Re: metadiscourse

Subject: Re: metadiscourse
From: "Porrello, Leonard" <leonard -dot- porrello -at- COMPAQ -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 07:46:48 -0800

I would refine part of what Simon says. Poor grammar may be acceptable if
meaning is not too terribly obscured. I make this distinction because all to
often, in my experience, I find people who don't realize that genuinely poor
grammar means obscure meaning. All to often, grammar is thought of as
something discrete from the message.

Leonard Porrello
Compaq, Telecom Network Solutions
Pubs, Omaha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon North
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 6:17 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: metadiscourse
> Even poor grammar is excusable . . . .
> Simon.

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Results of Writer : Developer question
Next by Author: Re: POV on Certification
Previous by Thread: Re: metadiscourse
Next by Thread: HTML behavior

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads