> The title, as presented here, is nothing spectacular, but it's not necessarily inadequate to the task.
I just see too many uses of "There used to be", which to me is a crude way to concatenate two stock phrases without reflection, but in a awkward way that grates on my ear. Also I think Strunk & White's concision emphasis still rings true.
> I also wondered why you might go with "There once were" rather than "There were once"?
Voicing the candidates shows the difference. I imagine speaking anything I write, which reveals phrasings that would be hard to say out loud.
> We all have our own pet peeves, though. I weep at the loss of the subjunctive in English (For most usages it's "I wish I WERE there", not "I wish I WAS there", dammit!!!)
I have a funny story about that. A depressed child enters the kitchen and says, "I wish I was dead!" The child's mother says, "Oh no! Not that! Don't you mean 'I wish I were dead'?" :)
> Also, the "all now gone" phrase in your alternate strikes me as somewhat awkward.
Perhaps, but in my view not compared to "They all disappeared," which suggests proactive agency (did they run away?) rather than passive fate.
'Perhaps, but in my view not compared to "They all disappeared," which suggests proactive agency (did they run away?) rather than passive fate'
Ah, I see your point. Sadly I think a generation or two of teachers maniacally chastising their students for ever using the passive form could have something to do with this.
Even in this forum, you'll find plenty of people saying that all writing need be direct, simple, and brief. There's virtue in that for quick memoranda, but to say that there's no place in the world for complex, abstract writing or the expression of nuance in careful word choice (as you describe) is a real shame. Too often I've been corrected by people who say "you mean 'I wish I _was_' because the subject is singular".
There's some evidence that language is what makes abstract thought even possible. Perhaps we're leaving our minds unable to comprehend abstractions when we reduce that available in our language. More discussion is at https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/21/life-without-langua....
Or maybe I just need to get over it. I overcame my violent aversion to starting sentences with "or" and "and", after all.
Just want to say that what I feared was going to be an angry grammar-nazi-stand-off was actually a pleasant, friendly, and informative discussion of the possibilities of language usage in different contexts. Cheers for keeping your heads, all.
> There's virtue in that for quick memoranda, but to say that there's no place in the world for complex, abstract writing or the expression of nuance in careful word choice (as you describe) is a real shame.
Yes, I agree. Einstein was supposed to have said something to the effect that if we can't explain something in a few words, then we don't really understand it. I think he said that before creating general relativity, which can't be explained in a few words. :)
> There's some evidence that language is what makes abstract thought even possible.
Yes, or in any case some abstract notation scheme, some organizing/categorizing symbol set. Like mathematics, which is more than its notation but that (for most people) can't be sustained without the notation.
Apropos, did you know pure math notation can support jokes? Here's my favorite:
8i = ∞
> I overcame my violent aversion to starting sentences with "or" and "and", after all.
In the 1970s I noticed Texas Instruments beginning certain advertising promotional sentences with "And." I saw it as a way to add emphasis to what might otherwise have been a series of short sentences; phrases partitioned with semicolons and other similar devices. So I started using it. And never gave it up. :)
By the way, I stole the earlier "writing/typing" meme from Truman Capote, who supposedly said it about some of his contemporaries whom he regarded as hacks.
>I overcame my violent aversion to starting sentences with "or" and "and", after all.
This alone interested me in advanced English. Learning via reading all these comments and blog posts, I rarely realize that I'm learning from non-native speakers.
Interestingly non-native speakers will sometimes have a better handle on usages which are declining in English-speaking countries. I understood when to use "whom" much better after studying Wer, Wen, and Wem in German.
I just see too many uses of "There used to be", which to me is a crude way to concatenate two stock phrases without reflection, but in a awkward way that grates on my ear. Also I think Strunk & White's concision emphasis still rings true.
> I also wondered why you might go with "There once were" rather than "There were once"?
Voicing the candidates shows the difference. I imagine speaking anything I write, which reveals phrasings that would be hard to say out loud.
> We all have our own pet peeves, though. I weep at the loss of the subjunctive in English (For most usages it's "I wish I WERE there", not "I wish I WAS there", dammit!!!)
I have a funny story about that. A depressed child enters the kitchen and says, "I wish I was dead!" The child's mother says, "Oh no! Not that! Don't you mean 'I wish I were dead'?" :)
> Also, the "all now gone" phrase in your alternate strikes me as somewhat awkward.
Perhaps, but in my view not compared to "They all disappeared," which suggests proactive agency (did they run away?) rather than passive fate.