tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post3771634027191317288..comments2024-03-27T19:11:37.620-04:00Comments on You Don't Say: No man's landJohn McIntyrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03559687583130468871noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-66881247181962510142010-02-18T09:21:38.281-05:002010-02-18T09:21:38.281-05:00Yes!! YES!! Please continue to bring back archives...Yes!! YES!! Please continue to bring back archives from the Sun. You're a marvelous writer and I love your insights, lexical and otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-40203085698815335732010-02-06T02:09:00.262-05:002010-02-06T02:09:00.262-05:00Or, if you prefer, rearranging one's prejud...Or, if you prefer, rearranging one's prejudices to suit someone else's prejudices. Either way, it seems difficult to navigate one's way through the Jamesian pragmatists, et alii.Patricia the Tersenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-39763176580218871262010-02-05T11:27:01.262-05:002010-02-05T11:27:01.262-05:00I am indeed the "shizzle fo rizzle" McIn...I am indeed the "shizzle fo rizzle" McIntyre on Facebook,bestowed upon me by JoAnne Schmitz, a former <i>Sun</i> colleague. I kind of like "Jamesian pragamtist" a little better, but who am I to turn down distinctions?John McIntyrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03559687583130468871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-12568486011118787022010-02-05T10:59:49.093-05:002010-02-05T10:59:49.093-05:00Are you "the shizzle for rizzle" McIntyr...Are you "the shizzle for rizzle" McIntyre on Facebook? It says writer, but it could be another McIntyre writer. I'm a writer-proofreader at a Fortune 100 company, and it SO FRIGGIN annoying having project managers (on occasion) who probably flunked every English class they ever took, tell me to make a change because it doesn't "look right," or whatever. As a priest of punctuation, a saint of syntax, an emissary of American Enlish grammaticality, Mr. McIntyre: Is there a special place in publishing purgatory for these editorialogical dimwits?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-23618340653362108112010-02-05T10:33:08.732-05:002010-02-05T10:33:08.732-05:00Actually, you are a Jamesian pragmatist, a uniquel...Actually, you are a Jamesian pragmatist, a uniquely American thing to be! Old school, "starchy peevers" are making the classic mistake identified by James when he said, "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."Charles Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-25506207893734407072010-02-04T14:35:08.600-05:002010-02-04T14:35:08.600-05:00And that's the reason why I visit here...: to ...And that's the reason why I visit here...: to get what I get. :)Virginia Merchánnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-81653521768914780712010-02-04T09:42:29.779-05:002010-02-04T09:42:29.779-05:00John, your "middle ground" really resona...John, your "middle ground" really resonated with me. The point of language is for one person to share the ideas in her head with one or more people. To do that, you need to have common understandings of language. It's easier to get your meaning across when speaking, because you can get instant feedback. In casual writing, you may also get instant feedback; your audience generally knows you better as well, so you share more understandings (e.g., you share jargon, slang, or language ticks). But when you want to publish your thoughts, your audience is generally going to be larger and broader. They don't know you; they don't know how you think, how you usually share your ideas. At that point, you must rely on the more formal rules of language that we have in common to ensure your message gets across.<br />Language rules don’t exist for their own sake. They exist to ease communication, to help share a message, a meaning. When we hold on to rules just because they’re what we’ve always known, we avoid change. We must have guidelines, but we also must allow language to change to serve the individuals who speak it. The world we live and the people we are are not the same as, say, the world and the people from the Victorian Era. They didn’t have microwaves, computers, and other new inventions; they didn’t need the language to stretch to describe them. The horse and buggy are not much in use anymore and I’ve never had an occasion to wear a hoop skirt or a corset. Words to describe those things may be with us still, but they are rarely used. Language changes to suit the speakers. Life is change; so too must our language.Erin Brennerhttp://www.righttouchediting.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6051744883907551402.post-48833824927654713332010-02-04T09:26:34.983-05:002010-02-04T09:26:34.983-05:00You could never bore me utterly, Professor McIntyr...You could never bore me utterly, Professor McIntyre. Or any other way, for that matter.Lorettanoreply@blogger.com