There are many ways to divide people into groups. For example,
it has been said that there are three groups of people in the world:
those that are good at math and those that are not.
One clear way to divide people into two groups, however, is to
distinguish those who use language primarily with an intent to convey
content (i.e. to communicate), and those who mostly use a language
for some other purpose. Without going into what such other purposes
might be, I think it is pretty clear that those who intend to use a
language for communication generally like and respect grammar rules.
If nothing else, grammar rules give you something to break - when the
need exists - and a framework for correctly interpretting meaning in
at least most other cases.
That said, I think it is also clear that we may want to focus on
what is different about the level of "education" required to:
1) "use a language",
2) "represent one self as sufficiently expert in its use to
critique the (ab)use of a language by someone else" and
3) "represent one self as sufficiently expert in its use to
critique the criticism of an expert (on the basis of whose
presumed expertise) we've hired explicitly to critique the
(ab)use of a specific language by (presumed) non-experts."
What I believe we might discover is that Adrian said we probably
should require greater expertise from anyone who wants to do 3,
while what you've apparently accused him of is having said that
level of expertise is required to do 1.
Sorry, but I don't see how you come up with that.
By the way, we should also not confuse the expertise needed
to construct one set of rules with ability (or even desire) to
correctly employ another.
Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:57 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [IAOC] RFC Editor costs - Proofreading (was Re:
My view of theIAOC Meeting Selection Guidelines)
On 11 feb 2008, at 22:11, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I think what it points out is that, those of us who do not know
grammar, should not presume to suggest that fixes to grammar are
unimportant. Bar-room gramarians are, perhaps, as unhelpful in the
bar-room lawyers, and the reason why we stoop to employ
because we are not qualified
That's nonsense. You don't need a degree to use language.
If a grammar rule is so complex that the group of people who created
things like the "simple" network management protocol can't figure it
out, it would be a mistake to make use of semantics that depend on
that rule. It may be useful to employ people who had training in
spotting these issues, especially as not all RFC authors are native
English speakers, but there is a reason the name of the
author is put
above an RFC, and not the name of the (copy) editor. I.e.,
the author's fault.
the American usage that we are required to
turn out our RFCs in.
Unless this is kept a secret so only those of us who are RFC authors
know of it, this is not a requirement.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list