yet vs and yet

@InfraBlue,

Your ridiculous notion about "being concise", nope, not at all because you have never explained how it is supposed to work. It's just another of the myriad, idiotic "do this" prescriptions that plague second language learners.

1 Reply

@layman,

All that has long been settled, layman, but I will note that you are right on this occasion.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

All that has long been settled, layman, but I will note that you are right on this occasion.

I aint read this thread, I just read the OP.

A woeful oversight on my part. Looks like an all-out bitch fight has broken out here. I hate to miss that kinda entertainment, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

You should focus on the being right as it is, for you, such a rare event.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Your ridiculous notion about "being concise", nope, not at all because you have never explained how it is supposed to work. It's just another of the myriad, idiotic "do this" prescriptions that plague second language learners.

I spoke too soon, you didn't get it.

Seeing as how conciseness is about style, it was a suggestion, not a prescription.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Seeing as how conciseness is about style, it was a suggestion, not a prescription.

But you can't pass on this style/wisdom to anyone else.

"Children, EFLs, follow my style."

1 Reply

@camlok,

Perennialloner understood what I was suggesting.

1 Reply

What is an epigram?
A dwarfish whole
Its body brevity
And wit its soul.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

So did I, yet you still can't pass on any useful advice to help anyone put this Strunkian wisdom into practice.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

So did I, yet you still can't pass on any useful advice to help anyone put this Strunkian wisdom into practice.

"Strunkian wisdom"? M'kay. In any regard, you claim to have understood it, so then it was passed on usefully. Had you not understood it, then it wouldn't have been passed on, let alone usefully. I'm suspecting the latter.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

In any regard, you claim to have understood it,

Of course I understood it, just like I understand all the other useless advice offered just like this. I recently read much of a thread where A2Kers offered a whole bunch of similar junk advice. It was painful to see such abysmal ignorance.

Still no advice on how to use this sage wisdom. In this case, you threw out being concise for being emphatic, making the silly assumption that that was the correct response, thereby denying that myriad individuals would have their own reasons for their choice of words, words that would reflect the nuances they sought to present.

When you read it tomorrow will you then decide that you should opt for conciseness and deny any other nuances can exist?

1 Reply

@camlok,

You've thoroughly demonstrated that you, unlike perennialloaner, didn't understand it.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

And you keep on illustrating that you are unable to provide any advice for anyone on the important subject of when being concise is the thing to choose.

perennialloner didn't understand what you were getting at either.

PL said: "So, because each sentence has a nuance(s) ever so slightly differentiating them, conciseness should not even be a consideration?"

If one makes it a consideration, it means that your advice as regards nuance was useless.

If one discounts your advice as regards nuance, and opts for being
concise, it means you deny nuance exists, or that you deny people should have a right to express a nuance.

What you are saying is that all speakers of English have to check in with InfraBlue to see if they should go for being concise or expressing a nuance.

2 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

PL said: "So, because each sentence has a nuance(s) ever so slightly differentiating them, conciseness should not even be a consideration?"

I still aint read this thread--I skimmed it and saw that it was, and still is, an endless bitch-fight in progress, but figured it's too late to cheer it on now.

But, yeah, Perry. "Conciseness" aint ****, in and of itself. Only tight-ass miser would prefer conciseness over accurate, meaningful expression.

0 Replies

@camlok,

Now, you're back to chasing your own tail.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

And you are back to saying nothing on the language issue, the corny one you raised, the one you are completely unable to defend in any fashion.

1 Reply

Maybe this thread should be retired. Thank you, everyone. All of your contributions to the topic are appreciated.

As for the fight between camlok and infrablue, why? Is it not clear yet that camlok takes issue with what you said when you were justifying your preference for the latter sentence. You said "usually I'd choose conciseness but in this case..." or something along those lines. I believe this is the statement he finds useless, and even misleading, because if the former sentence is actually more concise, writers may begin making poor choices following the idea that being concise is generally preferable.

That being said, I think it's understood by most people that being concise means don't be wordy, as opposed to removing extraneous prepositions and linking words.

I would think everyone on here knows not to be "concise" if being so dilutes meaning as well as that being verbose is usually unnecessary and confusing, and a bunch more negative adjectives.

2 Replies

@perennialloner,

You can't just jump and leave now girl.

0 Replies

Por que no?

0 Replies

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

Maybe this thread should be retired. Thank you, everyone. All of your contributions to the topic are appreciated.

As for the fight between camlok and infrablue, why?

Because it's fun going round and round.

perennialloner wrote:

Is it not clear yet that camlok takes issue with what you said when you were justifying your preference for the latter sentence. You said "usually I'd choose conciseness but in this case..." or something along those lines. I believe this is the statement he finds useless, and even misleading, because if the former sentence is actually more concise, writers may begin making poor choices following the idea that being concise is generally preferable.

In and of itself, I think that being concise is preferable to being wordy.

perennialloner wrote:

That being said, I think it's understood by most people that being concise means don't be wordy, as opposed to removing extraneous prepositions and linking words.

If words like prepositions, linking words and others are extraneous then they contribute to a sentence's wordiness.

perennialloner wrote:

I would think everyone on here knows not to be "concise" if being so dilutes meaning as well as that being verbose is usually unnecessary and confusing, and a bunch more negative adjectives.

You're making assumptions about what everyone here knows, and I preferred to not make those assumptions about you, seeing as how you were unsure if the sentences are acceptable constructions, and were unsure as to the meaning of both sentences and your questions involved preference, i.e. personal judgments, about the sentences.

If they were interchangeable, so what?

1 Reply

yet vs and yet

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know