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.
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.