Grammar and Clarity Feedback

[MonDie]

I'm very self-conscious about communicating clearly, concisely and properly. I would like a thread where we point out other users' grammatical errors or inconcise, jumbled, unclear phrasing. Either quote or copy/paste the user's text, and add how you would have phrased it.

[Lyudmilascience]

yep or just not change it at all.

[dimreepr]

I'm very self-conscious about communicating clearly, concisely and properly. I would like a thread where we point out other users' grammatical errors or inconcise, jumbled, unclear phrasing. Either quote or copy/paste the user's text, and add how you would have phrased it.

 

 

I would welcome any feedback as it pertains to my use of language, I'm eager to learn.

[imatfaal]

We intuitively assume that conviction and authenticity of belief are at the center of religious behaviors. However, lying for the cause arguably be anti-correlated with authenticity¹. Many followers posit a societal function of the religion that hinges on ingroup superiority². While ingroup superiority is occasionally a religious teaching itself that would tend to wane along with general general belief, this point is only an argument against the preponderance, not he existence, of "fake believers", which will refer to followers who remain subordinate primarily because of ideas about ingroup superiority rather than veracity of the religious teachings³. Below are three Pro/ANti arguments for religious lying by fake believers⁴. Interestingly, the only one that does not hinge on divine approval is Pro.

 

1. Missing word. Probably can, could, should, or might.^a

2. The definite article before "religion" is inelegant. One could use the unadorned word religion, "a religion" or "their religion"; the OP's usage gives the inkling of a pre-existing mention of a particular religion (directly or indirectly) which had not actually been manifested. This writer would utilise "which" in preference to "that".^b

3. This Sentence is confusing and ambiguous. Typographical errors.

4. The meaning of "Pro/Anti arguments" is uncertain and the phrase itself is cumbersome.^d

5. The claim that a point is interesting is subjective and just word-filler.^e

 

a. No main verb

b. Use of silly words when simple ones would suffice

c. No explanation or precision - merely negative comments

d. Judging as an essay in school/university rather than a post on a science forum

e. Subjective. Also makes no valid point and is just filler

 

And there will be lots of mistakes in the above. I haven't time to check as dinner is about to burn

 

I think it is a really bad idea - any paragraph can be criticised; the benefit to the community at large is vanishingly small and the potential for offence is large.

[geordief]

Yes ,I also thought it was a bad idea. It smacks of picking on people.

 

If it was to be done it should be with posters' consent.

 

I would be happy to give mine though (and I see so does dimreepr) since I am all for clarity of thought and expression-and good communication.

.

Clarity is next to godliness ,or words to that effect.

Edited October 26, 2016 by geordief

[DrKrettin]

 

 

If it was** to be done** it should be with posters'** consent.

 

 

 

If it were to be done, it should be with the poster's consent.

[geordief]

 

If it were to be done, it should be with the poster's consent.

Penny in the poor box it is

 

'posters' ' was right, though.(plural)

 

EDIT: maybe "was" was good too(better?)

Edited October 26, 2016 by geordief

[Phi for All]

Plus it's just going to be a magnet for instances of Skitt's Law, where you inevitably make a speling or, punctuation error when criticizing others for doing the same.

[imatfaal]

Plus it's just going to be a magnet for instances of Skitt's Law, where you inevitably make a speling or, punctuation error when criticizing others for doing the same.

 

Just writing a very similar comment. This is, of course, why I critiqued my initial response - to get it over and done with.

 

BTW MonDie - Silly complaints (as per mine above) aside I thought your definition of a logical fallacy in another thread was spot on, well worded, and refreshingly direct. Although, in the spirit of this thread, I would quibble with your use of the word "premises" and use "argument" instead.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

[Delta1212]

Penny in the poor box it is

 

'posters' ' was right, though.(plural)

 

EDIT: maybe "was" was good too(better?)

Were is correct. You need the subjunctive there.

[geordief]

Were is correct. You need the subjunctive there.

You don't think "was" is more definite than "were" ?

 

Does "was" imply specific cases and "were" has more of a general sense?

 

In Google "were" outnumbers "was " by 10 to 1 for the phrase "if it was/were to be done" . In my mind "was" is therefore used and cannot be wrong if it has that uptake.

 

But does it have a different sense?

[DrKrettin]

for the phrase "if it was/were to be done" .

 

 

That's not a phrase, because it has a finite verb.

 

I'm not sure I like the way this thread is progressing...

[geordief]

 

 

That's not a phrase, because it has a finite verb.

 

I'm not sure I like the way this thread is progressing...

