WriteLearnThink.pdf January 13, 2008 5:07 PM Subscribe
WriteThinkLearn, a PDF for anyone having difficulty participating in MeFi and AskMe.
Basically an excellent short tutorial on how to communicate well using written language. Anyone applying its lessons to MeFi will be a valued member, indeed.
Most of us are already there, of course; that's why MeFi is so good. Still, FWIW I offer it to y'all.
This strikes me as being more about "how to MeFi" than "for MeFi," ergo it's not a post to MeFi. If someone does think it'd be a good idea to put it into the Blue, go for it.
Basically an excellent short tutorial on how to communicate well using written language. Anyone applying its lessons to MeFi will be a valued member, indeed.
Most of us are already there, of course; that's why MeFi is so good. Still, FWIW I offer it to y'all.
This strikes me as being more about "how to MeFi" than "for MeFi," ergo it's not a post to MeFi. If someone does think it'd be a good idea to put it into the Blue, go for it.
I'm not sure a person should need a 123page manual to be a valued member.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:32 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:32 PM on January 13, 2008
It's when it is we get that kind, those sorts, assorted, well mainly not the other I tried to say, really they can almost round, round, and read this? For coming, or say I writing, sometimes or they are talking, and then it about comes, maybe out. In somewhere, sure it is, certain, and but, but, not there now, when out it is, appears it in the grey.
posted by chrismear at 5:43 PM on January 13, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by chrismear at 5:43 PM on January 13, 2008 [5 favorites]
He should brush up on his programming.
It's something that needs to be said, though, over and over. There seems to be an infinite supply of people who are apparently "programmers" and can't get past "hey u guyz i m having a probelm with my windoze xp" when they need to communicate with another human being.
posted by blacklite at 5:50 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
It's something that needs to be said, though, over and over. There seems to be an infinite supply of people who are apparently "programmers" and can't get past "hey u guyz i m having a probelm with my windoze xp" when they need to communicate with another human being.
posted by blacklite at 5:50 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
o hai guyz im having porblems wit my spellczech...iz this teh rite plase to get hope?
posted by slogger at 5:57 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by slogger at 5:57 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure an exposition on clarity needs
• bullet points
• Powerpoint
• bad kerning
• a horrible color scheme
posted by flabdablet at 5:58 PM on January 13, 2008 [9 favorites]
• bullet points
• Powerpoint
• bad kerning
• a horrible color scheme
posted by flabdablet at 5:58 PM on January 13, 2008 [9 favorites]
People don't even read the one page guidelines we have now.
posted by smackfu at 5:59 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 5:59 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]
There seems to be an infinite supply of people who are apparently "programmers" and can't get past "hey u guyz i m having a probelm with my windoze xp" when they need to communicate with another human being.
There seems to be an infinite supply of people who are apparently "programmers" and write the code equivalent of that, as well. Their misspellings and general sloppiness do not stop at the English language.
posted by grouse at 6:00 PM on January 13, 2008
There seems to be an infinite supply of people who are apparently "programmers" and write the code equivalent of that, as well. Their misspellings and general sloppiness do not stop at the English language.
posted by grouse at 6:00 PM on January 13, 2008
But that's OK, because there are languages for those people to code in.
posted by flabdablet at 6:03 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by flabdablet at 6:03 PM on January 13, 2008
tl;dr
posted by BitterOldPunk at 6:20 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by BitterOldPunk at 6:20 PM on January 13, 2008
This thread could've been averted by simply forwarding this .pdf to Phil.
posted by localhuman at 6:34 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by localhuman at 6:34 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Whenever possible,
shorten your sentences
by removing needless words.
Time taken to process an n-word sentence
is proportional to n3, or more.
Cut the length in half, and you make it
8 times easier to read. (Maybe.)
Long sentences are harder to read.
(revised that for him)
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:38 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
But your version doesn't invent some arbitrary mathematical relationship.
(The ironic part is that he thinks that makes it easier to understand.)
posted by smackfu at 6:47 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
(The ironic part is that he thinks that makes it easier to understand.)
posted by smackfu at 6:47 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm afraid five fresh fish has found another victim of that terrible disease that tends to afflict computer science types. There should be a required course in every computer science program that tries to teach budding geeks that people are not computers and that language is not code. There is much more to expressing yourself through writing than this fellow would believe.
Also, that class should contain a lesson on philosophy and why you shouldn't just pick up any philosophical theory that sounds good to you (in this case, logical positivism) and proclaim it the gospel truth.
posted by ssg at 6:50 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]
Also, that class should contain a lesson on philosophy and why you shouldn't just pick up any philosophical theory that sounds good to you (in this case, logical positivism) and proclaim it the gospel truth.
posted by ssg at 6:50 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]
tl;dr
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:20 PM
I cannot fucking believe someone beat me to that. I'm not sure whether it's a good or a bad thing, though.
PEW PEW PEW
posted by spiderwire at 7:01 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:20 PM
I cannot fucking believe someone beat me to that. I'm not sure whether it's a good or a bad thing, though.
