Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
konerko14

?Is this a better way to use punctuation.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I think sentences are generally short enough that you see the punctuation pretty quickly. Unless maybe you're talking about Hemingway.

;)

Hemingway used rather short sentences generally. Or is that what you meant?

Immanuel Kant would be a better example. With his cr*p its better to scan to the end of a sentence and observe the punctuaton, even if its just to catch your breath. :lol:

!And OBSERVE: !you are all continuing to use smileys at the end of the sentences :huh:

Brandon.

Edited by Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
?Should we make this a new standard for the forum ;)

Absolutely not. :lol:

Seriously, look at the forum rules konerko14, there is a standard set for the forum:

"Respect your reader by following the rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style."

To present a thread about punctuation is one thing, okay, but going around into other threads using it, thinking that it will somehow "catch on" is very disrespectful, to say the least.

So respect your reader and...STOP IT. I'm with Inspector on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry. I didnt realize I was doing something wrong. I actually still dont see it- my previous post makes sense to me(grammatically).
Intonation is a property of speech, not writing, so given that you didn't post a WAV file of you uttering your statement, it's guaranteed that I was speaking of how people talk, thus not you? Although I'd be happy to pass judgment on your speech?

Now I am slightly puzzled that you found my example of breaking with convention to be "hard to understand", when you yourself are advocating chucking out a well-established punctuation convention? I disagree that starting English sentences with question marks makes comprehension easier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the use of punctuation at the beginning of sentences in English to be irritating. My subconscious is programmed to accept the standard method. Instead of just reading your posts, I have to stop at every sentence and think, "okay, what the hell?"

My subconscious view towards punctuation has altered now that I constantly write my sentences a certain way. It seems completely normal and very refreshing to see a punctuation mark at the beginning of a sentence. I see a question mark and know right away its a question.

So, um, stop it.

Well I guess I have to now, dont I? Otherwise everyone will stop answering my questions. I have a feeling I would get blacklisted if I continued with my grammar style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, look at the forum rules konerko14, there is a standard set for the forum:

"Respect your reader by following the rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style."

You're a real party pooper, you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My subconscious view towards punctuation has altered now that I constantly write my sentences a certain way. It seems completely normal and very refreshing to see a punctuation mark at the beginning of a sentence. I see a question mark and know right away its a question.

But, regardless of its minor advantages, you have to ask yourself: Is it worth the trouble of reprogramming yourself? Does it add a benefit that is greater than the cost of changing?

Take, for example, the metric system. We don't have it here in the USA and we're damn proud of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, regardless of its minor advantages, you have to ask yourself: Is it worth the trouble of reprogramming yourself? Does it add a benefit that is greater than the cost of changing?

Youre right. When I thought of this new punctuation style, it was when I was reading a book and I didnt catch the tone of two or three sentences until I had already finished that line. And I thought, "theres got to be a better way." I was convinced that punctuation at the beginning of sentences would rid this problem. I forgot to ask myself, "But at what cost? Is it worth it?" Now I realize I very very rarely come across lines that I cant pickup on early in the sentence. I think I liked doing my new style a lot because it was my style, I felt like it enhanced my writing because it was unique. But that doesnt make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Youre right. When I thought of this new punctuation style, it was when I was reading a book and I didnt catch the tone of two or three sentences until I had already finished that line. And I thought, "theres got to be a better way." I was convinced that punctuation at the beginning of sentences would rid this problem. I forgot to ask myself, "But at what cost? Is it worth it?" Now I realize I very very rarely come across lines that I cant pickup on early in the sentence. I think I liked doing my new style a lot because it was my style, I felt like it enhanced my writing because it was unique. But that doesnt make it right.

That's a rather well-thought-out explanation and a clear way of looking at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, I think the traditional rule follows how English questions are differentiated in speech, as in by raising the tone at the end of the question

Yes, that's what I first thought of when I saw the thread title. You are writing down sounds, and it's the end of sentence where your voice changes for a question. At the start it's the same.

Edited by ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, regardless of its minor advantages, you have to ask yourself: Is it worth the trouble of reprogramming yourself? Does it add a benefit that is greater than the cost of changing?

Take, for example, the metric system. We don't have it here in the USA and we're damn proud of it.

