Oddly enough, I don't claim to really love language for the sake of language, but it's pretty useful in my day to day so I try to use it well. I like your post, so, in the spirit of negotiation let's use the term baseline instead of rules.
The bulk of educational and informational works on the English language gives us a kind of baseline for our written language. When someone deviates from that baseline, most of the time we can still understand them because we can see how it differs and can infer their intent based on context and that baseline.
The dictionaries, style guides, and grammar texts that give us our baseline exist to facilitate written communication, not stifle it. They're the result of hundreds of years of these kinds of negotiations, not just arbitrary choice as so many people claim. Good grammar isn't just a cudgel to beat the creativity out of kids, it's the benefit of centuries worth of experience and study. Just as new ideas shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, we also shouldn't disregard past practice simply on the basis of it's age.
Baselines do change. But it's a slow process, not every popular new deviation will stand the test of time, and many antique forms are still present in our modern language. Think of it like scientific progress. Some ideas are validated by experimentation, others are proven wrong. Our understanding of the universe is more complex now than centuries ago, but there are still numerous constants that have been proven time after time. Our language has grown more complex too, but that doesn't mean that some very old ideas about how to communicate in writing aren't still useful today.
But you're very, very right about shame and reactions, and I'd be dishonest not to admit that. It's too easy for armchair grammarians to treat language as if it exists in a logic vacuum separate from human emotion, and that's simply not the case.
Omitting a period from a text isn't a crime, I freely admit that I'm often a grumpy old asshole about this sort of thing when I shouldn't be, and you're 100% correct that people shouldn't be shamed over it.
At the same time, the reverse is also true. Not every plea for punctuation and grammar is creative or ideological tyranny, and if some people react poorly to a text that omits punctuation, that's not something the author has a say in either.
At any rate, I hope this comes of as intended, a genuine, if overly lengthy explanation from someone who supports the widespread use of punctuation, and not just Grandpa Simpson yelling at a cloud. =)
Oddly enough, I liked sidebars because they left more vertical real estate available for endless scrolling in browsers and auto-hide on some taskbars can get flaky.
But then again I go out of my way to find 16:10 monitors, so maybe take that with a grain of salt.
You seem to think a centralized style and grammar book like the French have is the only way to have strict set of grammatical rules.
An overwhelming number of English textbooks and stylebooks agree on the use of a period. We're not talking about something esoteric here, it's how you end a sentence. Omitting them is poor writing. Claiming artistic licence or understandability doesn't change that in the vast majority of cases. I'm not calling those who omit them baby-killers or anything. It's just poor writing that people have grown accustomed to seeing.
Writers like McCarthy, Twain, and Joyce have the chops to communicate exceptionally well despite breaking these rules, not just because they broke them. The people in the office next to yours mangling emails don't.
And literacy rates are on the decline in the US. Take that however you will.
It's very in line with Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death and the idea that the medium itself shapes communication and public discourse.
People seem not just unwilling, but at times unable to tolerate any sort of discussion that's long enough to get into the real nuance of an issue. Postman blamed the news, especially TV news, and an over reliance on TV/Video as means to convey information (though he actually supported TV as entertainment). But he also cautioned against the risk centralizing what he referred to then as "computing" in a way that seem to almost prophesize what's currently happening with social media and AI.
That weirdness is, of course, the whole joke about Holt starting and ending his texts that way.
At the end of the day, despite my spending way too much time in this thread defending the mandatory use of periods, I have to admit that it doesn't really matter how you write a text to your friends.
But proper grammar is important when you need to communicate clearly with a large audience who might not be aware of the colloquialisms and informal conventions you're used to and it's better to have a strict system of rules to make sure everyone can understand. Which is why primary and secondary schools teach the English language and an overall decline in literacy is cause for concern.
So yeah, context is important, but there are many contexts where proper grammar is required.
You eventually restated my point. It's a convention used among a portion of the population, documented in articles and studies, but not taught or a part of formal grammar.
At some point a set of fairly strict rules is important for a written language, as your point with Gen X and Boomers helps to illustrate, because it makes sure you can be understood by a broader audience when clarity is required. Punctuation is a fundamental part of that.
Omitting periods in text is a technilogical colloquialism. I'm not arguing that. But that doesn't mean, as the poster that I first replied to implied, that people who omit periods from texts are the only ones who "know how to write".
Over-use of exclamation points is another poor habit, since they can mark something that's important regardless of it being a positive or negative. With quoted speech it could be something that's either angry or joyful. Using them to convey a non-threatening tone shouldn't be required. I get that it is in some cases, and I belive that indicates a problem with our overall literacy and a renewed misogyny in the workplace.
Whether this is a result of the medium of communication or a decline in literacy is up for debate, but word choice and context should do the bulk of conveying tone and relying on punctuation for that purpose understandably looks like an indicator of poor literacy.
There may be an informal convention among some people that using a period at the end of the last sentence in a text is passive aggressive, but it's far from universal and far from being a rule.
