I was trying to say it would have been more understandable that something sexual was to follow the cuddling. Not everyone sees the meaning of what is written. Some people are grammar experts and some are not. My native ability regarding spelling has many deficiencies so I rely on spell check. I also read things and miss the meaning of some sentences or words. I have to look closely at a sentence with the words county or country to get the true meaning of a sentence. Who and whom are sometimes a problem for me along with quite a few other words.
OTH, I can understand or repair some things better than several people I know.
It is my opinion, if a comma put in or left out, a word with similar sound or spelling, in a document can be interpreted several ways, the document should be written to be more understandable.
I know this does not happen. I know people agree to terms of service and the like when using a website without understanding everything in the terms of service because of time and probably knowing they won't understand everything anyway.
Is it acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition is another example that baffles me. Some say yes and some say no. My personal belief is make a sentence more understandable for the common person. Lots of people are not grammarians. Sometimes real life is more important.
Another example is using software to manage a business. Too complex of a software package (very time consuming) that takes more time away from business activities (one or two person business) isn't helping to improve business or possibly service the customer's needs is overkill.
Post by jamesbonding on Oct 22, 2018 3:36:27 GMT -5
I agree we should normally try to write as clearly and unambiguously as possible.
But, you realize "I'd rather cuddle then have sex" is intended to be a joke of sorts, right? Based on the alternative meaning you get if you misread "then" as "than." If you make it impossible to misread it, then it's no longer amusing.
Humor or cleaver wording in the right setting, where it is generally assumed to be humor or a play on works works, in the appropriate setting. I have no issue with that type of situation.
One of the favorite parts of the newspaper I receive is the cartoon section, which some people refer to as the "funnies." I understand most of the intended humor, but not all of the time and all of the individual panels.
There was a series of 3 or 4 panels about a dentist getting up late, driving his car and rushing to work. The the last panel showed a car driving on the road with what looked like a string or rope trailing behind the car. When I lived in Florida USA, I would not have know what the string or rope was. I thought at the time he just ran over some trash and it caught on the car.
Since moving not too far from the Canadian border, the string or rope I saw in the old cartoon was actually an electrical cord that is used as part of the electrical engine heater. After living in a cold climate I realized the humor intended in the cartoon was the dentist forgot to unplug the car's engine heater and he was dragging an extension cord and not a string or rope.
Some of the more technical or scientific related cartoons, well I have to investigate to find what is supposed to humorous.
I don't want everything "dumb down" so every person can understand but I personally do put effort in things I post to make things fairly understandable.