I started a hijack in this thread and was admonished to start a new one so here it is.
In the above linked thread kanicbird said:
I responded:
I’ll admit in one sense that I agree that the more ways one has to express themself the better. That said I think having a strong understanding of the rules of language are not a hindrance but an aid to good communication.
I simply cannot imagine the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence (just to name two examples) would have been improved if they added
The Gettysburg address wasn’t a piece of text, it was a speech, wasn’t it?
That is, it’s a different form of communication, in which tone of voice, pauses, even the posture of the speaker communicated things which aren’t written on the page.
…exactly like emoticons are intended to do.
I mean, if I finish this post with this: :rolleyes:, the whole tone of the post changes. Or I could end it with :), which is more indicative of my intended tone, one of friendly engagement, not dismissiveness or perceived superiority.
Also, anyone who wishes, to hold up Abraham Lincoln, as a model, of English usage, owes it to him, or herself, to read some of his writings, many of which are available online, and see how often, he uses the comma.
Are you sure? I can’t read it without that “Lincolney” voice in my head (which isn’t Lincoln, of course, but an amalgam of actors I’ve heard recite the piece over the years.) I know - or think I know - the tone of voice, the pauses, etc. that Lincoln meant to be in there. But, y’know, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe Lincoln really sounded like Gilbert Gottfried.
Emoticons have their place. That place probably isn’t in high literature, no. I don’t think Wuthering Heights would be any better if Cathy threw in a few :smack:es. (Although she ought to have :smack:ed herself, of course!)
But for real time (or nearly so) informal communication like this message board, yes, I certainly do think they improve communication. I’m not going to sit here and reread my post 53 times, proofreading out any ambiguities, adjusting for connotation, asking an editor to review it for clarity. These things are important for published works, and they help to ensure that (at least most of the time) the author’s intent is what the reader picks up.
On a message board, that kind of refinement would mean the thread would leave me far behind. Besides, it’s a two-way communication. If my tone or meaning is unclear, readers can ask me to clarify.
Internet/texting shorthand isn’t a shortcut to communication if you’re talking about published works, no. But it most certainly is a shortcut to communication if you’re talking about real time electronic communication, just as tone, posture and facial expression are shortcuts to communication if you’re speaking in person, but tiresome exposition if explicitly described over and over again in a novel.
Did that diminish his writing? Admittedly I am not well read when it comes to Lincoln but I have always been fond of the Gettysburg Address as a piece of writing. Indeed I consider it a stellar example of what good writing can achieve. Just IMHO though.
No, I don’t either. I didn’t read the other thread, so was just responding to this one.
To kanicbird’s point (assuming you’re repeating it correctly) I’d say that good writing is like jazz: you need to learn the rules to learn when to disregard them and make art.
Music with no form is noise. Music with form that intentionally breaks away from that form with purpose and grace is art.
Writing with no form is gibberish. Writing with form that intentionally breaks away from that form with purpose and grace is art.
He uses the comma, in a manner consistent with the practice of his time, which was, a great deal more often, than is now the case, and can make reading, his writings from the time, though perhaps the Gettysburg Address itself does not suffer egregiously from this, rather difficult.
See, for instance, his speech, given in chambers of Congress, concerning President Polk’s cited casus belli, which Lincoln judged fraudulent, for the war with Mexico:
That’s a silly position, given that these were are remain speeches. The commas are, and do indeed, add to the spoken effect by specifying pauses. The faqct that custom and even media changes does not in any way change the deep power of his words, and those who fail to see the absolute brilliance of his rheoteric are sadly bound by the chains of faddism.
This is to my point. Children are inhibited in taking a artful form of language by threat of a bad grade, which could be imposed arbitrary, sometimes the teacher may let it go or may not, which adds to the confusion which tends towards conformity and the loss of creativity.
And the Gettysburg address does have ‘emoticons’, we all know them, we’ve heard it and seen it, we know the tone and inflection of the voice, when Abe pounds the podium, we know the emotion behind each and every sentence because we have all heard it, which is a much different form then written communications without emoticons.
A contemporary account of Lincoln’s voice. Well, a couple years after Lincolns death actually, but still written while he was within living memory.
Lincoln’s voice was, when he first began speaking, shrill, squeaking, piping, unpleasant; his general look, his form, his pose, the color of his flesh, wrinkled and dry, his sensitiveness, and his momentary diffidence, everything seemed to be against him, but he soon recovered.
a letter from William H. Herndon written on July 19, 1887
Personally, this description leaves me thinking ‘helium’.
