> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Derleth [mailto:derleth at MIT.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 14:00 > To: circadian rhyme > Cc: SKZB List > Subject: Re: Question about Devera > > > 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_. :) > I believe DDB said it best a while back: "I think you are done when there are no longer any prepositions within shouting distance of the ends of independent clauses, no?" W ( who loves shouting at independent clauses )