Grammar and Clarity Feedback

[koti]

I'm all for it, please do reprimand me. Unless ofcourse it will be vindictive in nature in which case... I don't care. After all I can only gain from it.

 

I would love to command language like Sam Harris does and not sound pretentious.

Edited October 28, 2016 by koti

[Ophiolite]

Spot the ball?

 

Here ,have this one on me

Thank you. An excellent example of poor quality editing resulting from multiple mental rewrites while typing the sentence.

[MonDie]

 

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.

 

Indeed, it would be wise to include a compliment when critiquing somebody, or an implicit acknowledgement that you read, understood, and appreciated their post. Furthermore, it could be discouraged to focus criticism on a single member or a distinctive group of members.

 

Regarding the corrected content, I had most of the thread OP written on paper, which I hurriedly transcribed. That's why words are missing here and there. I'm sorry that 3 is hard to understand, but ambiguous? Thank you.

Edited October 28, 2016 by MonDie

[imatfaal]

 

Indeed, it would be wise to include a compliment when critiquing somebody, or an implicit acknowledgement that you read, understood, and appreciated their post. Furthermore, it could be discouraged to focus criticism on a single member or a distinctive group of members

 

Yes indeed. All points agreed

 

 

 

Regarding the corrected content, I had most of the thread OP written on paper, which I hurriedly transcribed. That's why words are missing here and there. I'm sorry that 3 is hard to understand, but ambiguous? Thank you.

 

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 teachings

 

 

 

Which "point is only an argument"? The existence of ingroup superiority, the fact that this superiority could be a religious teaching, or the tendency for this superiority to wane.

 

In total the sentence seems to say that the presence of and/or rationale for ingroup seniority is not an argument against occurrence of ingroup inferiority. This would seem tautological - the creation of a superior subgroup necessitates the remainder being inferior. It is very popular to use long recondite sentences but this must be done with care. Complex, layered sentences should only be utilised when the expression of the ideas is impossible, or at least very cumbersome, if spread over multiple sentences.

[geordief]

 

Complex, layered sentences should only be utilised when the expression of the ideas is impossible, or at least very cumbersome, if spread over multiple sentences.

I have just found this resource. It shows up " spelling errors, style suggestions , or grammar suggestions " in your text.

 

http://www.grammarcheck.net/editor/

.

[John Cuthber]

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.

Isn't the use of "excessive" here a bit of a tautology? If you use a lot of words because they are all needed then it's not verbose.

The same is true for "criticism is conducted for ulterior motives, or delivered vindictively."

Surely vindictiveness is an ulterior motive?

And those tautologies make the sentence longer than it needs to be, so issue about verbosity applies.

[Ophiolite]

Isn't the use of "excessive" here a bit of a tautology? If you use a lot of words because they are all needed then it's not verbose.

The same is true for "criticism is conducted for ulterior motives, or delivered vindictively."

Surely vindictiveness is an ulterior motive?

And those tautologies make the sentence longer than it needs to be, so issue about verbosity applies.

In this instance your critiques are superficially accurate. However, those who know me in person are well aware that I rejoice in verbosity. It is only the extensive, extended, even overbearing, use of this style that I seek to avoid. Day to day, mundane verbosity I relish.

 

I certainly cannot agree with you that vindictive behaviour is an ulterior motive. I have known many individuals who have flaunted the vindictiveness of their actions.

 

So, I thank you for your input, but in this instance I shall disregard it.

[John Cuthber]

In this instance your critiques are superficially accurate. However, those who know me in person are well aware that I rejoice in verbosity. It is only the extensive, extended, even overbearing, use of this style that I seek to avoid. Day to day, mundane verbosity I relish.

 

I certainly cannot agree with you that vindictive behaviour is an ulterior motive. I have known many individuals who have flaunted the vindictiveness of their actions.

 

So, I thank you for your input, but in this instance I shall disregard it.

[imatfaal]

I have just found this resource. It shows up " spelling errors, style suggestions , or grammar suggestions " in your text.

 

http://www.grammarcheck.net/editor/

.

 

Save your money - it comes up with three "mistakes"; two of which are debatable and the third of which is wrong. The problem is that as soon as sentences become at all complex any grammar checker is going to struggle to understand which part of speech is which, where the main verb is, who or what the subject is, or even the obvious flow of the sentence.

[DrKrettin]

 

Save your money - it comes up with three "mistakes"; two of which are debatable and the third of which is wrong. The problem is that as soon as sentences become at all complex any grammar checker is going to struggle to understand which part of speech is which, where the main verb is, who or what the subject is, or even the obvious flow of the sentence.

 

I find any grammar checker totally unacceptable. I'm especially disgusted with those who object to the passive voice, as though there were something wrong with it.

[geordief]

 

I find any grammar checker totally unacceptable. I'm especially disgusted with those who object to the passive voice, as though there were something wrong with it.

