6 ms·
It would be a net benefit for everyone if people stopped believing San Francisco was some kind of "technology/business mecca" or something. We need budding tec
by caitp 13y ago
It would be a net benefit for everyone if people stopped believing San Francisco was some kind of "technology/business mecca" or something.
We need budding tech sectors all over the world, and we don't need everyone trying to move to California (and a lot of us frankly don't want to move to California, to begin with).
California doesn't offer anything which can't be found elsewhere.
- lutusp 13y ago> California doesn't offer anything which [sic] can't be found elsewhere. Except a self-referential belief that California is where it's happening. Also: s/which/that/
- hdevalence 13y agoThere's absolutely nothing wrong with the quoted sentence -- this which-hunting is a ridiculous exercise in 'gotcha grammar' completely divorced from the facts about how the language is spoken. See, for instance, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5479 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5479 .
- lutusp 13y ago> There's absolutely nothing with the quoted sentence Well, you're consistent, and let me adopt your style: the above sentence missing word.
- Goladus 13y agoThis grammar policing is not necessary or helpful to the discussion.
- lutusp 13y agoI'm amazed by programmers who welcome the discovery of a misplaced semicolon but who object to the report of an egregious grammatical error, especially given the fact that both traits affect their employability.
- djur 13y agowhich/that is not even an error, much less an egregious one.
- lutusp 13y ago> which/that is not even an error, much less an egregious one. On the contrary: http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
- djur 13y agoI don't think that outweighs the evidence from Language Log clearly showing that "which" has been commonly used interchangeably with "that" in good English for centuries. This was linked earlier in the thread. Personally, I'm going to go with Dickens and Melville and Orwell (and statistical evidence) over a blog I've never heard of.
- Goladus 13y agoThis is a comment thread. The language is informal, spontaneous, largely unedited, and participants come from a variety of language backgrounds. There are going to be grammar differences and mistakes. You clearly understood the author, as did I and probably everyone else who read the comment. The objection was superfluous. When the commenter took offense and argued, the polite thing would have been to back down gracefully, since the point is entirely unrelated to the greater discussion. Picking on the missed-word typo is just a childish dig.
- hdevalence 13y agoEdited, thanks. There is, of course, a difference between occasional errors and the way in which millions of competent English speakers use their language, but I'm sure you're aware of the distinction.
- lutusp 13y agoI just think it's funny that programmers, acutely aware of the consequences of small code syntax errors, seem peculiarly indifferent to much more significant errors in their English prose. And yes, I'm aware that many "errors" can be defended as conscious choices. But most of them are neither intentional nor contribute to effective communication.
- Goladus 13y agoThe English prose used in comment threads like this is written natural language. Programming languages are formal languages. Different treatment should not be surprising. For further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Problem...