[jklm]

That's fair, but your writing style mostly optimizes for you, your comfort, and your speed. And I say that as someone who started memorizing SAT words at the age of 8 - most people actually prefer to read a high school level (myself included in work contexts).

I didn't learn this lesson the hard way until I was past my mid-20s. When you write something for others, it's far better to optimize for them rather than for yourself. Let's say you spend twice as much time writing something in an 'odd' way, but it gets your 50% more reach or alignment or funding. That's probably actually a great use of your time.

> So, to me, your explanation of why you don't do it sounds like "look at me, I don't follow rules because we are all smart here, right guys? ... right?".

It's not about being contrarian, it's about the tradeoff. Tone is incredibly important in most situations.

When you write with perfect grammar and punctuation, most people don't know how to read into the nuance. Happy? Joyful? Pleased? Content? There's very little, if any, common understanding of the intensity or undertone in those adjectives. Imagine you're working with a new PM and he tells you the team's progress is 'acceptable.' What does that mean exactly? Is he happy with it? Is he mildly annoyed? Does he feel like things are off track and actually wants to talk more?

So how do we build this common understanding? It turns out most people have actually already built up a language with their friends! Through texts/DMs/etc. So when that language is ported over to a work context, most people immediately grasp it.

You can conform to the world or the world can conform to you. <-- A sentence where tone would be helpful.

[peoplefromibiza]

> When you write with perfect grammar and punctuation, most people don't know how to read into the nuance

I still can't understand the argument here, it sounds so off that seems fabricated to me.

When you read the Divine Comedy (we study it in high school in Italy) the grammar is not in current modern Italian, the style is from 550 years ago, the poem is written in hendecasyllables in terza rima [1], the references are often obscure, but in no point of it the tone is hard to understand, because the author conveys it explicitly.

  l’ora del tempo e la dolce stagione;
  ma non sì che paura non mi desse
  la vista che m’apparve d’un leone.

  Questi parea che contra me venisse
  con la test’alta e con rabbiosa fame,
  sì che parea che l’aere ne tremesse. 
  

Dante is saying that it was a beautiful day of spring, but not as beautiful to not be scared by the sight of a lion that went his direction, looking enraged by the hunger, making "the air tremble"

Writing is a non-verbal, not-in-person, form of communication, you can't look for what's not in it.

Assuming a neutral tone unless specified otherwise, it's always the best bet.

Also, as I've said before, improper grammar could also mean "I don't know the grammar of your language well enough", if I'm writing French, I make a lot of mistakes because I don't use it very often, so the tone is the last of my concerns and the people reading it could easily think it's from a 9 year old kid who hasn't finished primary school yet.

If you think that correct grammar is more than just "the proper way to use the language" you're most probably seeing too much into it.

> Imagine you're working with a new PM and he tells you the team's progress is 'acceptable.' What does that mean exactly?

it means "acceptable"

in a scale from 0 to 10 acceptable is >= 6 and < 7

but, when in doubt, ask, words are free.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terza_rima

[jklm]

> Assuming a neutral tone unless specified otherwise, it's always the best bet.

I actually believe most writing is non-neutral in nature. Every word choice and sentence structure conveys meaning, intentional or not.

For example, why did Dante describe the sight of a lion as making "the air tremble" rather than cause "a stillness in the air"? Or a slightly more powerful variant, "a silence in the air"? My guess is that he wanted to call attention to how dominating the lion's presence was, that even the air was humbled/scared. That's how intimidating and commandeering the lion was. (Very intentional word choice here by me to pair with enraged!)

Maybe that's the wrong interpretation, but we also have people who study exactly this! The nuance of literary works and their meanings.

The article mentions a difference between 'lol' and 'haha' - if you boil it down, is that really so different from 'the air tremble' vs. 'a stillness in the air'? It's word choice again, ultimately.

> Also, as I've said before, improper grammar could also mean "I don't know the grammar of your language well enough", if I'm writing French, I make a lot of mistakes because I don't use it very often, so the tone is the last of my concerns and the people reading it could easily think it's from a 9 year old kid who hasn't finished primary school yet.

Maybe this is why we disagree - I believe that once relative fluency is assumed, tone becomes more important.

Mandarin is a great example here. Most people who are just starting to learn Mandarin focus on vocabulary, pronouns, etc. But once you get to a more advanced stage, it reveals a really unique twist.