PEW PEW PEW
posted by spiderwire at 7:01 PM on January 13, 2008
I'm afraid five fresh fish has found another victim of that terrible disease that tends to afflict computer science types. There should be a required course in every computer science program that tries to teach budding geeks that people are not computers and that language is not code.
The author has a PhD in linguistics.
posted by null terminated at 7:02 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
The author has a PhD in linguistics.
posted by null terminated at 7:02 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
There should be a required course in every computer science program that tries to teach budding geeks that people are not computers and that language is not code.
[ sneaks up behind ssg with a scalpel and a CAT5 cable... we'll see about that ]
posted by spiderwire at 7:04 PM on January 13, 2008
[ sneaks up behind ssg with a scalpel and a CAT5 cable... we'll see about that ]
posted by spiderwire at 7:04 PM on January 13, 2008
This will be very helpful should a n00b given to making conspicuously oblique and convoluted comments drops by!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:11 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:11 PM on January 13, 2008
From page 3:
Amplifying your intelligence
How to…
• Write more clearly
• Think more clearly
• Learn more easily
My central claim:
These are connected!
Ah, the condescension approach to teaching!
The writing process
steps:
Planning (deciding what & how to write)
(getting it on paper once)
Revising (getting it on paper better)
(fixing spelling, grammar, typing)
Formatting (choosing typefaces, layout, etc.)
Dude, I just want to make a post about X, not write a fucking research paper.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:12 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
Amplifying your intelligence
How to…
• Write more clearly
• Think more clearly
• Learn more easily
My central claim:
These are connected!
Ah, the condescension approach to teaching!
The writing process
steps:
Planning (deciding what & how to write)
(getting it on paper once)
Revising (getting it on paper better)
(fixing spelling, grammar, typing)
Formatting (choosing typefaces, layout, etc.)
Dude, I just want to make a post about X, not write a fucking research paper.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:12 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
This will be very helpful should a n00b given to making conspicuously oblique and convoluted comments drops by!
You mean like that KM Ellis fellow?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:14 PM on January 13, 2008
You mean like that KM Ellis fellow?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:14 PM on January 13, 2008
There should be a required course in every computer science program that tries to teach budding geeks that people are not computers and that language is not code.
The author has a PhD in linguistics.
Linguistics pretty much is the study of language as computer code.
(The Chomskyan program, anyway. And that's nearly universal.)
posted by painquale at 7:16 PM on January 13, 2008
The author has a PhD in linguistics.
Linguistics pretty much is the study of language as computer code.
(The Chomskyan program, anyway. And that's nearly universal.)
posted by painquale at 7:16 PM on January 13, 2008
But your version doesn't invent some arbitrary mathematical relationship.
(The ironic part is that he thinks that makes it easier to understand.)
Yes, I thought that was pretty funny.
What's more, I'm pretty certain that the math is wrong, anyway. Proportional to a cubic function, really?
Let's say that the proportion is equal to 1/10sec : n3
A three-word sentence could be read in 0.9sec.
A five-word sentence could be read in 2.5 sec. Already the absurdity is evident.
A ten-word sentence would take ten seconds to read, and a forty-four word sentence, like this one, would take three minutes and thirteen seconds to read, which is utterly ridiculous, since the 0.9sec for the three-worder seems to be roughly in the correct ballpark.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:25 PM on January 13, 2008
(The ironic part is that he thinks that makes it easier to understand.)
Yes, I thought that was pretty funny.
What's more, I'm pretty certain that the math is wrong, anyway. Proportional to a cubic function, really?
Let's say that the proportion is equal to 1/10sec : n3
A three-word sentence could be read in 0.9sec.
A five-word sentence could be read in 2.5 sec. Already the absurdity is evident.
A ten-word sentence would take ten seconds to read, and a forty-four word sentence, like this one, would take three minutes and thirteen seconds to read, which is utterly ridiculous, since the 0.9sec for the three-worder seems to be roughly in the correct ballpark.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:25 PM on January 13, 2008
-Firstly, do not use adverbs where nouns or adjectives are more appropriately.
-Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
-Be sure the number of your verb agree with those of your nouns and adjectives.
-Don't splice two sentences with a comma, it looks amateurish.
-Always assiduously and absolutely avoid all ancillary alliteration.
-Repeating adverbs is a very, very, very bad idea.
-To egregiously and unnecessarily (especially by many words) split infinitives is a bad idea.
-Eschew obfuscation.
-Avoid the use of redundant, superfluous, extra, excessive verbiage over and above what is or may possibly be necessary and sufficient.
-Most possessives have an apostrophe. Not so the third person neuter. It's correct usage lacks an apostrophe, which is only employed as a contraction for "it is".
-Be careful, where you place commas, as excessive use, makes a sentence, choppy.
-Deployment of obscurified or speciality words in marginally the impolitic manner, technologically speaking, can unduly wierdify your proclamations.
-Some people are apparently not adverse to incorrectly substituting similar sounding words for the correct ones. This has a negative effect on the astute reader.
-Don't steal lists from a website without giving credit.
posted by The Deej at 7:54 PM on January 13, 2008 [24 favorites]
-Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
-Be sure the number of your verb agree with those of your nouns and adjectives.
-Don't splice two sentences with a comma, it looks amateurish.
-Always assiduously and absolutely avoid all ancillary alliteration.
-Repeating adverbs is a very, very, very bad idea.
-To egregiously and unnecessarily (especially by many words) split infinitives is a bad idea.
-Eschew obfuscation.
-Avoid the use of redundant, superfluous, extra, excessive verbiage over and above what is or may possibly be necessary and sufficient.
-Most possessives have an apostrophe. Not so the third person neuter. It's correct usage lacks an apostrophe, which is only employed as a contraction for "it is".
-Be careful, where you place commas, as excessive use, makes a sentence, choppy.
-Deployment of obscurified or speciality words in marginally the impolitic manner, technologically speaking, can unduly wierdify your proclamations.
-Some people are apparently not adverse to incorrectly substituting similar sounding words for the correct ones. This has a negative effect on the astute reader.
-Don't steal lists from a website without giving credit.
posted by The Deej at 7:54 PM on January 13, 2008 [24 favorites]
What's more, I'm pretty certain that the math is wrong, anyway. Proportional to a cubic function, really?
It makes sense as a rough rule, because as length-of-sentence increases, you'd expect that extremely short sentences would be automatic, followed by a "sweet spot" where additional words can be added with marginal gains, and then a tail of extremely long sentences with complex construction that would be very difficult to decode.
That pattern describes a cubic function, it's just not centered on the origin. You just chose poor coefficients.
posted by spiderwire at 7:58 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
It makes sense as a rough rule, because as length-of-sentence increases, you'd expect that extremely short sentences would be automatic, followed by a "sweet spot" where additional words can be added with marginal gains, and then a tail of extremely long sentences with complex construction that would be very difficult to decode.
That pattern describes a cubic function, it's just not centered on the origin. You just chose poor coefficients.
posted by spiderwire at 7:58 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Of a 100-page grammar book, you may need 3 pages, or less.
(Get people to help you figure out which 3!)
I suggest the pages that tell you when to use the word "less" and when to use "fewer."
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 8:06 PM on January 13, 2008 [5 favorites]
(Get people to help you figure out which 3!)
I suggest the pages that tell you when to use the word "less" and when to use "fewer."
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 8:06 PM on January 13, 2008 [5 favorites]
spiderwire, you used 53 words or so in your sentence. It wasn't that hard to decode. I don't think length is the variable we're looking for here.
posted by smackfu at 8:10 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by smackfu at 8:10 PM on January 13, 2008
saying just, too important is cardinality (word order) think i, yeah.
posted by spiderwire at 8:13 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by spiderwire at 8:13 PM on January 13, 2008
at an end your rule is, and not short enough it was!
posted by spiderwire at 8:16 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by spiderwire at 8:16 PM on January 13, 2008
I'm annoyed to see yet another long, tedious, and badly written writing guide that fails to follow its own advice.
*verklempt*
The tutorial in question is neither short nor excellent. Discuss.
posted by Tehanu at 8:17 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]
*verklempt*
The tutorial in question is neither short nor excellent. Discuss.
posted by Tehanu at 8:17 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]
The fact that this is distributed in powerpoint format does not bode well for a piece about communicating well.
posted by empath at 8:34 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 8:34 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
I want to say something about Befunge here, but >>>^
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:46 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:46 PM on January 13, 2008
I'm not sure an exposition on clarity needs • bullet points...[etc]
True, that. But that's what data mining is all about: being able to sift value from the mess.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:56 PM on January 13, 2008
True, that. But that's what data mining is all about: being able to sift value from the mess.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:56 PM on January 13, 2008
The author has a PhD in linguistics.
The irony is that in a piece intended to convey all the important information about good communication to geeks, his "geek cred media styling" is horrendously not good communication.
Anyhoo, I more had some of our recent newbies in mind while reading that. There's been a bit of chat, at least from my POV, about communications styles lately. I think what he describes jives true with the better MeFi discourse. Or at least, I've pretty much found it true that way.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:02 PM on January 13, 2008
The irony is that in a piece intended to convey all the important information about good communication to geeks, his "geek cred media styling" is horrendously not good communication.
Anyhoo, I more had some of our recent newbies in mind while reading that. There's been a bit of chat, at least from my POV, about communications styles lately. I think what he describes jives true with the better MeFi discourse. Or at least, I've pretty much found it true that way.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:02 PM on January 13, 2008
Asked a bunch of linguists the other day if any natural languages had the same syntax as Yoda's speech, I did. Their conclusion: no.
posted by painquale at 9:11 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by painquale at 9:11 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
Thanks, but I will stick to handing out copies of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.
posted by koeselitz at 9:44 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 9:44 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
This is a good short tutorial on writing well.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:53 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
This short tutorial on writing well is good.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:59 PM on January 13, 2008
This will writewell.
posted by fleetmouse at 10:03 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
Dammit, I should've gone with "This writing tutorial is good."
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:07 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:07 PM on January 13, 2008
I wish I could give out a doubleplusgood to fleetmouse.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 PM on January 13, 2008
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 PM on January 13, 2008
Brevity is good when there's a point to be made. Being to-the-point is helpful on MeFi.
Nothing I've read quite does it for me like Patrick Conroy's opening paragraphs of his best works. They are simply magnificent. Lush, evocative, poetic.
Limericks and haiku are the best combination. I wish I could be the Patrick Conroy of MetaFilter haiku limericks.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:30 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Nothing I've read quite does it for me like Patrick Conroy's opening paragraphs of his best works. They are simply magnificent. Lush, evocative, poetic.
Limericks and haiku are the best combination. I wish I could be the Patrick Conroy of MetaFilter haiku limericks.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:30 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
there once were a bunch of fresh fish
who wished to write haiku irish -
in Pat Conroy style
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:24 AM on January 14, 2008
who wished to write haiku irish -
in Pat Conroy style
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:24 AM on January 14, 2008
Jives does not jibe with jibes.
posted by vapidave at 12:43 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by vapidave at 12:43 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
hurdy gurdy girl: Of a 100-page grammar book, you may need 3 pages, or less.
(Get people to help you figure out which 3!)
I suggest the pages that tell you when to use the word "less" and when to use "fewer."
Hmm. I normally spot this mistake immediately as well, but I think in this case it's a grey area. He could mean "Of a 100-page book, you may need three pages or fewer than three pages," in which case you're right.
But he could instead mean "Of a 100-page book, you may need only three pages, or a smaller proportion of the book," in which case "less" works. As in, "less of the book".
Don't you think?
posted by loiseau at 3:00 AM on January 14, 2008
(Get people to help you figure out which 3!)
I suggest the pages that tell you when to use the word "less" and when to use "fewer."
Hmm. I normally spot this mistake immediately as well, but I think in this case it's a grey area. He could mean "Of a 100-page book, you may need three pages or fewer than three pages," in which case you're right.
But he could instead mean "Of a 100-page book, you may need only three pages, or a smaller proportion of the book," in which case "less" works. As in, "less of the book".
Don't you think?
posted by loiseau at 3:00 AM on January 14, 2008
No.
posted by Dr. Curare at 3:38 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Dr. Curare at 3:38 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Linguistics pretty much is the study of language as computer code.
(The Chomskyan program, anyway. And that's nearly universal.)
But some of us, huddled in underground caverns, sharpen our weapons and await the day when we shall arise and overthrow the Dark Lord. Join us and be free!
I suggest the pages that tell you when to use the word "less" and when to use "fewer."
Waste of time. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (the only such manual worth consulting) has a long discussion of facts and myths that ends with the only thing you really need to know: "If you are a native speaker, your use of less and fewer can reliably be guided by your ear."
posted by languagehat at 6:45 AM on January 14, 2008 [6 favorites]
(The Chomskyan program, anyway. And that's nearly universal.)
But some of us, huddled in underground caverns, sharpen our weapons and await the day when we shall arise and overthrow the Dark Lord. Join us and be free!
I suggest the pages that tell you when to use the word "less" and when to use "fewer."
Waste of time. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (the only such manual worth consulting) has a long discussion of facts and myths that ends with the only thing you really need to know: "If you are a native speaker, your use of less and fewer can reliably be guided by your ear."
posted by languagehat at 6:45 AM on January 14, 2008 [6 favorites]
Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage
Recommended by David Foster Wallace!
*stares at lhat, waits, waits*
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:06 AM on January 14, 2008
Recommended by David Foster Wallace!
*stares at lhat, waits, waits*
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:06 AM on January 14, 2008
I was surprisingly surprised that there was zero (0) examples of redundancy and how repeating things is not good writing if you want to write well
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 7:24 AM on January 14, 2008
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 7:24 AM on January 14, 2008
Misconception: “It is unfair to say that anything is really better than anything else.”
Fact: Because the world is objectively real, of course some things are better than others, by any reasonable criteria. You’re not just “showing your cultural bias” when you say so.
I agree with this is spirit, and I understand that he wants people to courageously make bold, clear statements. I'm all for that. But I think he's a bit too glib. The nuances of this point actually affect the logic of the writing.
First of all, nothing is simply "better" than anything else. Is a hammer better than a stone? Sure, if you're trying to drive a nail into some wood. Not-so-much if you're looking for a paperweight. That's an obvious example, but I see all sorts of claims, on Metafilter and elsewhere, that such-and-such book, movie, song, etc. is better than some other book, movie or song. Better for what? "Citizen Kane" is better than "Star Wars" IF you're goal is to watch a movie with great depth of character nuance and thematic meaning. Is it better if you're after some simple, dumb fun?
