The phrase is a weasel wording. That is my problem with it. By whom is it
well known? Me and my immediate peers who did the orijinal research? Thirty
percent of people over thirty years old? {{who?}}
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Steve Bennett wrote:
I don't
think I'd write most known, but I wouldn't be rushing to correct it
either. I guess I'd see it as an example of poor quality writing
rather than an error as such.
Time to bid this thread goodbye. But even best known is scarcely
verifiable, so all this can be
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Clearly, though, this is a cultural matter. Readability in this sort
of sense is conditioned by the expectation that the written language is
very close to the spoken language, for example, which is
For the most part this barely merits consideration. We're a wiki. When
someone's idea of a well-written sentence differs from mine they're welcome
to revise it.
Two pet peeves:
1. POV-pushers who use 'copyediting' as a pretext to insinuate content
changes.
2. Copyeditors who don't actually
Steve Bennett wrote:
No, readability has much more to do with appropriate use of
vocabulary, sentence length and phrase construction. Correct grammar
that is unfamiliar to the audience decreases readability. Just like
referring to the spit and image of someone would be less readable
than the
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:25:28 +1000
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Disagree. High quality, comprehensive, readable information is far
more important than English grammar pedantry. Most well known or
best known? Whichever one is currently in the article.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
One can hardly call a respect for good grammar pedantry.
If by respect, you mean, congratulating those that use good
grammar, then I don't disagree. If, otoh, you mean, fixing minor
errors or criticising mistakes...then
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:25:28 +1000
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I suppose, as in matters of internet deportment, civility, we must also
accept the burden of maintaining the standard for English
Emily Monroe wrote:
And yet it's B-Class.
B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start. A lot of
people seem to make the mistake of thinking B-Class is nearly A-Class.
We haven't got to that stage yet.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Surreptitiousness
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote:
Emily Monroe wrote:
And yet it's B-Class.
B-Class just means it is better than C-Class, unless the project is not
using C-Class, which means it is just better than a start. A lot of
people
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
on 9/8/09 10:25 PM, Steve Bennett at stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
(Bias: Background in linguistics and technical writing.)
Interesting. I've done quite a bit of in-depth work in psycholinguistics.
You can get a pretty accurate profile of
Steve Bennett wrote:
Most well known or
best known? Whichever one is currently in the article. Focus your
efforts elsewhere.
Hey, this is an amusing topic ...
Example for a beer-tasting FAQ (about American lagers):
*Budweiser, Coors, and Miller are the most well-known bad examples of
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
I still think it is a potential good indicator of poor style. Anyway,
pursuing it got me into an area needing attention, including what is now
[[first date (meeting)]].
{{merge}} with [[Dating
2009/9/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
on 9/9/09 4:50 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. Writing styles - and editing styles - are indeed quite
distinctive. If someone suddenly writes something out-of-character
online, I'll tend to first assume someone else is using
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
Oh, well. I made a mistake. Sorry about that.
Emily
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 9/8/09 10:44 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic
spectrum,
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses. It also has
a note asking for more and better references.
- d.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses.
That was what I was talking about. Thanks--I probably should've looked
there to begin with! :-)
It also has a note asking for more and better references.
And yet
on 9/9/09 12:45 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com:
Perhaps, but I was asking this in a general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics seems to mostly be
about the scientific aspect rather than therapeutic uses. It also
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I suppose, as in matters of internet deportment, civility, we must also
accept the burden of maintaining the standard for English usage, global
English usage. It is a grim and dreary business, but I must admit it is
our
You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through their
writings.
So, for example, you can tell if somebody is on the autistic spectrum,
and isn't neurotypical nor psychotic?
I know this is off-topic, but well, it's interesting.
Emily
(bias: recent diagnosis of PDD-NOS)
On Sep 8,
on 9/8/09 10:25 PM, Steve Bennett at stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve
(Bias: Background in linguistics and technical writing.)
Interesting. I've done quite a bit of in-depth work in psycholinguistics.
You can get a pretty accurate profile of someone through their writings.
Marc
For a change, something on English usage. A trawl through some usage
books tells me nothing much about most well known, which I'm convinced
is a solecism, and should be best-known. The hyphenation I think is
standard anyway. Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for
most well known
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Charles Matthews schreef:
Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for
most well known on enWP, and I'd prefer none to be in article space.
Yes... I guess there must be a few style guides that allow
that phrase, but most well known style guides
For a change, something on English usage. A trawl through some usage
books tells me nothing much about most well known, which I'm convinced
is a solecism, and should be best-known. The hyphenation I think is
standard anyway. Sadly Google believes there are 11,000 instances for
most well known
Only in the context of arbitration cases where some horse's ass took a
stand. Establishing a global standard is inevitably an ugly process, as
in the old saying that compares the crafting of legislation to the making
of sausage.
However, we can strive to maintain a high standard, high enough that
25 matches
Mail list logo
