yet vs and yet

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Your arguments are straw men put up merely for the sake of arguing.

++1

1 Reply

@centrox,

I knew that there would be no reasoned argument from you, Centrox. You are known too well.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Once again you're confusing written language with spoken language. Conciseness in speech is a different animal than conciseness in writing which is something that is necessarily taught. Your arguments are straw men put up merely for the sake of arguing.

I agree that there are attempts to teach conciseness in writing but they are of the variety that you have attempted to pass off here.

As the 2nd language learner, albeit a very good one, noted, which has escaped you,

"So, because each sentence has a nuance(s) ever so slightly differentiating them, conciseness should not even be a consideration? In other words, the first is not more concise than the second?"

Conciseness has zero to do with it, absolutely nothing at all. In the examples from your own writing, where I pretended to invoke your preciseness rule/advice, you didn't appreciate it, yet it was the same as the Perrennialloner's.

Those who "teach" this nonsense invariably know nothing about English but they use this to buffalo kids into thinking they do, instead of spending time on real language issues that would actually benefit children.

Kids learn to write in the same manner as they learn how to speak, by doing it.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Your repeating them doesn't make them any less straw men.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Your silly contention was described as a useless one by the OP. It was described as a useless one by my examples. It makes no sense because it relies solely on uninformed personal opinion that has no basis in reality.

Being taught "conciseness" by teachers who had no knowledge of the English language, using examples such as yours, is an exercise in nothingness.

What is the lesson that anyone could draw from your conciseness performance here. Even the OP doesn't know.

2 Replies

@camlok,

on uninformed personal opinion that has no basis in reality. It is equivalent to and as informational as, "people like to breathe".

0 Replies

@perennialloner,

Quote:

I have learned what I believe is valuable information from them, and I get enjoyment out of them.

Me too, thanks for posting ...

0 Replies

@camlok,

Don't presume to speak for the OP.

That being said, it's over your head.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Don't presume to speak for the OP.

perennialloner
Fri 2 Jun, 2017 09:38 pm
So, because each sentence has a nuance(s) ever so slightly differentiating them, conciseness should not even be a consideration? In other words, the first is not more concise than the second?

Quote:

That being said, it's over your head.

The notion of being concise is just a meme, repeated by folks who know nothing of language. There's no description that was forthcoming from you illustrating how anyone could follow such dismal advice.

There never is any advice forthcoming that would help someone follow this garbage. Other than, "I like to be concise".

Dropping words doesn't mean a writer is being more concise, it simply means that they are being more anal.

=========

Don't presume to speak for the OP. [Drop 'the', we all know who OP refers to.]

That being said, it's over your head. ['That being said' - excessive wordiness; Why describe that you have just said it when we all know you said it.]

1 Reply

@camlok,

Now you're merely chasing your own tail.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

You have provided no rules or even guidelines for aspiring conciseors everywhere, Infra.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Read my previous responses.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Read perennialloner's replies. He refuted your Strunkian nonsense, as did I.

1 Reply

@camlok,

All I did was question what conciseness really was. I don't think people telling others to be concise is a bad thing as long as the aims of writing in such a fashion are understood.

I found infrablue's first post very helpful, where he said the inclusion of and emphasized the irony of the previous clause.

Camlok, you are terribly combative. I value what you say and others might too if you weren't constantly putting them down to make your point.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

Quote:

All I did was question what conciseness really was.

As did I. And nothing was ever described. That is the way it is with these old wives tales.

Quote:

I found infrablue's first post very helpful, where he said the inclusion of and emphasized the irony of the previous clause.

Quote:

InfraBlue's first post: They're both acceptable. Usually, I prefer conciseness, but in this case the second sentence sounds better. "And yet" serves to emphasize the irony of the situation, where "and" or "yet" alone would not.

What is helpful about Infra assuming that that was the intent of the writer? What of a speaker who doesn't want to play up the irony/the seriousness/the fact that he engaged in this behavior?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

You [and Centrox] failing to address them illustrate how vacuous is your point. Centrox just joined in to get a dig in without having to do any heavy lifting.

Let's do all remember Centrox's dismal showing at the beginning of the thread.

0 Replies

@camlok,

Didn't you tell me that intonation when speaking English isn't denoted in the written language and therefore harder, especially for a language learner, to perceive. Infrablue provided a possible intent for a speaker saying my second sentence. Sure, the speaker might have the same intent saying the first, but clearly infrablue, who I assume is a native speaker, associates the second construction with emphasized irony. There must be a reason s/he does that, right? Hearing it used that way frequently, perhaps. I think that's helpful/useful.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

Quote:

Didn't you tell me that intonation when speaking English isn't denoted in the written language and therefore harder, especially for a language learner, to perceive. Infrablue provided a possible intent for a speaker saying my second sentence.

Sure, the speaker might have the same intent saying the first, but clearly infrablue, who I assume is a native speaker, associates the second construction with emphasized irony. There must be a reason s/he does that, right? Hearing it used that way frequently, perhaps. I think that's helpful/useful.

That he did, He provided one of a number of possible emotions that a speaker could be feeling in such a situation. There is a very good reason that he could have done so. He is a native speaker who can discern from language possible motives due to his innate understanding of English grammar.

That was his reaction to that situation viewed within the tiny prism that we all tend to view these things.

He isn't right or wrong because it is just a hypothetical. Of course what he described is an accurate portrayal of a possibility, one of many.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

He isn't right or wrong because it is just a hypothetical. Of course what he described is an accurate portrayal of a possibility, one of many.

Well hey, it seems you're finally getting it.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

Is there a difference between an unadorned "no," and "hell, no?"

Is the "hell" unnecessary and redundant?

It's a simple matter of emphasis. The meaning (or at least the connotation) is different. The "and" serves a useful and meaningful purpose.

1 Reply

yet vs and yet

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know