That is exactly what it told me. The first thing in fact. I accepted it naively but it seems to be a debate that I was unaware of.

 

http://philgons.com/2009/04/the-passive-voice-should-be-avoided-right/

[Sirona]

The primary purpose of language is to communicate and I believe as long as they are effectively able to convey their thoughts and be understood, then it is not particularly concerning if they have not constructed a grammatically correct response.

I am currently teaching a small group of gifted children maths and several of the boys are recent migrants who have come from and Intensive English Center and still struggle with reading, writing and speaking. However, they are very good at math and able to clearly communicate their mathematical reasoning which they cannot do in written or spoken English well. If I were to judge them based on their spelling, grammar and punctuation, then I would be grossly underestimating their intelligence and ability.

Back when the primary purpose of English in schools was to teach literacy, almost everyone in Australia that went through the state school system could write accurately and concisely, however, the literacy standards have significantly declined even among Australian born children. I think it's more important to look beyond the spelling, grammar and punctuation and analyse their ideas. Also, if you say something that is just completely wrong, then you're not going to fool or persuade anyone just by your language skills.

[geordief]

The primary purpose of language is to communicate and I believe as long as they are effectively able to convey their thoughts and be understood, then it is not particularly concerning if they have not constructed a grammatically correct response.

 

I am currently teaching a small group of gifted children maths and several of the boys are recent migrants who have come from and Intensive English Center and still struggle with reading, writing and speaking. However, they are very good at math and able to clearly communicate their mathematical reasoning which they cannot do in written or spoken English well. If I were to judge them based on their spelling, grammar and punctuation, then I would be grossly underestimating their intelligence and ability.

 

Back when the primary purpose of English in schools was to teach literacy, almost everyone in Australia that went through the state school system could write accurately and concisely, however, the literacy standards have significantly declined even among Australian born children. I think it's more important to look beyond the spelling, grammar and punctuation and analyse their ideas. Also, if you say something that is just completely wrong, then you're not going to fool or persuade anyone just by your language skills.

In the environment you work in it is "part of the job" to make an effort to communicate with and try to understand your students .

 

In the outside world the public seems to me to have very much less patience with people less skilled at the language than they are.

 

As you say ,so long as the individual is able to communicate their ideas passably well the discussion should end there. But if (as I feel) it is an impediment and perhaps also a reason for cursory dismissal/judgement then is it not a failing to to fail to eradicate this unnecessary failing ? (3 "failings" )

 

I am sure you agree that there is a place for uniformity of language and at least an appreciation of the benefits of a followed grammatical structure.

 

After that , the rules are (and should be) for breaking.

 

PS perhaps I have a bee in my bonnet?

[Sirona]

In the environment you work in it is "part of the job" to make an effort to communicate with and try to understand your students .

 

In the outside world the public seems to me to have very much less patience with people less skilled at the language than they are.

 

As you say ,so long as the individual is able to communicate their ideas passably well the discussion should end there. But if (as I feel) it is an impediment and perhaps also a reason for cursory dismissal/judgement then is it not a failing to to fail to eradicate this unnecessary failing ? (3 "failings" )

 

I am sure you agree that there is a place for uniformity of language and at least an appreciation of the benefits of a followed grammatical structure.

 

After that , the rules are (and should be) for breaking.

 

PS perhaps I have a bee in my bonnet?

I do not believe it's specific to my job; there are few occupations where you would not be required to effectively communicate with others. Although, I do agree that generally people are less tolerant of those who are not not linguistically inclined, especially in the workforce because it is competitive. For example, being an effective communicator can save time because there is less of a chance of developing a misunderstanding and no time is wasted on following up or translating; in a lot of cases, time is money. Not only does it interfere with productivity but it can also portray a negative image of the company when dealing with colleagues and/or customers because eloquence is correlated with professionalism. Therefore, I would say that clear communication is just as important in the corporate world (particularly the private sector) for career progression than it is for us educators.

[DrKrettin]

Therefore, I would say that clear communication is just as important in the corporate world (particularly the private sector) for career progression than it is for us educators.

 

Agreed, but clear communication is only possible when everybody speaks the same language, and for that to happen, some regard for grammar is necessary.

[Ophiolite]

The primary purpose of language is to communicate and I believe as long as they are effectively able to convey their thoughts and be understood, then it is not particularly concerning if they have not constructed a grammatically correct response.

That is in danger of being a strawman argument. Trolls, members looking for an easy insult and irredeemable pedants are surely the only persons who would criticise poor grammar in a post whose meaning was clearly conveyed. The objection to poor grammar is for those many cases where it prevents the writer's message from being delivered. Poor grammar creates ambiguity, or even unintelligible nonsense. That serves neither writer, nor reader.

 

If I were to judge them based on their spelling, grammar and punctuation, then I would be grossly underestimating their intelligence and ability.