I think it's very rare for something to be better "by any reasonable criteria," but that doesn't mean you have to become a complete relativist. It just means you need to state your criteria.
Sometimes I can't do that, and I always find it instructive when I can't. To me, orange juice is better than apple juice. I can't think of any criteria for making that claim, other than a gut reaction. So I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you that o.j. is better. Though I might tell you that I prefer it. On the other hand, I feel very comfortable explaining to you why "King Lear" is better than the latest John Grisham novel. It's not better under ANY criteria, but it is better under some reasonably useful criteria that I can spell out.
posted by grumblebee at 7:28 AM on January 14, 2008
Fact: Because the world is objectively real, of course some things are better than others, by any reasonable criteria. You’re not just “showing your cultural bias” when you say so.
I agree with this is spirit, and I understand that he wants people to courageously make bold, clear statements. I'm all for that. But I think he's a bit too glib. The nuances of this point actually affect the logic of the writing.
First of all, nothing is simply "better" than anything else. Is a hammer better than a stone? Sure, if you're trying to drive a nail into some wood. Not-so-much if you're looking for a paperweight. That's an obvious example, but I see all sorts of claims, on Metafilter and elsewhere, that such-and-such book, movie, song, etc. is better than some other book, movie or song. Better for what? "Citizen Kane" is better than "Star Wars" IF you're goal is to watch a movie with great depth of character nuance and thematic meaning. Is it better if you're after some simple, dumb fun?
I think it's very rare for something to be better "by any reasonable criteria," but that doesn't mean you have to become a complete relativist. It just means you need to state your criteria.
Sometimes I can't do that, and I always find it instructive when I can't. To me, orange juice is better than apple juice. I can't think of any criteria for making that claim, other than a gut reaction. So I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you that o.j. is better. Though I might tell you that I prefer it. On the other hand, I feel very comfortable explaining to you why "King Lear" is better than the latest John Grisham novel. It's not better under ANY criteria, but it is better under some reasonably useful criteria that I can spell out.
posted by grumblebee at 7:28 AM on January 14, 2008
Only three pages of this are useful.
(Get people to help you figure out which three)
posted by seanyboy at 7:43 AM on January 14, 2008
(Get people to help you figure out which three)
posted by seanyboy at 7:43 AM on January 14, 2008
Recommended by David Foster Wallace!
I believe, my dear chap, that if you look into the matter more attentively, you will find that the work recommended by the above mentioned gentleman is in actuality A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, by Bryan A. Garner (the new edition of which is Garner's Modern American Usage). It is, like many such advice manuals, a perfectly decent book, with much useful information sandwiched in amidst the author's unacknowledged personal assumptions and prejudices. I continue to maintain that MWDEU is the only such work that meets the highest standards of scholarship, citing previous usage and discussing the recommendations of other usage manuals before coming to a conclusion that can be adopted without fear by anyone uncertain of their own instincts and learning.
*adjusts monocle, looks down nose*
posted by languagehat at 7:52 AM on January 14, 2008
I believe, my dear chap, that if you look into the matter more attentively, you will find that the work recommended by the above mentioned gentleman is in actuality A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, by Bryan A. Garner (the new edition of which is Garner's Modern American Usage). It is, like many such advice manuals, a perfectly decent book, with much useful information sandwiched in amidst the author's unacknowledged personal assumptions and prejudices. I continue to maintain that MWDEU is the only such work that meets the highest standards of scholarship, citing previous usage and discussing the recommendations of other usage manuals before coming to a conclusion that can be adopted without fear by anyone uncertain of their own instincts and learning.
*adjusts monocle, looks down nose*
posted by languagehat at 7:52 AM on January 14, 2008
For those playing along at home, cortex was referring to this.
posted by cog_nate at 8:05 AM on January 14, 2008
posted by cog_nate at 8:05 AM on January 14, 2008
ADMAU, MWDEU: they're more alike than different. (That is, they're both five letters long, both contain an M and a U, both partition their consonants and vowels into an [unordered] set of 3 and 2. QED.)
And more specifically, I was thinking of this, in what I recall fondly as my First Argument With Languagehat.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:17 AM on January 14, 2008
And more specifically, I was thinking of this, in what I recall fondly as my First Argument With Languagehat.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:17 AM on January 14, 2008
To me, orange juice is better than apple juice. I can't think of any criteria for making that claim, other than a gut reaction.
Well, if apple juice upsets your digestion, I'd call that a reasonable criterion.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:42 AM on January 14, 2008
Well, if apple juice upsets your digestion, I'd call that a reasonable criterion.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:42 AM on January 14, 2008
And a gut reaction.
posted by null terminated at 10:23 AM on January 14, 2008
posted by null terminated at 10:23 AM on January 14, 2008
Oh, stop, null terminated, I can't stomach it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:29 AM on January 14, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:29 AM on January 14, 2008
[insert colon joke here]
posted by GrammarMoses at 10:43 AM on January 14, 2008
posted by GrammarMoses at 10:43 AM on January 14, 2008
Thanks fff. I sent a copy to my son, a student, who should already know all this stuff, but it never hurts to do a little review. The same goes for everyone else here.
