The utter extermination of humanity, would be bad!
I hope you’re open to unexpected blunt criticism. This comma is wrong. This post has ten comma errors including repeated subject-verb splits.
Studying the craft of writing more, including comma rules, would materially help with your efforts to persuade people about AI risk.
I am absolutely not joking or trying to be a pedantic jerk. I wrote philosophy essays for over 15 years before I studied grammar. I wish I’d studied it earlier. Besides improving my writing, it ended up helping with text analysis, debate, and organizing my thoughts.
EDIT: To habryka, or anyone else who thinks the example comma in the quotation is correct: Why do you think that? Do you have a source for a rule which permits or requires it? It splits the subject (extermination) from the finite verb (would), similar to writing “Extermination, is bad.”
I think it’s very clearly wrong according to standard English grammar rules, but I also think that Eliezer knows that and is using the comma to simulate a conversational speaking cadence. In this case, it’s a pause for effect that emphasizes a sense of absurdity that this has to be said, in a way that “The utter extermination of humanity would be bad!” doesn’t.
It would be more grammatical to use an ellipsis (“The utter extermination of humanity… would be bad!”) but implies a slightly longer pause, which is probably less accurate to how Eliezer would say this out loud.
This kind of comma usage would be inappropriate for, say, a newspaper article, but I think it’s defensible for an informal persuasive essay.
I think it’s very clearly wrong according to standard English grammar rules, but I also think that Eliezer knows that
How did you reach that conclusion? The large number of comma errors in the essay (along with semi-colon errors and others) suggest to me that he doesn’t know. I don’t think they’re all deliberate stylistic choices. Many of the broken rules are widely followed, uncontroversial, and infrequently broken on purpose.
judging by the number of upvotes on Eliezer’s post (and all the rest of his posts, for that matter), it seems like most people on LessWrong don’t find this writing style difficult or annoying
Yes, on balance, people at LessWrong like his posts. I wouldn’t have finished reading RAZ, HPMOR and IE if his writing didn’t have virtues. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. My suggestion was intended to primarily help with less receptive audiences, not LessWrong members.
If you simulate speaking the sentence, the comma changes the cadence in a way that adds emphasis. This may not comply with every style guide, but it does made the sentence better (imo).
To habryka, or anyone else who thinks the example comma in the quotation is correct: Why do you think that? Do you have a source for a rule which permits or requires it? It splits the subject (extermination) from the finite verb (would), similar to writing “Extermination, is bad.”
Others have answered why the comma does work.
My relationship to “rules” of writing or “rules” of grammar is approximately the same as my relationship to “rules of dining etiquette”. If the reader understands what you are trying to say, you wrote “correctly”. There is no “wrong” beyond that.
(This is also the position of most linguists, as it I think becomes very quickly very obvious if you study how people actually use writing and language in practice)
If the reader understands what you are trying to say, you wrote “correctly”. There is no “wrong” beyond that.
(This is also the position of most linguists [...])
Most linguists are descriptivists. There’s a common misconception that descriptivists don’t believe in wrong answers. Actually, they scientifically observe real communities and describe their use of language. Each of those communities has rules (often unwritten and inexplicit) for what is correct or incorrect. Children commonly make incorrect but understandable statements and are corrected. Descriptivism says every English dialect is valid instead of privileging some communities over others. Written English is a somewhat different matter. Punctuation isn’t spoken and its rules aren’t reducible to aspects of spoken English.
Why Descriptivists Are Usage Liberals (“[descriptivists] make observations about what the language is rather than state opinions about how we’d like it to be.” and “But no matter how many times we insist that “descriptivism isn’t ‘anything goes’”, people continue to believe that we’re all grammatical anarchists and linguistic relativists, declaring everything correct and saying that there’s no such thing as a grammatical error.”)
