Re: 'Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray' - questions

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:39:05 -0700, moviePig wrote:

On Jul 2, 5:05 pm, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:58:45 -0700, moviePig wrote:

...
If
we were to abandon the writer's responsibility to have what he writes meet
the reader at least half-way, then we'd literally have nothing but
scratches on a page, or the equivalent of a monkey pounding on keys for
electronic communication.

Of course.

Really? Because agreeing with that statement pretty much means you were
wrong when you wrote:
It's not sentences that are correct or incorrect, but.merely their
interpretations; sentences are but scratches on a page.

Since that statement absolves the writer of *all* responsibility.

Responsibility, schmesponsibility... there's no truant officer here.
The writer has only the wish to be understood, and the formalities of
language are only a tool towards that. His 'responsibility' is to
himself, that his efforts should bear fruit.

None of that contradicts what I wrote. If a writer's responsibility is to
his own wish to be understood, then misusing the tools available to *be*
understood are a disservice to *himself*, as well as to others.

But, apart from grammatical nitpicking, this discussion is
about where 'halfway' is ...

The "halfway" point is writing according to the standard and accepted forms
of spelling and grammar, and using the standard and accepted definitions of
words, as well as providing the necessary context. If those are lacking,
one can't fault the reader for misunderstanding.

Actually, I'm faulting the reader for *dis*understanding (...i.e., for
refusing to venture further than he believes to be "halfway").

Venturing "further than halfway" is interpreting a meaning from a sentence
that is other than what is written. Let's take trotsky's sentence as an
example. When I read the sentence I:

1) Took it to mean what it was written to mean, which was nonsensical.
This is the half-way point. I then ventured further and..
2) Assumed that what he wrote was not what he *meant*. This is a pretty
large leap to make in any ordinary situation, and only done so because it's
more likely that he wrote incorrectly than it is that he's a lunatic, but
only slightly more likely. I then..
3) Substituted my own interpretation of what I *thought* trotsky might've
meant*when he wrote it, which is again risky, because while I created an
interpretation that made sense, it might not have been what trotsky
actually *meant*. Apparently trotsky didn't feel that my interpretation
was correct in determining what he meant either, since he disagreed with me
for numerous subsequent posts.

If a reader can't trust that what is *written* is what is *meant*, then one
has to descend into a subjective world of guesswork, which can lead to many
negative results. That a few people were successfully able to navigate his
unclear language doesn't make his original writing correct.

For example:
sfga tyrwa fgs hjoajkb fjsoujn d apoijfs mdapoiuen d pwajapjd gjklnad
hosgnlh tepusphf shfoh

If you can decipher that sentence in the next 700 years, then I'll concede
the argument.

But, given sufficient background, I perhaps *could* decipher it...

*What* sufficient background?

The language you're speaking, if any.

I wasn't "speaking" any language, and I wasn't writing in any either. That
you presumed I *was* writing in a language shows that a reader does expect
*some* degree of effort on the writer's part to be understood, and is
attempting to write more than "chicken scratches on a page" that are
neither "correct nor incorrect" and solely the reader's responsibility to
read correctly.

Foremost, however, one should be at the mercy of the standard and
accepted forms of spelling, grammar, and writing.

Not in a million years. *Foremost*, one should speak truthfully and
usefully.

"Usefully" being the operative word here. Writing in a way that is
unclear, and in a way contrary to the rules the majority of us use to read
and write, is not useful.

The next time the instructions accompanying your new Walkperson are
printed in risible pidgin English, do throw them immediately onto the
pyre of things that aren't useful...

Ah, so you're on trotsky's binary mindset now, where things are either
*completely* useful, or not useful *at all*. A sentence written may both
contain information that is useful, and written in a way that is not useful
in discerning that information. If the manual is written so ineptly that a
meaning can't be discerned from it, then it *should* be thrown away, as
it's no better than garbage.

Here's the cited headline (...first thing on the page):

Blu-ray Software Sales Surpass HD-DVD

What qualifiers are you referring to?

The word "Blu-ray" before the word "software." If the headline had said:

Software Sales Surpass HD-DVD

Then that'd be a vague and hard to understand headline, and thus incorrect.
*What* software surpassed HD DVD? DVD software? Digital downloads? *All*
software? The idea of qualifiers is so natural to the way most of us write
that you seem unable to see them when they're right in front of you. It's
those sort of qualifiers that trotsky's post was sorely lacking in.

"*Sorely* lacking" the word 'Blu-Ray' before the word
'software'? ...in a thread titled "Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray"? Does
not compute.

Careful, now you're *really* turning into trotsky. The word "software" was
used in a thread with "Blu-Ray" in the title. However, I highly doubt you
think that trotsky was only referring to Blu-Ray software. He used the
word "software" in the context of a thread that mentioned BD, HD DVD, DVD,
and downloads, *all* forms of software, and unless he specified *what*
specific forms of software he was referring to, he was referring to *all*
of them, *including* downloads, which thus made his sentence, as written,
nonsensical.

-Jay
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CD Music Format
    ... I've done technical writing. ... I'm damn careful to ensure that what I say is clear and tight; I work to make what I write as easy as possible for the reader to understand. ... English is a confusing language because the rules aren't consistent -- one reason for this is that England was invaded at times by folks who spoke different languages -- all of which wound up in the same stewpot. ...
    (rec.audio.misc)
  • Re: Fantasy v SF sensibility
    ... But not to judge if the story is good or if the writing is. ... conventions within each genre, but those two override the genres. ... If a story doesn't work for a reader, ... can *do* with language - which means that an interesting plot, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Olly?
    ... than foul language and insults. ... stifled' by a husband jingles (injecting a little ... that responsibility. ... Under our laws, however, if a man fathers a child he is responsible also for that child's support. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Olly?
    ... than foul language and insults. ... stifled' by a husband jingles (injecting a little ... that responsibility. ... Under our laws, however, if a man fathers a child he is responsible also for that child's support. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... sentences are but scratches on a page. ... Since that statement absolves the writer of *all* responsibility. ... one can't fault the reader for misunderstanding. ... The idea of qualifiers is so natural to the way most of us write ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)