Punctuation (Page 10 of 12)

You're gonna get something! I just listened to the sample. That doesn't sound like Mark Watney! That sounds like someone reading!! "I don't blame you, and I'm glad you survived," he reads without any inflection at all. No! When you read it to yourself, you put a bit more kick in it, right? (Only teasing. It's a good idea, but you should read it with my Mark voice. It's a bit high-pitched, but way more like an actual martian.)

You've heard me read aloud, haven't you? Friend, I'd have you through that whole book in five minutes, and back to Hemingway. x

Minnie is not practicing time management. Otherwise, pretty accurate.

I guess that would place most agents/editors/publishers in the prescriptive camp and most aspiring authors in the descriptive arena. I would probably fall somewhere on the road to the descriptive side with the drawbridge leading forward in the upright position, lol.

Speaking of rules, a question you might be able to answer: What exactly are "interrelated clauses?" More precisely, I know they are "related" in some fashion, but would both have to be independent if two are joined with punctuation other than a period? I have a specific reason for asking and hopefully you can clarify it for me. Thanks. Take care. Vern

PS: Edited to add more detail to question.

lol, Only in knowledge, not necessarily orientation; I expect you're a bit further down that road than I and more acquainted with their methods.
Actually, you having no idea gives me my answer, I think. Thanks. I'll explain later - out of time, got to run for now. Take care. Vern

There are three kinds of the rationalist: one, he who divides people into two camps and two, he who does not.

I dispute the claim any human being does or thinks anything (pre)determined by classification. It is always amusing when the "scientist" puts his little balls in the bucket, counts them, and declares the end of the research, and then someone comes along and declares a miscount (as you just did).

This discussion has been and continues to be a discussion by and for people who can't or won't spell or punctuate properly.

And while we're here, why not discuss the language of the plantation slave not being "prescribed" out of existence?

To anyone who thinks language and writing are set in concrete, I challenge you to present your next argument in cuneiform and see exactly how many folks understand you. After all, if it's all set in concrete we should have no trouble reading how things were written 5000 years ago. But alas, language and writing has been evolving since the first intelligent grunt and the first cave drawing.

Even if one believed that rules are set in concrete, that still would not preclude them from changing since the hardest concrete still crumbles with use and abuse over time - and a jackhammer works wonders. Words change spelling and meaning over time. Rules adapt over time. There is an exception to every rule and with enough exceptional uses, the exception becomes the norm. But, hey, show me your cuneiform and let's go from there. Take care. Vern

Edited to add this excerpt on knowledge:
***
Buckminster Fuller created the “Knowledge Doubling Curve”; he noticed that until 1900 human knowledge doubled approximately every century. By the end of World War II knowledge was doubling every 25 years. Today things are not as simple as different types of knowledge have different rates of growth. For example, nanotechnology knowledge is doubling every two years and clinical knowledge every 18 months. But on average human knowledge is doubling every 13 months.  According to IBM, the build out of  the “internet of things” will lead to the doubling of knowledge every 12 hours.
***

With this vast increase in human knowledge, does anyone think language has remained or will remain static?

Well, Esperanto and Klingon have. But that's the advantage of a constructed language.

(Sorry, just fiddling with your balls in the bucket)

Do you think that; 

"...the scientist puts his little balls in the bucket, counts them, and declares the end of the research."

will ever change to;

...the scientist places their little balls into the bucket, counts them, and declares the end of the research.

It is rhetorical of course, because as society and civilization evolve, such change must be reflected within language else how would we continue to communicate accurately?

"descriptivists" and "prescriptivists" are anti-concepts created to provide a fallacious argument. Your hair-splitting on a fallacious argument is pointless.

The Cartesian rationalist starts with an a priori conclusion and then finds the evidence to confirm it. That is not as bad as climate-change "science" but they are on the same order of science.

Just dropped in to see if any cuneiform has been presented. I don't see any so I reckon the concretist doesn't know any. Can't say I'm surprised. I'll be back. Take care. Vern