On Mon Feb 11 23:14:35 2008, Eric Gray wrote:
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,
Hithertofore, I have remained silent on this issue, in trepidation of
questioning the wherefore of grammar, whence surely clarity comes
forth. Yet one observes herein a contrary group of folk who would
busy themselves more with language than content; hence, I should
think, the concerns of many, who would question whether the RFC
Editor's employment of copy editors is a dalliance mindful of
grammar, or clarity, at the forefront.
Naturally, all present value clarity of content; all value the use of
grammar whence this derives - to simply strike a line through one's
rules of English and ignore the learned experts who would advise us
would be obviously foolish; however one must be mindful that the acme
of language is perfection of communication; not that of grammar.
Yet grammar remains the wellspring of clarity - ambiguity festers in
the cracks of one's application thereof, but none of us could
ingenuously claim ourselves experts in that field. Thus abetment is
required from professionals whom the RFC Editor has retained for this
purpose. One therefore hopes that the RFC Editor would use copy
editors to provide clarity through grammar, and furthermore that any
changes resultant are subject to approval by the author.
Since this does indeed appear to be the case, one must assume that
for those who have concerns, these concerns are addressed to their
satisfaction, and henceforth this list might return to whatever
pressing subject previously occupied it, which will no doubt remain
as elucidating as the regnant matter.
A final point worth raising is that those concerned with whether the
benefit outweighs the cost might observe the differences between
final draft and published RFC; trivial to do, and it would no doubt
enlighten those who are concerned with the cost. Without this action,
one must assume that arguments are based on opinion, and not fact,
which is concerning - and highly irregular for this august list, as I
hardly need mention.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)jabber(_dot_)org
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf