[colechristensen]

First, it is a century old translation from French. What might sound perfectly normal in French might sound silly in English if you do a literal translation. Matching the tone between languages might significantly change the message.

For example, to use the English versions of French words...

To say "I'm sorry" in French you say "I am desolate"

Talking about a broken phone or a stomach ache you would say they are deranged.

Much of French vocabulary came into English but very often with some distance in meanings and usage. Often in translating you have the option to use exactly the same word with maybe a small spelling change, but you end up sounding ridiculous because of the shift in meaning or intensity.

Second, essentially what boils down to shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong. Not that I am saying you are directly or intentionally harassing someone, but (despite my distaste for how it is often used) things like this could be called microaggressions, making people uncomfortable using their language.

I experienced a lot of that growing up. In a place far from cities where people were generally less educated (and those that were left to find jobs) and I read a lot. I still struggle with the unconscious bias that people don't want to hear what I have to say or wouldn't understand or would respond with discouraging things.

Looking back, I'm not trying to say you are doing anything particularly negative, BUT be careful. Diversity can come in lots of ways, using language a little differently is one of them, and a little understanding (like how hundred year translations from French are going to sound a little … florid) helps with perspective.

[antidesitter]

> shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong

No. It's not always wrong.

[javert]

> what boils down to shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong

Which is exactly what the second half of your post is, but moreso than the person you are criticizing.

There is no point in having a discussion board if people are going to be criticized because something they said with sincerity might offend somebody. That is the nature of speech.

[sls]

The second half of his post is not a critique of how the point to which he responds was communicated, but of the point itself. He's saying that the message "people shouldn't write like that" is problematic and flawed, not that it itself shouldn't have been written like it was.

As to your second point, that any speech at all might offend someone so there's no point in drawing attention to that fact, on the contrary, the commenter is actually making a very concrete point. He is talking about a very specific thing, that this prescriptivism about writing style alienates and turns away a lot of people that could otherwise make valuable contributions. It's not a general statement that any statement might offend somebody, but a highly targeted examination of the consequences of such speech policing.