Re: Wikipedia entry on XyWrite

[Carl Distefano cld@xxxxxxxx]

Reply to note from "Patricia M. Godfrey"  Sat,
14 Jun 2008 14:28:50 -0400

> > Also, conventions change with time. They... evolve
>
> That's what everyone says when I try to maintain a standard.
> But to argue that all change is good is as silly as to argue
> that all change (in language or anything else) is bad. The
> question is does the change serve the ends of whatever is
> changing? (Of course, if you don't think anything has an end--
> Greek Telos--that's a dumb question; but most of us, in
> practice if not in theory, act on the assumption that human
> activities are purposeful.) And if a linguistic (or
> punctuational) pattern has evolved so as to permit greater
> precision, to let it evolve in the direction of _less_
> precision seems counterproductive. So don't just tell me
> "Everybody does it; it's the Spirit of the Age" ("...and
> worship the Event, the goddess history/ Whom your fathers named
> the strumpet Fortune." C. S. Lewis). Show me how it adds
> precision or clarity or even evocativeness to the language.

Agreed. No question. I was merely suggesting that when one more or
less arbitrary convention is replaced by another (dots versus
dashes, for example), there is nothing to get exercised about.
(Although, in fact, this has not happened in the case of the em dash
and the ellipsis. They aren't interchangeable.) But surely there's
no doubt that having *some* mark to indicate a pause, hesitation,
and the like adds evocativeness to the language. And clarity,
insofar as to omit the mark would change or obscure the meaning.

Anyway... to go back on topic, I have a vague recollection that the
Wikipedia article on XyWrite used to read a lot better than it does
now. I'd love to see it revamped, and I wish I had time to
contribute to that effort. But, for the forseeable future, I don't.

--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxx