I take the Burkean position that the innovator should justify the old system. Natural language and natural conventions work. They exist for reasons, if only because stability. Even if I grant your claim that your changes have improvements, have you looked for costs? In my experience, most artificial changes to language impede communication, and, indeed, look to me to be intended to. On another note, have you backed up and asked Why is Yvain quoting people at all?
Your remark has me entirely confused—Burkean? What? - but for a single question:
Even if I grant your claim that your changes have improvements, have you looked for costs? In my experience, most artificial changes to language impede communication, and, indeed, look to me to be intended to.
There is no clarity cost I can see in the proposed convention—the only cost I can see is to the writer, who will have to spend a minute or two sourcing their quotes. If this cannot be done in a minute or two with an Internet connection (Wikiquote is often of help), it is probably more accurate to cite the quotation as “attributed” anyway.
You could use the same argument to start speaking lojban.
la lojban spofu ma
(Sorry, I had to. Translation: ‘What’s wrong with Lojban?’ or, literally, ‘Lojban is not-useful (broken) for what?’)
do
Well, yes, but I suspect that that’s only because I’m not even close to fluent yet. And even so I find it surprisingly grokkable. :)
You’re right—but “start speaking lojban” is refuted by “the people I want to talk to wouldn’t understand it”. A statement which is, in fact, the justification for the convention of speaking English. Why should we quote the words of an author’s character as if they are the words of the author?
I should have noted that “Someone is wrong on the internet” back on your Wilde example.
I take the Burkean position that the innovator should justify the old system. Natural language and natural conventions work. They exist for reasons, if only because stability. Even if I grant your claim that your changes have improvements, have you looked for costs? In my experience, most artificial changes to language impede communication, and, indeed, look to me to be intended to. On another note, have you backed up and asked Why is Yvain quoting people at all?
Your remark has me entirely confused—Burkean? What? - but for a single question:
There is no clarity cost I can see in the proposed convention—the only cost I can see is to the writer, who will have to spend a minute or two sourcing their quotes. If this cannot be done in a minute or two with an Internet connection (Wikiquote is often of help), it is probably more accurate to cite the quotation as “attributed” anyway.