31
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
31 points (97.0% liked)
Programming
21776 readers
439 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I struggle to find something more obnoxious than incorrectly employed formal logic.
There is no contradiction. The intersection of "native-sounding English" and "(English with) no grammatical errors" is not empty. So it's actually perfectly possible to meet both criteria.
It also wouldn't be a logical contradiction even if it wasn't possible, since contradictions are conflicts of arguments that rely on different propositions being true, not the valuation of the actual propositions.
Okay, let's skip the formal logic talk then and go straight to linguistics.
The question "Good to merge?" does not contain a grammatical error. It is perfectly well-formed by the grammar that native English speakers actually follow in everyday communication. A grammar that fails to parse "Good to merge?" in context cannot parse native English speakers' actual output.
Schoolbook English is not native English, because it's not how native English speakers actually speak. Schoolbook English contains rules that directly contradict native English speakers' everyday usage.
(Standard examples include the rule against split infinitives and the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition. These are not grammatical rules of English as it is spoken by native speakers. To boldly assert them is silliness up with which I will not put.)
So, if I said "I'd like a burger, but not too much ketchup or mustard," would you put a little mustard on it, or no mustard at all? When I see "no excessive capitalization or grammatical errors", I assume they don't want excessive amounts of either, while you're saying they don't want excessive capitalization and no grammatical errors at all. Seems an odd interpretation, linguistically.
In situations like this, the answer isn't to argue over the interpretation of the words: it's to fix the words.
If the writers intended "no excessive capitalization or excessive grammatical errors", then it should be changed to that.
If the writers intended "no excessive capitalization and no grammatical errors", then it should be changed to that.
Both situations remove the ambiguity and prevent pedantic internet arguments about language interpretation.