Stephen Dodson of languagehat commenting on “The New Yorker vs. the descriptivist specter” by Ben Zimmer (“descriptivism in the linguistic sense has nothing to do with spelling or style (in the “do commas go inside or outside quotes?” sense); those things are arbitrary/conventional and are decided by reference to dictionaries and style guides, respectively. [...] That issue has nothing to do with grammar and spoken usage, which is what descriptivism addresses, and it’s a disservice to clear thinking and honest discussion to pretend it does.”)
The Linguistics of Punctuation (Argues that punctuation is its own system, not a derivative system corresponding to intonation or pauses.)
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (“we do not find social variation between standard and non-standard [punctuation] such as we have in grammar: [...] [no] repertory of variants that are used in a consistent way by one social group but not by another. Moreover, the style contrast between formal and informal is of relatively limited relevance to punctuation.” Gives punctuation rules including “a strong prohibition on punctuation separating subject and verb”.)
EDIT:
It is plausible to me that some linguists are desriptivists about spoken language but not about written language, but that seems very rare.
You missed my point, so I’ll say it more plainly: You’re objectively, factually wrong about the position of most linguists, including about spoken language. I provided sources and quotes. The specific misconception you have is a well known source of frustration to linguists which they have repeatedly complained about.
Written English is a somewhat different matter. Punctuation isn’t spoken and its rules aren’t reducible to aspects of spoken English.
It is plausible to me that some linguists are desriptivists about spoken language but not about written language, but that seems very rare. And dialects of written language as commonly spoken on internet forums, or text messages, are of course just as common as spoken dialects.
Let people communicate how they want. If people actually genuinely end up confused, you can complain.
I disagree with @habryka’s literal statement that “If the reader understands what you are trying to say, you wrote ‘correctly’.” I think it’s correct in spirit though.
Some text is difficult but not impossible to understand, which I think should count as “wrong.” Some text is easy to understand but annoying to read, which is arguably also “wrong” if you didn’t mean to annoy your reader. It seems like Eliezer’s writing style annoyed you, which all else equal is a drawback.
But judging by the number of upvotes on Eliezer’s post (and all the rest of his posts, for that matter), it seems like most people on LessWrong don’t find this writing style difficult or annoying. And as I mentioned, these commas actually convey meaning (unlike “I goed to the store”), so I think it’s fine.
I hope you’re open to unexpected blunt criticism. This comma is wrong. This post has ten comma errors including repeated subject-verb splits.
Studying the craft of writing more, including comma rules, would materially help with your efforts to persuade people about AI risk.
I am absolutely not joking or trying to be a pedantic jerk. I wrote philosophy essays for over 15 years before I studied grammar. I wish I’d studied it earlier. Besides improving my writing, it ended up helping with text analysis, debate, and organizing my thoughts.
EDIT: To habryka, or anyone else who thinks the example comma in the quotation is correct: Why do you think that? Do you have a source for a rule which permits or requires it? It splits the subject (extermination) from the finite verb (would), similar to writing “Extermination, is bad.”
I think it’s very clearly wrong according to standard English grammar rules, but I also think that Eliezer knows that and is using the comma to simulate a conversational speaking cadence. In this case, it’s a pause for effect that emphasizes a sense of absurdity that this has to be said, in a way that “The utter extermination of humanity would be bad!” doesn’t.
It would be more grammatical to use an ellipsis (“The utter extermination of humanity… would be bad!”) but implies a slightly longer pause, which is probably less accurate to how Eliezer would say this out loud.
This kind of comma usage would be inappropriate for, say, a newspaper article, but I think it’s defensible for an informal persuasive essay.
Thank you for answering my question.
How did you reach that conclusion? The large number of comma errors in the essay (along with semi-colon errors and others) suggest to me that he doesn’t know. I don’t think they’re all deliberate stylistic choices. Many of the broken rules are widely followed, uncontroversial, and infrequently broken on purpose.
Yes, on balance, people at LessWrong like his posts. I wouldn’t have finished reading RAZ, HPMOR and IE if his writing didn’t have virtues. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. My suggestion was intended to primarily help with less receptive audiences, not LessWrong members.