Now get off my lawn y'all. I've already released the hounds and I'm loading my shotgun with rocksalt.
posted by caddis at 10:44 AM on January 14, 2008
Now get off my lawn y'all. I've already released the hounds and I'm loading my shotgun with rocksalt.
posted by caddis at 10:44 AM on January 14, 2008
languagehat wrote: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (the only such manual worth consulting) has a long discussion of facts and myths that ends with the only thing you really need to know: "If you are a native speaker, your use of less and fewer can reliably be guided by your ear."
I find that fewer and fewer of my native speaker students use the word "fewer" at all, in their speech or their writing; "less" has become the preferred word. I think because they rarely hear anyone else use the word "fewer", their ears guide them not to use the word "fewer" at all, but to use "less" instead.
My ESL students, however, consistently use the word "fewer" for count nouns and "less" for non-count nouns.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:34 PM on January 14, 2008
I find that fewer and fewer of my native speaker students use the word "fewer" at all, in their speech or their writing; "less" has become the preferred word. I think because they rarely hear anyone else use the word "fewer", their ears guide them not to use the word "fewer" at all, but to use "less" instead.
My ESL students, however, consistently use the word "fewer" for count nouns and "less" for non-count nouns.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:34 PM on January 14, 2008
ESL students love rules. I feel so sorry for them when they don't work perfectly.
posted by smackfu at 12:47 PM on January 14, 2008
posted by smackfu at 12:47 PM on January 14, 2008
smackfu wrote: ESL students love rules. I feel so sorry for them when they don't work perfectly.
I know. I have to brace myself for the inevitable look of disappointment when I tell them, "Well, there ARE some exceptions to this..." or "This doesn't ALWAYS apply..."
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:50 PM on January 14, 2008
I know. I have to brace myself for the inevitable look of disappointment when I tell them, "Well, there ARE some exceptions to this..." or "This doesn't ALWAYS apply..."
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 12:50 PM on January 14, 2008
And more specifically, I was thinking of this, in what I recall fondly as my First Argument With Languagehat.
Ah yes, good times! (I'm pleased to see you've improved your attitude since then.)
My ESL students, however, consistently use the word "fewer" for count nouns and "less" for non-count nouns.
ESL students love rules. I feel so sorry for them when they don't work perfectly.
Reminds me of my days teaching English in Taiwan. My, how those kids loved to memorize rules. Couldn't write a decent essay to save their lives, but they knew the "rules" cold. And some of them had the gall to argue with me when I told them some construction they thought was right wasn't! "Who's the native speaker here?" I said. Good times.
posted by languagehat at 2:56 PM on January 14, 2008
Ah yes, good times! (I'm pleased to see you've improved your attitude since then.)
My ESL students, however, consistently use the word "fewer" for count nouns and "less" for non-count nouns.
ESL students love rules. I feel so sorry for them when they don't work perfectly.
Reminds me of my days teaching English in Taiwan. My, how those kids loved to memorize rules. Couldn't write a decent essay to save their lives, but they knew the "rules" cold. And some of them had the gall to argue with me when I told them some construction they thought was right wasn't! "Who's the native speaker here?" I said. Good times.
posted by languagehat at 2:56 PM on January 14, 2008
(I'm pleased to see you've improved your attitude since then.)
Heh. I've switched sides on the nookyuhler thing, for one.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:16 PM on January 14, 2008
Heh. I've switched sides on the nookyuhler thing, for one.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:16 PM on January 14, 2008
nuclear? I hardly knew her!
posted by philomathoholic at 3:35 PM on January 14, 2008
posted by philomathoholic at 3:35 PM on January 14, 2008
"Who's the native speaker here?" I said. Good times.
That brings back memories of my high school German teacher.
posted by Tehanu at 4:46 PM on January 14, 2008
That brings back memories of my high school German teacher.
posted by Tehanu at 4:46 PM on January 14, 2008
That n³ claim is probably based on the fact that arbitrarily complex context-free grammars can be parsed in O(n³).
But English is not a context-free language. It's in a more complicated class of languages, which it's impossible to make general claims about parsability. But, virtually all the context-free [programming] languages we use are much easier to parse than O(n³); they're designed to be easy for the computer to use. It's likely that natural language is also a reasonable fit for the apparatus we have available.
This paper seems written for a general audience, except occasionally there's an esoteric programming metaphor. I wonder if this is from a "Writing for Engineers" type lecture, which presumably his department gave as a riposte to all the "Computer Science for Poets" classes.
posted by aubilenon at 7:16 PM on January 14, 2008
But English is not a context-free language. It's in a more complicated class of languages, which it's impossible to make general claims about parsability. But, virtually all the context-free [programming] languages we use are much easier to parse than O(n³); they're designed to be easy for the computer to use. It's likely that natural language is also a reasonable fit for the apparatus we have available.
