Author Topic: New column-type thingy (Read 107837 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #750 on:** May 20, 2015, 03:29:09 PM »

Aw, thanks. :blushing:

Ela · « **Reply #751 on:** May 22, 2015, 11:43:55 AM »

Quote from: rivka on May 19, 2015, 01:31:05 PM

You are both hilarious.

Agreed.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #752 on:** May 28, 2015, 09:24:59 PM »

Oh man, there's nothing like a perfectly intact meter.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #753 on:** May 29, 2015, 01:34:47 AM »

Unless you are hoping to get out of paying for parking on the street.

Jonathon · « **Reply #754 on:** August 21, 2015, 10:06:42 AM »

This Is Not the Grammatical Promised Land

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #755 on:** August 21, 2015, 11:52:48 AM »

Smackdown!

rivka · « **Reply #756 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:05:18 PM »

Indeed. I especially enjoyed:

Quote

In technical terms, pretending that you don’t understand someone is called engaging in uncooperative communication. In layman’s terms, it’s called being an ass.

rivka · « **Reply #757 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:07:16 PM »

I see his followers (I refuse to call them Grammar Israelites) have come to do battle.

Jonathon · « **Reply #758 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:11:11 PM »

Quote from: rivka on August 21, 2015, 01:05:18 PM

Indeed. I especially enjoyed:
Quote
In technical terms, pretending that you don’t understand someone is called engaging in uncooperative communication. In layman’s terms, it’s called being an ass.

Thanks.

Jonathon · « **Reply #759 on:** September 14, 2015, 08:35:14 AM »

Overanxious about Ambiguity

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #760 on:** September 14, 2015, 10:21:29 AM »

(I originally had this post in the wrong thread)

Thank you for your continued, level-headed efforts to calm linguistic outrage.

What would you think about a similar argument toward people who freak out about the ambiguity of not using the Oxford comma? I was in such a conversation on facebook the other day, where the example sentences showing "ambiguity" could easily be re-written to make it clear what the author meant. I was trying to argue that writers who meant something a certain way wouldn't be likely to write it in the ridiculous order that the example sentences showed and that most of the time nobody gets confused when you leave out the Oxford comma. I haven't really seen any convincing examples of authentic and troubling ambiguity, but maybe I just haven't seen the right things.

Jonathon · « **Reply #761 on:** September 14, 2015, 10:48:39 AM »

I've seen some real-life examples that could be ambiguous, but technically they could be ambiguous even with the Oxford comma. One of the most popular ones I've seen lately is something like "Nelson Mandela, a dildo collector and an 800-year-old demigod." But even with the comma, you could still read it as "Nelson Mandela (who by the way is a dildo collector) and an 800-year-old demigod."

The problem for me isn't real ambiguity, but just a mental hiccup as I read. When you read a list, the inflection on each item goes up until the last one, which goes down. When I see a list without an Oxford comma, I tend to read it as "(my parents ↑), (Ayn Rand and God ↑) (oh wait that's the end of the list)". You have to be obtuse or uncooperative to think that the person really means that Ayn Rand and God are her parents. So it's not really ambiguous, but I feel like it's missing a little cue as to how it's to be parsed: "(my parents ↑), (Ayn Rand ↑), and (God ↓)".

That's why I like it and why I find arguments for omitting it to be less than compelling. Sure, I guess you don't strictly need it, but what does it hurt to include it?

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #762 on:** September 14, 2015, 01:52:18 PM »

Those were actually the samples in the conversation I was having. The ambiguity, though, is created by the order it which the items are listed. When you start with a proper name or a plural, it's more likely that you wouldn't expect a list of three items and you'd read it with the wrong intonation, like you mentioned. But what if those sentences were written this way:

"An 800-year-old demigod, a dildo collector and Nelson Mandela."
"God, my parents and Ayn Rand."

See? No way you could misconstrue those.

I'd also argue that in real life, people seldom list three such unrelated things. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of list-like sentence you're even going to see are going to be things like "ham, roast beef and chicken" or "bats, gloves and balls." I don't think there are really very many instances where people need that comma to read the sentence correctly.

Jonathon · « **Reply #763 on:** September 14, 2015, 02:08:15 PM »

But I would still read it as "bats↑, gloves and balls↑" oh wait that's the end of the list. I'm not really misconstruing the sentence, just misparsing it as I read and then mentally correcting myself when I get to the end. It's like a headline like "woman arrested for jaywalking found dead in cell". It's not really structurally ambiguous, but I initially read the first verb as the main verb in the clause, not as a modifier for the subject.

Like I said, it's just a little mental hiccup, but it still happens even though I should know to watch out for it.

And I'm still not seeing a strong argument for omitting it. Saying "but you don't need it most of the time" isn't really compelling to me. Why do need it to not be there?

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #764 on:** September 15, 2015, 04:59:33 AM »

Hmmm ... when I read a sentence with an Oxford comma, I feel like it makes me pause an extra time, like, "bats, (pause) gloves, (pause) (oh, better pause, there's an 'and' coming up) and balls." I've always felt that it throws of my rhythm that way.

So, that's not a very compelling argument by any means, but that's why it bugs me a little to see it there when it's not needed. I've already conditioned myself to pause when I see the "and" coming up after two items have been listed. But maybe I conditioned myself to read it that way because I prefer to write it that way? I can definitely see where people who don't read it the way I do wouldn't see why it matters.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #765 on:** September 16, 2015, 12:07:23 AM »

Nice column. I like all those cogent versions of sagacity.

Jonathon · « **Reply #766 on:** September 16, 2015, 08:20:31 AM »

Thanks! It's always good to hear quality feedback from my fans.

pooka · « **Reply #767 on:** September 22, 2015, 08:02:25 PM »

I think linguists/grammarians are like normal people in that they see their own stance as moderate ground and everyone who strongly disagrees with them as a philistine/ammorite.

Jonathon · « **Reply #768 on:** September 22, 2015, 08:57:40 PM »

Everyone who is more permissive than you is a linguistic anarchist. Everyone who is stricter than you is a grammatical fascist.

Jonathon · « **Reply #769 on:** November 04, 2015, 09:30:29 AM »

The drunk Australian accent theory

rivka · « **Reply #770 on:** November 04, 2015, 02:35:24 PM »

Ugh. You just know that "speaks to just two thirds capacity" is going to somehow get combined with the "only use 10% of the brain" idiocy and last forever -- and not just to describe one nationality.

Jonathon · « **Reply #771 on:** November 04, 2015, 03:33:43 PM »

Oh, no. I hadn't even considered that.

rivka · « **Reply #772 on:** November 04, 2015, 05:16:14 PM »

My grandkids are going to think people use 10% of their brains, 33% of their speech ability, and swallow 8 spiders per day. (The last explains the other 2, natch.)

Jonathon · « **Reply #773 on:** November 04, 2015, 06:32:49 PM »

rivka · « **Reply #774 on:** November 04, 2015, 07:53:59 PM »

You can't keep that up for long. And as soon as you stop, bam! The spiders get in.