punctuation corrrectly") or use parentheses instead, i.e. "one could (conceivably) use punctuation correctly".  (I realize these sentences do split the infinitive, but I think the rule against split infinitives is one of those antiquated and unhelpful grammatical rules that can safely be jettisoned.  The same goes for the rule against ending sentences on a preposition, if bizarre verbal gymnastics are necessary to avoid doing so.)

"Therefore" is misused since no conclusion is being drawn after an argument; "thereby" would be the better choice.  "It" is misused since you begin the sentence discussing a person ("one") not a work. 

"For the reader" is not a clause that can or should be set off with commas, nor is "to slog through."

"I (don't) think" is a clause that could be set off with commas, but only after the descriptor, e.g. "it's unreasonable, I think, to demand..."  If you went with "it's not reasonable, I don't think, to demand..." you'd have an unnecessary double-negative, but it would still be closer both to proper grammar and to intelligibility than what you actually wrote.

[Martinus]

[LaCroix]

thanks for the explanations, CM, will go through and check it out later when I've got time.