Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxq!ken From: ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: re: flammable vs. inflammable and Strunk & White Message-ID: <606@ihuxq.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 15:24:30 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxq.606 Posted: Tue Feb 7 15:24:30 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:11:50 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 32 -- >>> I suppose I should add that the reason I have no urge to get a copy of >>> Strunk & White is that I have little regard for such "manuals of style", mainly >>> because I find that most entries in such are the result of some person's warped >>> view of aesthetics rather than simple reasoning. (I was absolutely thrilled (oh, >>> frabjous day!) when I found out that a few years ago, it was decided that ending >>> a sentence with a preposition was acceptable.) Just out of curiosity, could those >>> of you who use Strunk & White explain why you find it to be a reasonable set of >>> guidelines? "Strunk & White" is not only a manual of style, it is a short, succinct, and delightful piece of prose. It is the work of literate, orderly minds and a thing of joy forever. Read it. If you yourself are literate, you will agree. If you are not literate, then it makes no difference--you need it. Dictionaries are fine. We need them, too. But they only give us the tokens of the language and a soupcon of the syntax. They can't help much with semantics. Semantics is hard. Most compilers of even simple languages can't diagnose semantic errors. After all, English lets us put all sorts of words, even syllables, end-to-end and make perfectly legal, grammatically correct constructions. Unfortunately, it does not always let us mean something by doing so. That's why. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 07 Feb 84 [18 Pluviose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***