This paper seems written for a general audience, except occasionally there's an esoteric programming metaphor. I wonder if this is from a "Writing for Engineers" type lecture, which presumably his department gave as a riposte to all the "Computer Science for Poets" classes.
posted by aubilenon at 7:16 PM on January 14, 2008
Speaking of ESL, a friend of mine teaches ESL and mentioned that a question she occasionally gets from students is, "What is the difference between 'the' and 'the'?" One being pronounced "thə", th-schwa, the toneless vowel; the other being pronounced "thee". It's a surprising question to English speakers.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:23 PM on January 14, 2008
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:23 PM on January 14, 2008
The "thee" pronunciation is American, not English.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:32 PM on January 14, 2008
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:32 PM on January 14, 2008
a friend of mine teaches ESL and mentioned that a question she occasionally gets from students is, "What is the difference between 'the' and 'the'?" One being pronounced "thə", th-schwa, the toneless vowel; the other being pronounced "thee". It's a surprising question to English speakers.
I get asked that too, and as far as I can tell, the schwa ending for "the" is the most common among most native English speakers. The exceptions seem to have to do with linking--that is, making a smooth transition between "the" and the word that comes after it. So, for example, most of the time native English speakers, British or North American, don't pronounce it "thee", UNLESS the first sound in the next word is a vowel sound. In the phrase "the end," most speakers would say "thee yend", lengthening the schwa to a long "e" sound (IPA /i/) and adding a "yuh" sound in between (IPA /j/). This way, we don't have a jerky staccato sound with two short vowel sounds together. Try it with "the only" and "the other"--same effect. Now, I don't know if British speakers would pronounce the linked phrases differently or not.
The other time I think people say "thee" is for emphasis: "This is THE hairstyle to have this season!"
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 10:24 PM on January 14, 2008
I get asked that too, and as far as I can tell, the schwa ending for "the" is the most common among most native English speakers. The exceptions seem to have to do with linking--that is, making a smooth transition between "the" and the word that comes after it. So, for example, most of the time native English speakers, British or North American, don't pronounce it "thee", UNLESS the first sound in the next word is a vowel sound. In the phrase "the end," most speakers would say "thee yend", lengthening the schwa to a long "e" sound (IPA /i/) and adding a "yuh" sound in between (IPA /j/). This way, we don't have a jerky staccato sound with two short vowel sounds together. Try it with "the only" and "the other"--same effect. Now, I don't know if British speakers would pronounce the linked phrases differently or not.
The other time I think people say "thee" is for emphasis: "This is THE hairstyle to have this season!"
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 10:24 PM on January 14, 2008
The "thee" pronunciation is American, not English.
Wrong. It's determined by phonetic context in both varieties.
posted by languagehat at 6:12 AM on January 15, 2008
Wrong. It's determined by phonetic context in both varieties.
posted by languagehat at 6:12 AM on January 15, 2008
But some of us, huddled in underground caverns, sharpen our weapons and await the day when we shall arise and overthrow the Dark Lord. Join us and be free!
Do the linguists really take Chomsky to be the authoritative voice on the meaning of speech? I can't remember everything I read years ago, but I don't recall Chomsky having a whole lot to say about the meaning of speech above the sentence level.
At the risk of getting myself shanked by languagehat, I'm down with Chomsky on the grammar front, but I certainly don't think that grammar is the same as meaning. Perhaps I could just off a few linguists and leave Chomsky be? Huddling in underground caverns is my thing, so I'd hate to miss out on that part.
posted by ssg at 6:28 PM on January 15, 2008
Do the linguists really take Chomsky to be the authoritative voice on the meaning of speech? I can't remember everything I read years ago, but I don't recall Chomsky having a whole lot to say about the meaning of speech above the sentence level.
At the risk of getting myself shanked by languagehat, I'm down with Chomsky on the grammar front, but I certainly don't think that grammar is the same as meaning. Perhaps I could just off a few linguists and leave Chomsky be? Huddling in underground caverns is my thing, so I'd hate to miss out on that part.
posted by ssg at 6:28 PM on January 15, 2008
Wrong. It's determined by phonetic context in both varieties.
yes. that was one of those situations in which as soon as i had pressed "submit" i cursed the lack of a delete function.
i would've retracted, but was hoping that the thread would just die of its own accord & my comment wouldn't be noticed. no luck.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:00 PM on January 15, 2008
yes. that was one of those situations in which as soon as i had pressed "submit" i cursed the lack of a delete function.
i would've retracted, but was hoping that the thread would just die of its own accord & my comment wouldn't be noticed. no luck.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:00 PM on January 15, 2008
tangentially, speaking of ESL classes: i've found that foreign students of english tend to be obsessed with accent, almost to the point at which you'd think they were discussing completely different dialects.
typically, it's an american accent that they're aiming for, but you don't have the heart to tell them that new yoik is different to arkansas, which is different again to california, and nor do they want to hear that their english is perfectly understandable, even beneath their heavy hinglish or chinglish accent.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:08 PM on January 15, 2008
typically, it's an american accent that they're aiming for, but you don't have the heart to tell them that new yoik is different to arkansas, which is different again to california, and nor do they want to hear that their english is perfectly understandable, even beneath their heavy hinglish or chinglish accent.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:08 PM on January 15, 2008
The thuh/thee thing reminded me of another thing that's a bit like it: the uh/ay thing for "a".
