arundelo comments on Tidbit: “Semantic over-achievers” - Less Wrong

6 Post author: kpreid 01 December 2011 03:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (27)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: arundelo 03 December 2011 03:36:45PM *  1 point [-]

I have nothing against splitting infinitives, but "to once they have terms for something take for granted" is pretty extreme. It's likely to overflow the reader's stack. After fixing that, running an iteration of the "omit needless words" algorithm, and doing a bit of rephrasing, here's what I came up with:

There's a related problem: If they have terms for something, humans tend to think things that make syntactic sense actually have semantics behind them.

(Ninja edit: Some more needless words omitted, including a nominalization.)

(Edit 2: Here's a better nominalization link because it gives examples of when to use nominalizations, not just when not to use them.)