The language argument

[caelic]

Language is both art and craft.  It's impossible to master the art without first knowing the fundamentals of the craft.

Put another way: you can't break the rules in a meaningful and productive way without first knowing the rules you intend to break...just as you can't effectively cheat at poker without first learning the value of the hands.

[veekie]

That is very true, breaking SOME rules with a purpose draws attention and adds flair, with the remainder of the rules serving a role as the basis for interpretation and commonality for people to understand. Breaking them all just because they are there just means people don't understand your entire meaning well.

[InnaBinder]

That is very true, breaking SOME rules with a purpose draws attention and adds flair, with the remainder of the rules serving a role as the basis for interpretation and commonality for people to understand. Breaking them all just because they are there just means people don't understand your entire meaning well.

Worse, it can lead to people dismissing your meaning because they've dismissed the intellect behind it as not worthy of attention.

[EjoThims]

That is very true, breaking SOME rules with a purpose draws attention and adds flair, with the remainder of the rules serving a role as the basis for interpretation and commonality for people to understand. Breaking them all just because they are there just means people don't understand your entire meaning well.

Worse, it can lead to people dismissing your meaning because they've dismissed the intellect behind it as not worthy of attention.

This is indeed the most vital reason for putting forth a consistent and presentable construction of language.

[altpersona]

exactly the inverse is true.

dismissing something because you do not understand it, well... ; no.

do you only read Dick and Jane books? they are easy to understand...

do you reread your favorite novels, finding new insights you missed previously?

bah 

[InnaBinder]

exactly the inverse is true.

dismissing something because you do not understand it, well... ; no.

do you only read Dick and Jane books? they are easy to understand...

do you reread your favorite novels, finding new insights you missed previously?

bah 

The reason for the lack of understanding is key.  If the lack of understanding is because the subject is unfamiliar to me, or because the language is itself esoteric or particularly dense (not in the "unintelligent" usage of the term), then dismissing it for that lack of understanding is on me, as a failing.  On the other hand, if the lack of understanding is because the subject is presented haphazardly, organized poorly, littered with typos and irregularities of speech, that's another matter entirely, because apparently the person presenting their subject is not making a legitimate effort to communicate clearly.  It's one thing if "you" (generic) present an argument intelligently that I have to work to parse.  It's another if you present an argument unintelligently and expect that I'll provide meaning for you.

I'd call the Dick and Jane analogy a red herring, incidentally.

[altpersona]

dick n jane is only slightly a herring. its a over simplification... but i like to show the span of an idea. prereading books : novels. it serves a point beyond simple badgering.

the reasons a thing may be difficult to read/understand do not matter.

if its tricky word play, poor word choices, dyslexia, eye fatigue, tl;dr, drunken mumbles... none of em matter.

idea only matters. expression, representation are secondary at best and have little true value.

from the subtle, minuscule forces of quantum physics to religious liturgical study nothing worthwhile is easy to grasp.

napkin.

[InnaBinder]

Dick and Jane books are written to be understood by their target.  An active consideration was made by the author(s) to communicate to their target audience.

Anna Karenina was written to be understood by its target.  An active consideration of plot, symbol, nuance and metaphor was made by the author to communicate to his audience.

A writer who declines to use the basic rules of grammar and spelling has not produced something that was written to be understood by the target.  The only thing being communicated in those cases is the laziness of the writer who did the work.  Yes, there are exceptions - both Flowers for Algernon and much of e e cummings' work spring to mind - but in those cases the writer demonstrated a grasp of the rules of language, and played around with them in order to add nuance to their point.  Writers who don't demonstrate that grasp of the rules aren't adding nuance, they're subtracting it.

[Bauglir]

Uh, relevance?

[altpersona]

updated: reposted, it was too big 

[InnaBinder]

Bauglir's question to you appears to still be cogent.

[altpersona]

im not explaining it. 

its perfectly relevant.

[Kuroimaken]

Seems to me quite simply like you mean to say "I'll just drop this literal wall of text right here..."

[veekie]

Well that perfectly demonstrates a failure of communication due to a failure on the part of the initiator.
I don't see how the Rosetta Stone applies to the discussion at hand.

[EjoThims]

dismissing something because you do not understand it, well... ; no.