Fine by me . I have lots to learn.

[Delta1212]

You don't think "was" is more definite than "were" ?

 

Does "was" imply specific cases and "were" has more of a general sense?

 

In Google "were" outnumbers "was " by 10 to 1 for the phrase "if it was/were to be done" . In my mind "was" is therefore used and cannot be wrong if it has that uptake.

 

But does it have a different sense?

"Was" is talking about something that may have been true in the past. "Were" is talking about a counter factual or hypothetical situation.

 

If it were true, there would be some evidence of it.

 

If it was true, it no longer is.

[StringJunky]

In practice, I think, the 'correct' form depends on who one is talking to and the social/professional one is navigating in. There isn't a single correct way to communicate in all cases. My policy is to speak in the language of the listener, if it is more appropriate.

Note for pedants: I don't do whom.

Edited October 26, 2016 by StringJunky

[geordief]

 

In practice, I think, the 'correct' form depends on who one is talking to and the social/professional one is navigating in. There isn't a single correct way to communicate in all cases. My policy is to speak in the language of the listener, if it is more appropriate.

Note for pedants: I don't do whom.

 

It is a correct policy. The worst thing we can do is to talk past each other.

[StringJunky]

It is a correct policy. The worst thing we can do is to talk past each other.

Indeed, one may serve better saying nothing rather than be incomprehensible.

[Delta1212]

 

In practice, I think, the 'correct' form depends on who one is talking to and the social/professional one is navigating in. There isn't a single correct way to communicate in all cases. My policy is to speak in the language of the listener, if it is more appropriate.

 

Note for pedants: I don't do whom.

Most people don't know how to use 'whom' correctly anyway. It grates more when people use it in the wrong spot than when they forgo its use altogether.

[geordief]

Most people don't know how to use 'whom' correctly anyway. It grates more when people use it in the wrong spot than when they forgo its use altogether.

On the other hand ,when I heard the usage "amn't I ....?" I put it down to a similar kind of grammatical snobbery. It turned out ,years later that I learned it was simply part of "Irish English"

 

https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/amnt-i-glad-we-use-amnt-in-ireland/

Edited October 26, 2016 by geordief

[StringJunky]

On the other hand ,when I heard the usage "amn't I ....?" I put it down to a similar kind of grammatical snobbery. It turned out ,years later that I learned it was simply part of "Irish English"

 

https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/amnt-i-glad-we-use-amnt-in-ireland/

It seems unfamiliar to me they contracted that because I always associate the Irish with speaking it in full, like: Am I not?; Are you not?; Will you not?; Can you not? A step-father of mine is Northern Irish.

Edited October 26, 2016 by StringJunky

[fiveworlds]

On the other hand ,when I heard the usage "amn't I ....?" I put it down to a similar kind of grammatical snobbery. It turned out ,years later that I learned it was simply part of "Irish English"​

 

 

I have never heard "amn't" I used here to be honest or "ain't" for that matter; I'm sure I'd get an earful for using them.

[imatfaal]

 

 

I have never heard "amn't" I used here to be honest or "ain't" for that matter; I'm sure I'd get an earful for using them.

 

Glad you said that as I hadn't heard the phrase in actual usage either. My mother (of Southern Irish stock) would also give me an earful for using either - my father ( a Geordie) would just look at me as if I were mad; but then he does that quite a lot anyway.

[swansont]

inconcise, jumbled, unclear phrasing.

 

 

One problem here is that YMMV. What's clear to one person can be unclear to another. One thing that I learned from teaching is that there no concept you can present so clearly that everyone understands it. It often takes two or more different perspectives to capture a large fraction of the audience.

 

From the other point of view, one should never assume that their explanation is so clear that it cannot be misunderstood. It may be true that it's the best you can do and you can't think of better phrasing, but it's folly to assume that confusion is entirely the fault of the reader.

[Ophiolite]

I can become slightly upset if someone criticises an error in my writing. I do become apoplectic with rage if they fail to criticise an error in my writing. This is permanent permission to criticise any failure of grammar, lack of clarity, or excessive verbosity anyone should find in my writing, unless it such criticism is conducted for ulterior motives, or delivered vindictively.

[geordief]

I can become slightly upset if someone criticises an error in my writing. I do become apoplectic with rage if they fail to criticise an error in my writing. This is permanent permission to criticise any failure of grammar, lack of clarity, or excessive verbosity anyone should find in my writing, unless it such criticism is conducted for ulterior motives, or delivered vindictively.

Spot the ball?

 

Here ,have this one on me

Edited October 28, 2016 by geordief