Cool! I think they are very similar, too. If you define “all-powerful” in a certain way, you can get inconsistencies just like if you define set theory in a certain way (For any property Y, you can build a set containing only members with property Y), you can get an inconsistency (property Y = “This set contains itself”).
Using the grammatically incorrect word violates our expectations of how words are uzed.
Clever counterexample, it made me think.
Interpreting that quote to mean “most people expect everyone to use correct grammar 100% of the time” seems immediately wrong. Do you interpret it differently?
Interpreting that quote to mean “most people expect everyone to use correct grammar 100% of the time” seems immediately wrong. Do you interpret it differently?
Yes. 2 things:
1. Gesturing: a) I expect something if I am surprised if it doesn’t happen. I don’t expect something if I am surprised if it happens. You could say I am “surprised” when I see errors because they are rare. (I might lose this surprise w.r.t a specific text which is a solid block of errors, if I tried to read such a thing.) To get more specific, some errors are “smaller” or more common, say, using “it’s” possessively instead of “its”.
b) More to the point: I expect people to use correct grammar and spelling most of the time.
For example, the original post has… 1,480 words in the form of 8,502 characters (according to https://wordcounter.net/, starting at ”This is” ending at “encouraged”). Whether or not it has any spelling errors, I’d say the error rate is low, however you look at it.
2. It can break flow. This can also be seen as, when people are reading, they have a prediction of what comes next. On a word level, “further/farther” isn’t a severe case, but surprise, and having the right amount of it, especially at certain levels, can affect a work greatly. Some authors may intentionally use (technically) incorrect spelling (and sometimes grammar) for the purpose of puns, and similar effects, and reception may vary. When things appear incorrect, particularly a lot of things, it starts to add up, and working out what was (meant to be) said is more difficult.
I think this is a very interesting point, thanks! It’s related to chunking and does indeed impede communication!
Fuor eggsample, eye cold mes up sevral wurds ina row.
Even though you understand the meaning of that sentence, it takes much longer to get the same point across because it forces you to read one word at a time as opposed to normal, chunked reading.
Relatedly, we use words as chunks of qualifications/ideas.
This post is about framing words as qualifications to maximize communication. Correct grammar lends itself to more efficient communication, but it’s not about qualifications.
I thinking making use of previous chunks/shorthand/ideas the other person has is powerful for conveying information. It informs not just what grammar and words to use, but which metaphors, allusions, and stories to use.
[Actually, if someone consistently uses incorrect grammar, you could more effectively communicate by using the same incorrect grammar. The same if they consistently use a word that is clearly wrong like using “indigenous” instead of “ingenious”]
Cool! I think they are very similar, too. If you define “all-powerful” in a certain way, you can get inconsistencies just like if you define set theory in a certain way (For any property Y, you can build a set containing only members with property Y), you can get an inconsistency (property Y = “This set contains itself”).
Clever counterexample, it made me think.
Interpreting that quote to mean “most people expect everyone to use correct grammar 100% of the time” seems immediately wrong. Do you interpret it differently?
Yes. 2 things:
1. Gesturing: a) I expect something if I am surprised if it doesn’t happen. I don’t expect something if I am surprised if it happens. You could say I am “surprised” when I see errors because they are rare. (I might lose this surprise w.r.t a specific text which is a solid block of errors, if I tried to read such a thing.) To get more specific, some errors are “smaller” or more common, say, using “it’s” possessively instead of “its”.
b) More to the point: I expect people to use correct grammar and spelling most of the time.
For example, the original post has… 1,480 words in the form of 8,502 characters (according to https://wordcounter.net/, starting at ”This is” ending at “encouraged”). Whether or not it has any spelling errors, I’d say the error rate is low, however you look at it.
2. It can break flow. This can also be seen as, when people are reading, they have a prediction of what comes next. On a word level, “further/farther” isn’t a severe case, but surprise, and having the right amount of it, especially at certain levels, can affect a work greatly. Some authors may intentionally use (technically) incorrect spelling (and sometimes grammar) for the purpose of puns, and similar effects, and reception may vary. When things appear incorrect, particularly a lot of things, it starts to add up, and working out what was (meant to be) said is more difficult.
I think this is a very interesting point, thanks! It’s related to chunking and does indeed impede communication!
Fuor eggsample, eye cold mes up sevral wurds ina row.
Even though you understand the meaning of that sentence, it takes much longer to get the same point across because it forces you to read one word at a time as opposed to normal, chunked reading.
Relatedly, we use words as chunks of qualifications/ideas.
This post is about framing words as qualifications to maximize communication. Correct grammar lends itself to more efficient communication, but it’s not about qualifications.
I thinking making use of previous chunks/shorthand/ideas the other person has is powerful for conveying information. It informs not just what grammar and words to use, but which metaphors, allusions, and stories to use.
[Actually, if someone consistently uses incorrect grammar, you could more effectively communicate by using the same incorrect grammar. The same if they consistently use a word that is clearly wrong like using “indigenous” instead of “ingenious”]