bwat wrote:
Nanohedron wrote:
You're demanding syntactical rigor in a virtual Pub
In the absence of any mind reading skills I demand it everywhere!
I think there's a lot to be said for flexibility. In many languages, including English, there can be numerous ways to say the same thing; in effect, syntax merely functions as a shell. Some shells are stronger than others; some are simpler where others are more ornate. Some are even mischaracterized: for example, some people call mussels clams. But in the end it hardly matters, for if you want sustenance, be it cockle, spondylus, or misnamed, the sensible thing is to recognize the shell as only a shell, and go for what's within. What's left is discards, fodder for the midden heap; otherwise as far as the stomach's concerned, taxonomy is crucial only to the naturalist. Putting aside molluscular analogies, syntax's greatest use, and playground, is in the
art of writing.
"The dog chased the rabbit", "The rabbit was chased by the dog", "The rabbit fled for its life with a dog close behind", and "A dog and rabbit raced by, hunter and quarry" are all syntactically different, but the fundamental meaning remains the same.
Ah, the delights of thread drift...