circadian rhyme wrote: > Warlord writes: > I reiterate the opinion that syntax and "official correctness" are > secondary objectives to getting ones *meaning* across to the recipient. > > I am curious how you propose to get one's meaning across to the > recipient if you're not using a common syntax and spelling/pronunciation. > > rone In Shakespeare's time it was considered a sign of intelligence if you could spell words in many different ways; syntax abuses are quite common in artistic writing. They even have names...synecdoche is where one uses a part of what you are speaking of to replace the whole. (An example: "They sent my lover's tallness off to war.") Strictly speaking, if one is trying to convey meaning, these abuses obfuscate intent, yet they make the language more beautiful and the meaning somehow gets across anyway. In fact, Steven Brust often tortures syntax: it is more efficient for communication to use short sentences, ones that have no clauses in them, Steve, though, uses lots and lots of clauses; perhaps--just perhaps--that's the artistic, purposeful way he writes, but, in reality, I think that's the nature of the way artistic humans think--they use clauses because their thoughts are nested, connected, and layered. Of course, this last sentence-paragraph of mine doesn't come anywhere close to the first sentence of _To Reign in Hell_. :) -Jason