That would indeed be a terrible and shortsighted thing to do.

But dismissing something because it is of so little import to the originator that they did not even put effort into ensuring that it was understood... That is far more reasonable.

As, I believe, is dismissing something that is done with a similar lack of ability, even if that result is the best effort of it's originator to make sure it was understood,  if dealing with concepts in which the knowledge of should have also been accompanied by knowledge of how to properly present them.

As a set of examples much better than your red herring...

Dismissing the opinions of a three year old on ponies due to the style of writing is unreasonable.

Dismissing the opinion of a three year old on quantum mechanics due to the style of writing is generally reasonable, though some strange exceptions may occur.

Dismissing the opinion of a college on quantum mechanics because they write like a three year old is generally reasonable, because if they were able to legitimately learn about it they should have also legitimately been able to learn how to present themselves.

Dismissing the opinion of an alien (or other non-native speaker) who is just learning our language on quantum mechanics because they write like a three year old is unreasonable.

[altpersona]

dismissing something because you do not understand it, well... ; no.

That would indeed be a terrible and shortsighted thing to do.

But dismissing something because it is of so little import to the originator that they did not even put effort into ensuring that it was understood... That is far more reasonable.

As, I believe, is dismissing something that is done with a similar lack of ability, even if that result is the best effort of it's originator to make sure it was understood,  if dealing with concepts in which the knowledge of should have also been accompanied by knowledge of how to properly present them.

As a set of examples much better than your red herring...

Dismissing the opinions of a three year old on ponies due to the style of writing is unreasonable.

Dismissing the opinion of a three year old on quantum mechanics due to the style of writing is generally reasonable, though some strange exceptions may occur.

Dismissing the opinion of a college on quantum mechanics because they write like a three year old is generally reasonable, because if they were able to legitimately learn about it they should have also legitimately been able to learn how to present themselves.

Dismissing the opinion of an alien (or other non-native speaker) who is just learning our language on quantum mechanics because they write like a three year old is unreasonable.

i generally agree almost entirely.

except

imo; these variations are very slight.

presenting ones self is merely style, style changes far to often for judgments of quality to rest upon it. (other than for its own purpose alone)

also

imo; the strange exceptions define the uselessness of the rules.

further;

and more to the point;

dismissing any of it, unread, unstudied, unconsidered is (for lack of a shorter word) bad. 

[InnaBinder]

Well that perfectly demonstrates a failure of communication due to a failure on the part of the initiator.
I don't see how the Rosetta Stone applies to the discussion at hand.

Indeed.  The whole reason it's written in three different languages was so that a wider variety of folks could ascertain the message it contained.  It wasn't that any aspect of it was unintelligible; it was simply to increase its accessibility at a time when a single written language was not necessarily common to its target audience.

[EjoThims]

Well that perfectly demonstrates a failure of communication due to a failure on the part of the initiator.
I don't see how the Rosetta Stone applies to the discussion at hand.

Indeed.  The whole reason it's written in three different languages was so that a wider variety of folks could ascertain the message it contained.  It wasn't that any aspect of it was unintelligible; it was simply to increase its accessibility at a time when a single written language was not necessarily common to its target audience.

If anything, the Rosetta Stone would apply strength to our stance. It's creators made a deliberate effort to present their idea in such a way as to be understood by the most people possible, to the point that hundreds of years later it's existence actually proved the key to unlocking large parts of the rest of their own written language.

[Bauglir]

And in addition to that, my question also serves as a subtle point in opposition of the argument that rules are irrelevant. As a sentence fragment, it's grammatically incorrect (unless there are special rules for questions that I'm not familiar with, which is entirely possible), but nobody cared. The meaning was clear, because I know those rules and was able to choose appropriately which ones were unnecessary to convey that meaning. There were still several I obeyed, you'll note, such as the use of a comma to suggest a pause in speech (simultaneously indicating a conversational tone rather than a formal), or the use of a question mark to indicate a query.

It just occurred to me that this is the internet, so subtlety might go unnoticed.

[EjoThims]

It just occurred to me that this is the internet, so subtlety might go unnoticed.

I must admit I had missed the deliberateness of the subtlety, though I did, as others did with mine, appreciate such use of the exact principles we were discussing.