Is it just my confirmation bias that hears "ay" in the speech of politicians and police reports and "uh" everywhere else?
posted by flabdablet at 7:53 PM on January 15, 2008
Is it just my confirmation bias that hears "ay" in the speech of politicians and police reports and "uh" everywhere else?
posted by flabdablet at 7:53 PM on January 15, 2008
It's also a bit like how I say potayto but some say potahto.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:11 PM on January 15, 2008
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:11 PM on January 15, 2008
Is there a term for the "thuh:thee" phenomenon? Words pronounced differently depending on phonetic context? (What others are there, anyway). (not that anyone will ever see this question)
posted by Rumple at 7:41 AM on February 11, 2008
posted by Rumple at 7:41 AM on February 11, 2008
I don't know if there's a handy word for it. I think mostly of the articles; reduced vs. unreduced a ("uh" vs "ay") and the ("thuh" vs "thee"), and I'm not sure what other words actually fall in that specific (and interesting) bucket.
Here's a language log discussion of (in part) that phenomenon (which, in wonderful circularity, cites this askme post), and there are a couple of followup llog posts here and here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:54 AM on February 11, 2008
Here's a language log discussion of (in part) that phenomenon (which, in wonderful circularity, cites this askme post), and there are a couple of followup llog posts here and here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:54 AM on February 11, 2008
"cortex" is also contextually pronounced "omniscient", I believe.
posted by Rumple at 8:25 AM on February 11, 2008
posted by Rumple at 8:25 AM on February 11, 2008
Is there a term for the "thuh:thee" phenomenon? Words pronounced differently depending on phonetic context? (What others are there, anyway). (not that anyone will ever see this question)
posted by Rumple at 7:41 AM on February 11 [+] [!] Other [1/2]: ·≡»
It's called conditioned sound change. It occurs everywhere and it is a big hulkin' topic in linguistics. Think about the difference in "a" in "a apple" or "an apple" or "a (eh) apple". Or how the endings of these plurals change: dogs, cats, peaches. There are literally millions of examples across all of the languages of the world.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:35 AM on February 11, 2008
posted by Rumple at 7:41 AM on February 11 [+] [!] Other [1/2]: ·≡»
It's called conditioned sound change. It occurs everywhere and it is a big hulkin' topic in linguistics. Think about the difference in "a" in "a apple" or "an apple" or "a (eh) apple". Or how the endings of these plurals change: dogs, cats, peaches. There are literally millions of examples across all of the languages of the world.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:35 AM on February 11, 2008
tangentially, speaking of ESL classes: i've found that foreign students of english tend to be obsessed with accent, almost to the point at which you'd think they were discussing completely different dialects.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:08 PM on January 15 [+] [!] Other [8/9]: «≡»
There are lots of reasons for this. A major one is social pressure. English is considered to be the prestige in many places. Mastery of the language, including accent will get you far. Especially in parts of America that are less accepting of certain dialects or foreign accents.
It also doesn't help that English has about 18 vowel sounds, many of them are diphthongs. If you natively speak Spanish, which has about 5 vowels and no diphthongs, this can be majorly confusing (not to say that Spanish doesn't have it's own complexities, because it does, just in other areas).
(and to your comment above, they essentially are speaking about different dialects)
posted by iamkimiam at 8:44 AM on February 11, 2008
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:08 PM on January 15 [+] [!] Other [8/9]: «≡»
There are lots of reasons for this. A major one is social pressure. English is considered to be the prestige in many places. Mastery of the language, including accent will get you far. Especially in parts of America that are less accepting of certain dialects or foreign accents.
It also doesn't help that English has about 18 vowel sounds, many of them are diphthongs. If you natively speak Spanish, which has about 5 vowels and no diphthongs, this can be majorly confusing (not to say that Spanish doesn't have it's own complexities, because it does, just in other areas).
(and to your comment above, they essentially are speaking about different dialects)
posted by iamkimiam at 8:44 AM on February 11, 2008
Think about the difference in "a" in "a apple" or "an apple" or "a (eh) apple".
Crap, I stuck my foot in it. That's not phonetically conditioned sound change, but something else entirely. The plural example sticks though.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:46 AM on February 11, 2008
Crap, I stuck my foot in it. That's not phonetically conditioned sound change, but something else entirely. The plural example sticks though.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:46 AM on February 11, 2008
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
If you can spell
int main(int argc; char* argv[]);
you can learn how to spell
its and it’s !
He should brush up on his programming.
posted by null terminated at 5:20 PM on January 13, 2008