I make enormous allowances for persons for whom English is a foreign language, or for an obviously young person. I think this is true of nearly all long standing forum members. I am much less sympathetic towards a native speaker who cannot be bothered to make the effort to write clearly and is indifferent to acquiring the skills to produce clear, effective written English. This is especially annoying in those who are claiming some deep scientific insight while being devoid of grammar, maths and technical knowledge. In those instances the poor grammar is simply one more symptom of an impoverished mind.

 

I think it's more important to look beyond the spelling, grammar and punctuation and analyse their ideas.

Of course it is, but there is often a strong correlation between the quality of their writing and the quality of those ideas.

 

Also, if you say something that is just completely wrong, then you're not going to fool or persuade anyone just by your language skills

I don't know. I've built a fifty year career on the back of high quality bullshit.

[Sirona]

I don't know. I've built a fifty year career on the back of high quality bullshit.

I'll be sure to steer clear of you then; I'm wary of beguiling men.

[StringJunky]

I don't know. I've built a fifty year career on the back of high quality bullshit.

Stringing enough big, multisyllabic words together can go a long way.

[DrKrettin]

I'll be sure to steer clear of you then; I'm wary of beguiling men.

 

What a fascinating statement for somebody intent on clarification in language! That's beguilingly ambiguous.

[MonDie]

Two Years Later:

Grammar!?!  Verbal cognition is the new frontier.  I have spent too much time contemplating verbal cognition, and without reading the official sources.  I guess I expected it to be easier, but it is a great example of how we carelessly equate unarticulated knowledge (or potential language) with verbal knowledge (applied language, formalized language, whatever you wanna call it).  In any case, this thread might be ideal for exploring verbal cognition.  Language doesn't work without a shared set of rules, and here I could observe how we humans articulate the rules that we think we are applying every time we communicate.  If you participate, I will dump my ideas onto you free of charge.  For now, however, only my ethical concerns are de-classified, and I think the the case for increased knowledge wins.

Verbal cognition ties into attention, learning, memory, and indoctrination.  Unfortunately, in the age of information, technology and information could be the tools of dictators (e.g. surveillance) or their demise (e.g. journalism).  Openness to Experience is tied to IQ, authoritarianism (RWA), and religious fundamentalism.  We might ponder whether authoritarianism stems from a desire to control manipulatively, or an over-simplification of psychological learning processes that de-emphasizes the value of education.  Language is the first unscientific thing we learn: in science, beliefs are evaluated by their external efficacy, but, developmentally, languages are probably the earliest beliefs to be rewarded for their own sake.  Moreover, dispersing this information could compromise some psychological research, but, on the other hand, a cognitively aware populace might be more scientifically literate and less vulnerable to indoctrination.  After all, science involves a formalization of something that we implicitly use everyday, probability!  In contrast, sometimes expertise can create counterproductive "mental sets", and I think indoctrination is a kind of false expertise.  Lastly, a global understanding of verbal cognition could facilitate inter-cultural discussions, creating a global economy of ideas rather than cheeseburgers and fighter jets.

Who's on board?

[MonDie]

Did you read my post?  Did you give it much thought?  Here is the test:  Without re-reading the previous post, try to remember whatever words you can.  The levels-of-processing model describes how elaboration helps to embed the contents of working memory into long-term memory.  Therefore, an analysis of what you remember might give clues about what was most important/meaningful.

For now I will hide my analysis of other users' posts, but I will offer a general model of what we're analyzing.  Here are the facts.  Unlike the visual register, the auditory register holds content for up to twenty seconds.  Moreover, there is evidence that visual words are still processed as acoustically encoded content. For example, we will confuse letters that sound the same rather than look the same.

I would personally propose that, unlike visual content, auditory speech lends itself to a linear, chronological sequence wherein each grammatical cycle* has a beginning and an end.  Linguistic processing is accelerated when each word creates realistic expectations about upcoming words.  Moreover, the context-dependent probability of a word tells us something about how important or meaningful it is.  Totally predictable continuations add little (although an unexpected end might actually be more meaningful).  The unexpected content tends to attract deeper processing.  If this is accurate, one could use probability theory to analyze the semantic density of any string of words.  However, linguistic processing is not totally Pavlovian.  Research on classical conditioning eventually uncovered a processing called backward conditioning, which has a different kind of effect.  A backward conditioned response may actually indicate that the event is over rather than upcoming, inhibiting the response rather than facilitating it.  In contrast, you can try to read an obscured sentence that has every other letter replaced with a dash, and you will notice that some words become clear after you have moved on from them.  I take this as evidence that working memory can hold a dozen words simultaneously, allowing for simultaneous processing rather than the sequential kind of processing studied by Pavlov.

grammatical cycles:

My word for sentences, prepositional phrases, participle phrases, introductory phrases, dependent clauses, etc.