Ralph Shumaker wrote:
DJA wrote:
Ralph Shumaker wrote:
I think that most even moderately literate people have certain
expectations not only of how words are spelled, but also of how they
*look*. Much of the way we recognized words is based on the word's
shape and size. Changing not only a word's spelling, but also its size
and shape is like randomly placing real looking, but nonfunctional
cars in the middle of the freeway.
Yeah, so let's get rid of words like "sans" when the word "without" is
perfectly good enough and much more commonly used. For that matter, we
don't really need "sic" or "viz" or (long list snipt for brevity). Such
words belong in the Department of Redundancy Department.
That seems to be a bit specious. Why stop there, let's just spell
*everything* phonetically! Seriously, nobody is suggesting replacing all
small words with their longer, or harder to type/spell/remember
synonyms. But a moderately literate person should have some expectations
as to how words are commonly spelled.
It's about communication. Spelling and grammar rules exist so as to give
everyone a consistent written means of communicating with each other.
Practical changes in spelling will evolve naturally along with the
spoken language (or a given dialect).
By the time the reader sees the word, he's already run over and past
it, and still wondering "What the hell was that!" when, disoriented,
he has to stop, back up, and take a second look.
If you're running over things because you can't avoid them, then you are
driving too fast for the conditions of the road *or* you are
tailgaiting. You should know this. :-)
Well, maybe a bad analogy on my part. But I didn't say "Things", I
specifically said "Cars". One has a reasonable expectation that, upon
seeing something on the road that looks like a car, it should /act/ like
a car and not like an incredibly decorated refrigerator carton (Scion
B's and Pontiac Aztecs notwithstanding).
[snap]
I consider "tho" to be an improvement over "though". But I also see it
as something in common enough use to be not too awfully far from
adoption.
We obviously have vastly different reading lists.
I think I might even intermix the two just to show that it's
*not* ignorance compelling me to do it, *nor* laziness, but rather a
deliberate choice.
Which makes it no less difficult to read by a significant number of
others. But I agree there are appropriate contexts for such
simplifications (IRC, TDD, IM, etc.).
But I use punctuation a tad more strictly than what is standard. I
dislike seeing the period (or question mark or exclamation point) which
is part of a quotation being put outside the ending quote mark just
because the writer is too lazy to put his own punctuation there. I say,
"This is not so hard to do!".
I've done that both ways, but I think the formal rules for quotation
assumes the trailing '"' is an understood terminator for the enclosed
phrase. Adding ? or ! inside quoted text serves to indicate expression
rather than sentence termination. That's how I do it anyway.
I may be wrong, but fortunately, I find an insignificant number of
people are smart enough to notice.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
