The exchange at Pretty Lady's post Grammar Patrol has me flipping and flopping. Am I wrong in seeing an essential conservative/liberal root to all this?
Isn't communication the fundamental goal? I suppose details like the many meanings of "reification" is essential to someone like me who treats abstractions as if they were concrete, (and I'm talking about day to day abstractions like why paper money has value as well as how the emoticon ;) functions as a knowing wink) but isn't there an element of fascism, exclusion, or denial of entropy to some of these rules?
Remember this e-mail?:
O lny srmat poelpe can raed tihs. cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at CmabrigdeUinervtisy, it deosnt mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses itll raed wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
On a related tangent, read about Oregon's plain language bill:
"The bill calls on all executive branch agencies to begin writing forms, manuals, letters, e-mails and other communications in the plain-language standard of communication.
Plain language means short, easy-to-understand sentences, everyday language and documents designed to be easily read and understood. More simply, it means an end to the confusing bureaucratic and legal jargon that plagues our government documents and forms."And back to the exchange at Pretty Lady, I find myself thinking of O'Reilly's Blogger Code of Conduct. Meaning and nuance are to be danced with, not resolved. That was some good readin'. Thanks especially to Fish or Cut Bait's staff members Chris and Jacques.