Yet our physics books are metric (or to be more specific, S.I.)... It gets quite confusing. I'm not sure the gain is so small in the case of units (Wasn't there some space mission that failed because the US portion used feet and everyone else involved used meters?) that it wouldn't be worth the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take, for example, the metric system. We don't have it here in the USA and we're damn proud of it.

Take for example the QWERTY keyboard. It was designed to purposely slow down the typist so that the keys would not jam as often. Yet we still use it today even though other keyboard designs have won all the speed contests. Why? Because people are used to this system and do not want to change. The benefits of changing are high and the costs would be minimal (ie objectively a better technology) but people, myself included, are too lazy.

When Roark, designs a new style of building that is objectively better than traditional designs, he also faces the lazy drooling face of the masses who are too lazy to see the truth. When scientists developed the metric system with all of its objective benefits, they also face regular people who are "damn proud".

konerko14, if your new punctuation system is objectively better then you should stick with it as reality wins in the long run. However, I would submit to you that it is not better for the reasons I stated in Post #22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet our physics books are metric (or to be more specific, S.I.)... It gets quite confusing.
Isn't that an argument that the Euroheads should change to our system? The objective arguments for using metric are pretty thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take for example the QWERTY keyboard. It was designed to purposely slow down the typist so that the keys would not jam as often.

That's incorrect. It was designed to space commonly used letters away from each other so that they would not cross and jam when used in rapid succession. It was not designed to cripple the typist's speed.

The benefits of changing are high and the costs would be minimal (ie objectively a better technology) but people, myself included, are too lazy.
You are incorrect to characterize this as "lazyness." The objective benefit (theoretical and miniscule gains in typing speed) is not worth the cost of re-learing a skill that is mostly gained through LOTS of tedious practice.

When Roark, designs a new style of building that is objectively better than traditional designs, he also faces the lazy drooling face of the masses who are too lazy to see the truth. When scientists developed the metric system with all of its objective benefits, they also face regular people who are "damn proud".

This comparison is faulty enough as to cause one to wonder who is really the one who is drooling and lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, even if I accept that the benefit from using a more efficient keyboard is not worth it, I am not sure how you can argue that the metric system has minimal benefits, and even more puzzled by being proud of the old system.

From Toward a Metric America:

Q. Why should the United States convert to the metric system?

A. Since trade and communication with other nations is critical to the health of our economy, adopting the measurement system used by 95 percent of the world's population is not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity for the United States.

Q. Why didn't we convert before?

A. Support for a decimal-based measuring system has existed in the United States since the 1700s. However, there was no compelling reason to switch because of our geographical isolation and because our principal trading partner, England, did not use metric units. In time the United States became a dominant force in world trade and was able to impose its products, manufactured in their unconventional units, on other nations. Times have changed. We no longer overwhelmingly dominate world trade and must recognize the need to "fit" our goods and services into other strong markets, including the European Union, the new markets of Eastern Europe, and the expanding market of the Pacific Rim. These markets continually stress their preference for products and services based on the metric system of measurement.

Q. What are the advantages of conversion for U.S. industry?

A. During conversion to the metric system, U.S. companies are able simultaneously to streamline their operations, eliminate inefficiencies, and reduce their inventories. Because products destined for both foreign and domestic markets can be designed and manufactured to the same (metric) specifications, overlapping product lines can-be eliminated. The standardization of fasteners, components, and sub-assemblies increases the efficiency and productivity of all manufacturing processes. When firms convert fully to the metric system, they are often surprised to discover how much the conversion has increased their profits. "Converted" firms frequently report finding new customers for their new metric products and services.

Q. What are the educational benefits of completing the U.S. transition to the metric system?

A. A population that is highly skilled in math and science is essential for national economic and social progress. By completing the U.S. transition to the metric system, education and training in these key subjects will become much more efficient. Currently, huge blocks of time are spent learning and using cumbersome inch-pound measurements, including learning to manipulate inch-pound fractions and learning to make tedious conversions between metric and inch-pound units. Much of this time can be redirected toward more worthwhile endeavors. Opportunities for numerous additional curriculum improvements will surface when textbooks are revised to reflect the simpler metric system of units. Training at all levels, from elementary school through graduate-level engineering programs, will benefit from this important step forward. A workforce that is truly able to "speak" the metric measurement language will be better able to excel in the global marketplace.

I am obviously not arguing that government should force people to use the metric system, I am saying that educational institutions and businesses will convert to the metric system over time, as they already are doing, because the system has major benefits that will improve efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, even if I accept that the benefit from using a more efficient keyboard is not worth it, I am not sure how you can argue that the metric system has minimal benefits, and even more puzzled by being proud of the old system.
I am not proud of the system, I am proud of the fact that we do not jump when the mandarins of the world command it. And I am proud that we recognize that it is not automatically good to tear down an entire infrastructure simply because a new system is infinitesimally more efficient. This is a sign of prudence and wisdom.

I hope you realize how much fluff that is.

A. Since trade and communication with other nations is critical to the health of our economy, adopting the measurement system used by 95 percent of the world's population is not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity for the United States.

Pshaw! Who needs who? Is it a mere matter of head-count? A matter of that sickening sludge democracy? Bah! Instead of population, we should compare a measure of the world’s economy, and then perhaps see where the parties stand.

I won’t even bother responding to that tripe about education. To listen to that fellow go on, the skies would rain honeydew if we would but embrace this miracle.

I am obviously not arguing that government should force people to use the metric system, I am saying that educational institutions and businesses will convert to the metric system over time, as they already are doing, because the system has major benefits that will improve efficiency.

I have no quarrel with that. If men wish to stake their fortunes that the benefit is greater than the cost of conversion, then all power to them. If that should mean that they prosper and thus others rush to join them, then this is right and good.

But such is not the character of the metric system debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure how you can argue that the metric system has minimal benefits, and even more puzzled by being proud of the old system.
The argument that the metric system has minimal benefits is the fact that, in reality, it has minimal benefits. Your arguments are (1) internationalization -- countered by the fact that at worst that argues for including gram weights for exported products, which we already do, (2) again internationalization: asked and answered, (3) elimination of non-metric stock -- refuted by the fact that maintaining non-metric sizes will be needed anyhow for at least 100 years unless you propose that we throw out everything we have and rebuild civilization metrically (4) metric is somehow necessary for doing science -- but it isn't. No time is required to learn inches and pounds: I thought that aspect of the argument was particularly ignorant. What's interesting is that nobody complains about Celsius to Kelvin conversions, and yet scientists manage all the time.

I'm really surprised that the arguments for metric are so lousy. I thought that surely with all of those clever EU bullies out there, somebody would have actually cooked up a real argument for metric. I guess with computers, it's so trivial to do a conversion if you need that there really isn't a reason to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess with computers, it's so trivial to do a conversion if you need that there really isn't a reason to care.

I love it when that happens. In the end, our creative power gives us such wonders that we no longer need even deign to notice the petty demands of genuflection. In other words, while this one was still stuck in committee, the real men solved the problem and are already several miles down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metric is spreading, and I submit this is because of rational reasons to do with efficiency.

From Wikipedia:

Only the United States and the United Kingdom continue to see significant popular opposition to metrication, the main objections being based in localism, tradition, cultural aesthetics, economic impact, or distaste for measures viewed as "foreign".

These are highly irrational objections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Metric is spreading, and I submit this is because of rational reasons to do with efficiency.
But as we've seen there are no reasons having to do with efficiency. Your only argument is the "Everybody else is doing it" argument, which is nullified by the "If everybody else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too" counter-argument. The argument against conversion to metric is that it wold be an arbitrary action, one not based on any reason. Sure, you can act irrationally, without reason, if you want to, but if a person decides "I'm going to use reason as my basis for action", then what do you say to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are highly irrational objections.

Only the United States and the United Kingdom continue to see significant popular opposition to metrication, the main objections being based in localism, tradition, cultural aesthetics, economic impact, or distaste for measures viewed as "foreign".

<clears throat>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what our difference is here is on our assessment of the long term economic impact of converting to a metric system. I think we both agree that we should leave it up to businesses and individuals to decide.

In closing I would like to link to a funny story on CNN about an English engineering company using Imperial units of measurements while Nasa used metric units, causing the loss of a Mars orbiter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...