Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Given the likelihood that I would have to work with the person who was interviewing me, I would count it a blessing that they show me their true colors during the interview rather than after I hire on. And if I didn't get an offer, I'd consider it a bullet dodged.


If you do get an offer, and choose not to take it, that's dodging a bullet.

If you don't get the offer there's no bullet to dodge, right?

</pedandtry>


<pedantry>

Your pedantry tag has no opening

</pendantry>


<pedantry>

It wasn't a pedantry tag. And yours is differently misspelled!

</pedantry>


Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.


I'll terminate this by being so pedantic that we cross over into non-pedanticism.

Per descriptive linguistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description), the assertion that it's wrong to start a sentence with a conjunction is incorrect. Ditto for splitting infinitives, ending a sentence with a preposition, etc.

(Descriptive linguists basically define the rules of language to be how humans actually use the damn language. It turns out such a philosophy saves you from falling into a lot of traps)


Unfortunately merely noting 'descriptivism' as if it solves the issue of linguistic prescription doesn't help that much. We prescribe all the time, like it or not, language isn't a free for all at the individual level. It's also _descriptively_ true that many people regard certain rules as inviolable, which certainly means that prescription is, in some sense, completely reasonable: comply, or we'll refuse to accept you. How does 'I'll do whatever I damn want' really handle that? It can be true that it's 'valid' on one level, while being wrong on another.


I immediately dismiss as gauche and lacking credibility anyone who even hints at a prescriptivist rule, so my acceptance goes against prescriptivism. These rules make writing unclear, stolid, dull and uninteresting for no real benefit.

In my opinion, parroting prohibitions against split infinitives, ending with a preposition, "snuck is not a word", "'they' is only plural", etc etc not only shows a profound lack of education, this shows an inability to learn, since these so-called "rules" are widely and easily known to be made up whole cloth. To my mind, this is a person who absorbed Elements of Style (perhaps even second-hand from a misinformed high school teacher) and called it a day, believing they understand how English is properly written.

Serious red flag for me.


"I immediately dismiss as...lacking credibility anyone who even hints at a prescriptivist rule"

Isn't this a prescriptivist rule? Imagine a highly skilled author who recognizes a younger one that misuses a semicolon or has poor grammar; the older says to the younger, "only write with perfect grammar". By doing so, the younger learns more precisely the elements of the English language and the purpose of each device (semicolon, period, comma, etc.). After, the younger becomes a much better writer, and integrates that new knowledge with his or her existing writing. In this way, prescriptivist rules help inexperienced writers hone in on their weaknesses and draw focus to some facet they lack.

Any harsh prescription is kind of a red flag for me, because you have to judge yourself by that harshness (fall on your own sword, so to speak). Or, as what usually happens, hold some hypocritical double standard or semantic loophole which pardons yourself while incriminating others.


<< Imagine a highly skilled author who recognizes a younger one that misuses a semicolon or has poor grammar; the older says to the younger >>

I cannot imagine a highly skilled author who never employs split infinitives. Show me that person.

Regarding semicolons, here is Kurt Vonnegut's opinion on them: "Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

Is that good advice? Perhaps for some writers, it actually is; but it's not about the semicolon, really, but about stilted, bad writing.

<< Isn't this a prescriptivist rule? >>

I was responding to the previous comment "It's also _descriptively_ true that many people regard certain rules as inviolable, which certainly means that prescription is, in some sense, completely reasonable: comply, or we'll refuse to accept you." My direct answer is "It's the prescriptivists 'refusing to accept' who should worry about acceptance, since they are failing on so many levels it's hard to know where to start"


Agreed. Elements of Style is full of errors, some of which are so obviously wrong that even its own authors don't follow them.


Do you have any good recommendation for improving writing skills?

I picked up elements of style few days ago. I couldn't parse it. I was only able to understood it somewhat through intuition and prior knowledge. The sentences were too confusing, out of the place for me with added jargon and story of the author that I didn't want to know about.


How many pedants are descriptivists?


Few


But sometimes it's OK to break the rules.


Not with -pedantic enabled, that’s kind of the purpose.


Unless you're already calling someone else out for a spelling mistake.


The most reliable way to dodge bullets is to not have them fired at you in the first place.


Unless you know a guy, you have to wade through the firing range to land a competitive job.


Sometimes you need to wade through the firing range as part of your job:

https://nypost.com/video/reckless-police-instructor-slammed-...


I've always preferred deflecting them with my katana :)


It depends on whether you consider "dodge" in the phrase to be active or passive.

Dodging taxes is active. Dodging the in-laws because you were in the shower when they dropped by is passive.

Both applications of the verb are in common usage and are therefore valid and obvious enough that you clearly understood the meaning. </pedantry>


"Dodged a bullet there" is often used in hindsight, where you find out something was terrible after you avoided it for a different reason.


Never thought of this, but you are right. Usually it’s used when you didn’t know you were dodging the bullet at the time but more of a hindsight thing.


Exactly




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: