It’s already been established that Clippy doesn’t care, so it’s a matter of personal preference, really. I suppose it’s debatable whether it should come down to the reader’s preference (in the form of some established norm, I expect) or the speaker’s, though. Personally, I’d prefer that it be the speaker’s call.
(Yes, that last sequence of words is weird. Why don’t we have a natural-sounding word to use in place of ‘speaker’ when someone’s communicating by typing, yet? Or does ‘writer’ flow for other people, there, and it’s me being weird?)
Why don’t we have a natural-sounding word to use in place of ‘speaker’ when someone’s communicating by typing, yet? Or does ‘writer’ flow for other people, there, and it’s me being weird?
Both “writer” and “speaker” “sound” fine to me. YMMV.
(My brain seems to have automatically interpreted “speaker” as pointing to the more abstract category containing both writers and speakers. But it is rarely safe to deduce that you aren’t being weird because I can understand you.)
It’s already been established that Clippy doesn’t care, so it’s a matter of personal preference, really. I suppose it’s debatable whether it should come down to the reader’s preference (in the form of some established norm, I expect) or the speaker’s, though. Personally, I’d prefer that it be the speaker’s call.
(Yes, that last sequence of words is weird. Why don’t we have a natural-sounding word to use in place of ‘speaker’ when someone’s communicating by typing, yet? Or does ‘writer’ flow for other people, there, and it’s me being weird?)
Both “writer” and “speaker” “sound” fine to me. YMMV.
See my response to Clippy.
(My brain seems to have automatically interpreted “speaker” as pointing to the more abstract category containing both writers and speakers. But it is rarely safe to deduce that you aren’t being weird because I can understand you.)