It was deliberate. It will not be modified. You can stop now.
If you simulate speaking the sentence, the comma changes the cadence in a way that adds emphasis. This may not comply with every style guide, but it does made the sentence better (imo).
Others have answered why the comma does work.
My relationship to “rules” of writing or “rules” of grammar is approximately the same as my relationship to “rules of dining etiquette”. If the reader understands what you are trying to say, you wrote “correctly”. There is no “wrong” beyond that.
(This is also the position of most linguists, as it I think becomes very quickly very obvious if you study how people actually use writing and language in practice)
Most linguists are descriptivists. There’s a common misconception that descriptivists don’t believe in wrong answers. Actually, they scientifically observe real communities and describe their use of language. Each of those communities has rules (often unwritten and inexplicit) for what is correct or incorrect. Children commonly make incorrect but understandable statements and are corrected. Descriptivism says every English dialect is valid instead of privileging some communities over others. Written English is a somewhat different matter. Punctuation isn’t spoken and its rules aren’t reducible to aspects of spoken English.
Sources:
What Descriptivism Is and Isn’t (“Even the most anti-prescriptivist linguist still believes in rules”)
Why Descriptivists Are Usage Liberals (“[descriptivists] make observations about what the language is rather than state opinions about how we’d like it to be.” and “But no matter how many times we insist that “descriptivism isn’t ‘anything goes’”, people continue to believe that we’re all grammatical anarchists and linguistic relativists, declaring everything correct and saying that there’s no such thing as a grammatical error.”)
Descriptivism isn’t “anything goes” (Says “I goed to the store” is incorrect.)
Stephen Dodson of languagehat commenting on “The New Yorker vs. the descriptivist specter” by Ben Zimmer (“descriptivism in the linguistic sense has nothing to do with spelling or style (in the “do commas go inside or outside quotes?” sense); those things are arbitrary/conventional and are decided by reference to dictionaries and style guides, respectively. [...] That issue has nothing to do with grammar and spoken usage, which is what descriptivism addresses, and it’s a disservice to clear thinking and honest discussion to pretend it does.”)
The Linguistics of Punctuation (Argues that punctuation is its own system, not a derivative system corresponding to intonation or pauses.)
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (“we do not find social variation between standard and non-standard [punctuation] such as we have in grammar: [...] [no] repertory of variants that are used in a consistent way by one social group but not by another. Moreover, the style contrast between formal and informal is of relatively limited relevance to punctuation.” Gives punctuation rules including “a strong prohibition on punctuation separating subject and verb”.)
EDIT:
You missed my point, so I’ll say it more plainly: You’re objectively, factually wrong about the position of most linguists, including about spoken language. I provided sources and quotes. The specific misconception you have is a well known source of frustration to linguists which they have repeatedly complained about.
It is plausible to me that some linguists are desriptivists about spoken language but not about written language, but that seems very rare. And dialects of written language as commonly spoken on internet forums, or text messages, are of course just as common as spoken dialects.
Let people communicate how they want. If people actually genuinely end up confused, you can complain.
I disagree with @habryka’s literal statement that “If the reader understands what you are trying to say, you wrote ‘correctly’.” I think it’s correct in spirit though.
Some text is difficult but not impossible to understand, which I think should count as “wrong.” Some text is easy to understand but annoying to read, which is arguably also “wrong” if you didn’t mean to annoy your reader. It seems like Eliezer’s writing style annoyed you, which all else equal is a drawback.
But judging by the number of upvotes on Eliezer’s post (and all the rest of his posts, for that matter), it seems like most people on LessWrong don’t find this writing style difficult or annoying. And as I mentioned, these commas actually convey meaning (unlike “I goed to the store”), so I think it’s fine.
(I don’t know whether it’s technically grammatically wrong, but, I think this matters approximately zero for how well this post will be received)