TO ALL: ON SUBSTANCE AND STYLE
There have been so many good suggestions for a new thread title that my head is spinning. Choices, choices! :-)
But I would like to get back to the reason I proposed a title revision in the first place. It was to reflect an evolutionary change in the thread's direction that has already taken place, and to encourage a positive direction in the future.
Wow -- does that sound pompous! <g> Let me try to put it another way.
We long ago moved beyond discussions of such irritants as the "its/it's" mix-up. We long ago discovered that there are only so many times you can vent outrage over the confusion of "loose" and "lose." We found it much more interesting to debate the "open questions," that is, the questions of evolving English usage, over which literate people can still disagree. And then there was the joy in language itself -- in the wonderful combinations/permutations English is capable of.
Beyond that, there is the question of substance, and of its relationship to style. You may produce a formally beautiful piece of prose, for example, but it will not have the effect of prose that has substance as well as style. (If you have nothing to say, why bother saying it beautifully?) The reverse is also true: substance is no substitute for style. (If you have something to say, why botch it by saying it badly?)
We have not really engaged with this question. And as a former poster has pointed out in a PM to me, as long as we remain a purely "grammar" thread (let's not even mention "spelling"), we will have a tendency to stress "form" (correctness) over "substance."
The poster also makes an interesting point about "usage" (in the sense of "style," as I understand that word), and I hope he will forgive me for quoting it directly:
I think of usage in two interrelated contexts. The first is purely functional: the precise conveyance of ideas. The second is aesthetic: the poetry of words harmoniously strung together. I would be happy...if a discussion thread could marry these skeins effectively.
So would I.
Joan
P.S. And I wholeheartedly agree with Christopher that a thread title imposes obligations that we would have to live up to. So at first we would have to be really, really sure we want to do so. <g>
|