Informal 'modal particles' [1] are optional in sentences but also can significantly change the mood. You'd never use them in formal writing (they're not exactly professional), but in practice people use them in everyday written communications. Interestingly enough, they're by default pronounced in a neutral tone but can also be inflected with more emotion even though Mandarin is already a tonal language.

English doesn't have modal particles, and the closest equivalent I've seen are these Gen Z Netiquettes (which aren't only for Gen Z as a few people have pointed out).

---

As an example:

1. 吃饭: eat food

2. 吃饭吧: eat food, we should (friendly but also commanding)

3. 吃饭吗: eat food, want to? (friendly but more suggestive)

---

In English, you could write it like this instead:

1. food

2. we should get food

3. want to get food?

---

But that's not exactly right, because Mandarin also has formal sentences for those forms:

1. 吃饭: eat food

2. 应该吃饭: should eat food

3. 要不要吃饭: want to eat food or not?

---

So closer parallels in English instead could be:

1. food

2. food :eyes_emoji: [2]

3. food? :drooling_face_emoji: [3]

---

And as the article mentions, you can even merge 2 modal particles into a new one that's equal to the combined mood of both. For extra nuance!

e.g. 吃饭了吗: eat food, have you already done it? (friendly)

I think there's some truth to the idea that emojis are a bit of madness (but are also here to stay), but I disagree that nuance doesn't exist in written communication. It's existed for hundreds of years already, as mentioned above in the Dante example. Emojis are just a modern-day version of nuance.

In your original post, you mention:

> Not doing it [capitalization] proves that people either don't care or don't know the basic rules of the language, which says a lot more than doing it properly.

The third (more charitable) possibility is that people are intentionally doing it for nuance. For example, I capitalize in formal emails with customers but use lowercase with friends. My guess is that most people I work with do the same, and more importantly know others are also aware of this.

So at work, I can either choose to treat my coworkers as closer to customers or closer to friends. You can likely guess what that means. (<-- another example of a short sentence where tone is lost - was I amused? condescending? factual? <spoiler> it was the first </spoiler>)

Lastly, while you may personally disagree with the existence of nuance, it's hard to deny that a large chunk of people do infer nuance from text - just looking at this HN thread alone! So the takeaway I'd lightly (and not firmly!) suggest again is that it's worth optimizing for others in certain situations even if it seems like madness.

[1] https://medium.com/@glossika/chinese-grammar-how-to-use-moda...

[2] https://emojipedia.org/eyes/

[3] https://emojipedia.org/drooling-face/

[peoplefromibiza]

> I actually believe most writing is non-neutral in nature. Every word choice and sentence structure conveys meaning, intentional or not.

Neutral as "exactly what it says", not "without any inflection".

Tone in writing is conveyed through how sentences are formed, which forms you use, what kind of words you chose, how verbose/succint you are, etc.

Capitalization does not mean anything special, it's only a grammar rule used to separate sentences and make reading easier.

if someone thinks that not capitalizing sentences means being informal, why not write in plain incorrect English, or using some street slang, or communicate by sending memes, where is the limit?

English speakers make a lot of fuss around things that are common in many other languages.

Mandarin is one, Italian, my language, is another (we have modal particles too).

If you want to be formal there's a form called "dare del lei" ( address someone in the third person ), if you want (or can) be informal it is called "dare del tu" (address someone in the second person, the regular you)

> The third (more charitable) possibility is that people are intentionally doing it for nuance

> So at work, I can either choose to treat my coworkers as closer to customers or closer to friends

Which is a lot of effort for little gain, at the risk of sounding sloppy.

There are much better ways, like using "Hi Mark" instead of "Good morning Mr. Stuart"

> , it's hard to deny that a large chunk of people do infer nuance from text -

Agree, from text not from text structure.

Text can be formal, informal and every other degree in between.

Structure can only be right or wrong, style only good or not good.

norwegian nobel committee oslo on behalf of the bureau of liberal international the global federation of liberal political parties I have the honour to bring to your attention our support for the nomination organized by the drugs peace institute of senator leila de lima of the philippines embattled democratic leader and internationally recognised human rights defender for the prestigious nobel peace prize

this is a very formal text in a not very good style (wall of text / blob of words)

EDIT:

So closer parallels in English instead could be:

1. food

2. food :eyes_emoji: [2]

3. food? :drooling_face_emoji: [3]

---

My version.

Words are free, use them.

Emojis are not as universal as people think, do not translate linearly across cultures and are not as easy to type.

I wouldn't say "food" as a single word to mean "here's your food" not even to a dog.

Maybe I would if I was a caveman in a comic.