Hi,
Neither is *more* important. You could consider the content to be the signal and the form (grammar, spelling, word choice, etc.) to be the medium ('carrier', if you will) by which the signal is propagated. What matters at the end of the day is how much message is communicated to the reader. If there is no content, then expressing it perfectly still leaves the reader with nothing. If the content is there, then the degradation of the medium determines how much gets through.
The point is that the message might still get through even if the medium is greatly degraded. For instance, if one is watching an old copy of a film, it takes a lot of snow and streaks to really kill the message. And, if the content is interesting enough, then even intentional degradation of the medium can be survived, indeed can even enhance the message (Jabberwocky or Finnegan's Wake).
Now, since the average poster is neither a Dodgson nor a Joyce, intentional degradation of the message is rare, and the degradation simply makes the message harder to understand without adding any interest. Language is a tricky beast, in that much of the information is carried by small parts of the message and the bulk is usually just filler. It is that property which makes it possible to carry on some form of a conversation in a noisy bar or club. Because of this, it is hard to apply strict rules in determining when a message has crossed the line and become unintelligible.
So, both the type and the quality of 'errors' needs to be considered. And, though this might be heresy to some, so must the content. There is almost a (personal) irritation factor. If one reads a well written post that has no real content, one might be irritated at the waste of time. If one has to struggle to read a post with content, one might also be irritated at the waste of time, but that is tempered to some degree by the satisfaction of having 'completed' an act of communication. But if one has to struggle with a post that conveys no information through a combination of lack of content and degradation of message, then the irritation is untempered.
All of this, though, is pretty far afield. My original intent was never to suggest that we *abandon* standards. Simply that we use them in moderation. Moderation both in what we remark upon (i.e., since "your" and "you're" can usually be distinguished by context, is it really necessary to post just to point out an error in this usage?) and on how we remark upon it. What prompted me to post in the first place were some humorless nits about form in the WoW fora. The points being nitted were no worse than many of the blunders I've made and gotten away with.
So, perhaps in my first post, I should have simply asked that everyone give the 'unknowns' the same slack that they give their established friends. And that if a correction is felt to be necessary, it be proffered with the same respect to an 'unknown' as it is to an 'established' poster.
--Pete
Munkay,Dec 30 2004, 11:05 AM Wrote:But if the form is so horrible that it hinders the clarity of content, is the form not more important?
Language is the vessel for communicating ideas (content). I'd argue that both are mutually important/dependent on eachother. :)
Cheers,
Munk
[right][snapback]63956[/snapback][/right]
Neither is *more* important. You could consider the content to be the signal and the form (grammar, spelling, word choice, etc.) to be the medium ('carrier', if you will) by which the signal is propagated. What matters at the end of the day is how much message is communicated to the reader. If there is no content, then expressing it perfectly still leaves the reader with nothing. If the content is there, then the degradation of the medium determines how much gets through.
The point is that the message might still get through even if the medium is greatly degraded. For instance, if one is watching an old copy of a film, it takes a lot of snow and streaks to really kill the message. And, if the content is interesting enough, then even intentional degradation of the medium can be survived, indeed can even enhance the message (Jabberwocky or Finnegan's Wake).
Now, since the average poster is neither a Dodgson nor a Joyce, intentional degradation of the message is rare, and the degradation simply makes the message harder to understand without adding any interest. Language is a tricky beast, in that much of the information is carried by small parts of the message and the bulk is usually just filler. It is that property which makes it possible to carry on some form of a conversation in a noisy bar or club. Because of this, it is hard to apply strict rules in determining when a message has crossed the line and become unintelligible.
So, both the type and the quality of 'errors' needs to be considered. And, though this might be heresy to some, so must the content. There is almost a (personal) irritation factor. If one reads a well written post that has no real content, one might be irritated at the waste of time. If one has to struggle to read a post with content, one might also be irritated at the waste of time, but that is tempered to some degree by the satisfaction of having 'completed' an act of communication. But if one has to struggle with a post that conveys no information through a combination of lack of content and degradation of message, then the irritation is untempered.
All of this, though, is pretty far afield. My original intent was never to suggest that we *abandon* standards. Simply that we use them in moderation. Moderation both in what we remark upon (i.e., since "your" and "you're" can usually be distinguished by context, is it really necessary to post just to point out an error in this usage?) and on how we remark upon it. What prompted me to post in the first place were some humorless nits about form in the WoW fora. The points being nitted were no worse than many of the blunders I've made and gotten away with.
So, perhaps in my first post, I should have simply asked that everyone give the 'unknowns' the same slack that they give their established friends. And that if a correction is felt to be necessary, it be proffered with the same respect to an 'unknown' as it is to an 'established' poster.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?