The lessons for getting started are quite standard. First, you need three books or, now, Web sites, one for each of a good English dictionary, a good English grammar, and a good book on rhetoric. For a dictionary, sure, something by, say, Webster's. For grammar, something used in senior English in high school or freshman English in college. For rhetoric, sure, Strunk and White, The Elements of Style. Not nearly new stuff. For more, The Chicago Manual of Style can provide clear answers to some tricky questions, good answers not easy to find elsewhere. Then you iterate: (1) You write…
There are the people who make technology, and then there are those who write about it. I've rarely seen both in one person, as each side requires a level of focus and dedication that would do the other side an injustice. HN in my perspective, is mostly a PR site for technologists trying to push their brand/personality with some bigger agenda. I've seen a lot of people develop their brand/persona on HN and blogs before trying to push out some tech company. 3 such people come to mind. To be fair, I'm probably no different, except that I dont post here (yet) -- just consume and…
My main profession has been a writer...and since joining HN, I've probably written 10x more words on these comment boards than for any other forum or published medium. I can't say that I'm actively trying to practice...but discussion here is (usually) so enjoyable that it's easy to get in the habit...just like playing recreational soccer for fun can often be a better way to get in shape than a dedicated running regimen. If English and writing is not something you've been able to devote yourself to, I would recommend something in addition to frequent commenting: pick up a copy of "The…
It makes texts easier to read. Grammar is not about readability nor meaning nor pleasure, it is purely about syntax. Analogy is that syntactically correct code does not imply maintainability nor means the code is pleasant to work with. Plenty of good writer followed those rules. Many of people break those rules and create completely crappy text. In here, few writers are cherry picked as examples why long sentences are fine - most of those sentences are for purely emotional hit and frankly, none of those sentences came across as somehow all that much awesome to me. They are the kind of…
Now that's new. All the objections I've heard so far, from Pullum and from you, were about the fact that the rules stated by Strunk & White are not rules of grammar and are often violated by good writers including the authors, etc. As I've said, that is a nonsensical objection that rests on a misunderstanding of what a style guide is. But what you seem to be saying now is that if someone follows the recommendations of S&W (and in the way intended by a style guide, i.e. not blindly), their writing will amount to "bad style". Now we're actually discussing style (matters of taste), not grammar…
Pullum (the author of the above) keeps criticizing Strunk's The Elements of Style (a style guide) for its rules not being rules of grammar, when the whole point of a style guide is to state opinions in cases where both alternatives are in fact grammatically correct, except that the author prefers one less. This activity of Pullum's is very strange, as he has written a book of grammar and is presumably capable of seeing that Strunk & White is not in the same category. And in fact many of the claims Pullum makes about Strunk & White do not hold up to the slightest scrutiny: take for example…
Quote from the article: ----------------------- "What concerns me is that the bias against the passive is being retailed by a pair of authors so grammatically clueless that they don't know what is a passive construction and what isn't. Of the four pairs of examples offered to show readers what to avoid and how to correct it, a staggering three out of the four are mistaken diagnoses. "At dawn the crowing of a rooster could be heard" is correctly identified as a passive clause, but the other three are all errors: "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" has no sign of…
Pullum makes some good points -- his objection to the irrelevant distinction between 'that' and 'which' is apt -- but I believe that his starkly opinionated denunciation reeks of silly academic spleen and ultimately mischaracterizes this concise, helpful, and even beautiful little book. First, although Pullum inveighs against Strunk and White, he tends to direct his barbs not toward the book itself, but toward writing teachers. For example: "Sadly, writing tutors tend to ignore this moderation, and simply red-circle everything that looks like a passive...." This mode of criticism is…
Geoffrey Pullum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Pullum knows what he is talking about. "What concerns me is that the bias against the passive is being retailed by a pair of authors so grammatically clueless that they don't know what is a passive construction and what isn't. Of the four pairs of examples offered to show readers what to avoid and how to correct it, a staggering three out of the four are mistaken diagnoses. 'At dawn the crowing of a rooster could be heard' is correctly identified as a passive clause, but the other three are all errors: "* 'There were a great…
>If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with. I couldn't agree more. In fact, I find that my own prose has benefited greatly from reading those who write well. >This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack. Your point is well taken, however your characterization ("Everything is wrong") is even more extreme than what Pullum said in the piece you linked. He said "almost everything is wrong." What's more, all the links you posted…