Seems like it's just as pedantic to expect people who have habitually used correct punctuation for decades to adopt this convention without ever being told and then blaming them for not abandoning an immensely useful part of written language for no apparent reason.
If you insist on interpreting my use of punctuation in a text as anything other than an effort to communicate clearly, I'm likely to start being passive aggressive at some point.
It's more than that even, they're usually the reason why the government doesn't work.
Social security would work great if funded properly, so what do they do? Screw with the funding. The ACA would work if properly funded, so what do they do? Let the subsidies expire. Medicare for all would work if properly funded. The education system would work if properly funded. The VA works when properly funded. And so on, and so on, and so on. In most cases, all it takes is the money and resources that they'd rather steal or give to their donors and like magic, we'd have a functioning government again.
They constantly sabotage programs that benefit tax payers while spinning the lie that government run programs can't and don't work. And after decades of dealing with underfunded programs run with minimal staffing and a maximum of red tape, of course people believe them.
Someone else may be able to come up with a more concise and better worded argument for it, but the way we've implemented private ownership/use of natural resources seems pretty shitty. Especially considering how many people have been screwed over and how much damage is often done in the process.
Owning something that existed long before people, and would have continued to exist if we've never evolved, seems suspect in general. While there's value in the labor involved in extracting or preparing these resources for use, the material itself wasn't created by anyone and should belong to everyone in some way.
A portion of the income derived from the exploitation of all natural resources should be redistributed as UBI.
Right now, I'm listening to three very talented young people writing original songs in my garage, who will, even if successful, put in significantly more work for significantly less recognition simply because I'm not JJ Abrams.
That's not a terrible price point, and I've been saving for more bike stuff anyway, cause I've still got the new hobby bug pretty bad. Until I saw your post I honestly didn't know this existed outside of something like a Peleton, and the app looks more entertaining than what they're offering.
This is definitely going on my list. The best thing I've done for myself in the last year was to get a bike for my health, but winter's making my rides rough and I'm bored after ten minutes on a stationary bike. It'll have to wait until after the holidays, but this might be the next good thing I do.
I have a 20 week streak going for exercise, both cycling and lifting weights, with 77 days total that I've exercised on. For the last 8 weeks, I've been active for at least 25 minutes every day of the week, even if it's just walking the dogs. My blood pressure is down an average of nine points and my pants are getting loose again.
Today was rough. It was a bit too cold and windy for good cycling, and the route I picked (because I thought it would be better protected from the wind) had a lot of hills. I only managed to ride 12 miles in the same amount of time it normally takes me to ride 15.
If feel like more of them just realizing that they won't be the exception to the rule and only really care now that it's obvious they'll get the shit end of the stick just like everyone else.
For a great many MAGAs it is and always was about weaponizing a social and political movement to hurt people they don't like and now that it's hurting them, we're seeing clearly that their principles never aligned with what they espoused. It's always hypocrisy with them, they aren't willing to be tradwives and follow the ideals they claim to support, but they're happy to use the idea to attack feminism.
If they wind up being forced out of politics, I have no sympathy for them. It was so very apparent, going all the way back to the beginning of Gamergate, that this was the trajectory of the movement.
Oddly enough, I don't claim to really love language for the sake of language, but it's pretty useful in my day to day so I try to use it well. I like your post, so, in the spirit of negotiation let's use the term baseline instead of rules.
The bulk of educational and informational works on the English language gives us a kind of baseline for our written language. When someone deviates from that baseline, most of the time we can still understand them because we can see how it differs and can infer their intent based on context and that baseline.
The dictionaries, style guides, and grammar texts that give us our baseline exist to facilitate written communication, not stifle it. They're the result of hundreds of years of these kinds of negotiations, not just arbitrary choice as so many people claim. Good grammar isn't just a cudgel to beat the creativity out of kids, it's the benefit of centuries worth of experience and study. Just as new ideas shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, we also shouldn't disregard past practice simply on the basis of it's age.
Baselines do change. But it's a slow process, not every popular new deviation will stand the test of time, and many antique forms are still present in our modern language. Think of it like scientific progress. Some ideas are validated by experimentation, others are proven wrong. Our understanding of the universe is more complex now than centuries ago, but there are still numerous constants that have been proven time after time. Our language has grown more complex too, but that doesn't mean that some very old ideas about how to communicate in writing aren't still useful today.
But you're very, very right about shame and reactions, and I'd be dishonest not to admit that. It's too easy for armchair grammarians to treat language as if it exists in a logic vacuum separate from human emotion, and that's simply not the case.
Omitting a period from a text isn't a crime, I freely admit that I'm often a grumpy old asshole about this sort of thing when I shouldn't be, and you're 100% correct that people shouldn't be shamed over it.
At the same time, the reverse is also true. Not every plea for punctuation and grammar is creative or ideological tyranny, and if some people react poorly to a text that omits punctuation, that's not something the author has a say in either.
At any rate, I hope this comes of as intended, a genuine, if overly lengthy explanation from someone who supports the widespread use of punctuation, and not just Grandpa Simpson yelling at a cloud. =)