You haven't asked for feedback, but here you go anyway: If you're wanting to write proper English, you should first write English correctly.
For example, sentences begin with capital letters. Your parenthetical word should have been "reasonable," not "reasonably."
If your English were correct, one might think that readers just aren't putting in the needed effort. Since your English contains multiple errors, I believe that's asking too much of readers.
But pwinnski, I do not need to explicitly ask for feedback: I write here /expecting/ feedback (and to possibly give further feedback of mine). Otherwise, I would not publish.
Now: «sentences begin with capital letters»: yes, not always. In the specific case, a colon was placed and a LineFeed-CarriageReturn for highlighting - the sentence was judged as clearer in two lines. Please note that conventions are local and hardly objective: for example, the French add spaces around (some) punctuation, the Germans invert the acute quotes (those which I use for quoting, '«' and '»')...
The parenthetical was set as 'reasonably', an adverb, because it was meant to be joined to the verb at the end, 'chosen', and placed in that position to modify 'all'. It means that you cannot write 'all terms were chosen' because that would be possibly literally false, but they are substantially so - "a particular effort is taken in choosing the terms - reasonably", with an accent on "more effort is spent on some than on others".
As you see, those you noted are intended choices. You are calling them "«errors»", they are more "deviations". To "err" is more random, like the Brownian motion of those who are lost; to "deviate" is more conscious - and done because the statistical norm, that of consuetude, that of the patterns for GPT (etc.), did not fit.
--
If you, like many of us, fiddled with music: yes, like Schoenberg said, first you know the "general rule", then and only then you break it - I largely agree, especially if you mean "you have to be competent to hack".
"Wrong" (as per language in use), you have to prove it. Frequentism does not count: it should be already understood that this purpose is not to adhere to language in use.
"Stubborn", makes a contradiction, if you - correctly - understand that the goal is different.
The goal in fact is more than «effective communication», but "correct expression". And as you should know, "wrong" means "twisted", but I am the one who is attempting to "make it straight".
Language "in use" will be followed as much as it fits with the prevailing goal of correctness. A philologist is not an ethologist.
For the other goals that you could adopt, consider "cleanness of thought".
And of course, I thank you for your best wishes in the pursuit!
I honestly thank you for the kind advice, but if I wrote in a simpler manner I would not be expressing the original idea - and the purpose was to express "that idea (those ideas)". I surely take uttermost clarity in high regard, but limited to specific cases: when you have to give indications, and be as sure as possible that the other parts do not misunderstand it. There will be little "philosophy" in "sniper on the tower right there". But that does not cover communication such as the one relevant here, which can involve large amounts of interpretation.
I may be not using "English in use" (that is honestly really very far from my aim), but the effort is towards a """certain""" English. I am sorry if you may find it unclear. (Also, it can happen that sometimes I "cut corners" on the time required for proper expression.)
> translator [...] You seem articulate in whatever your native language is
No. I absolutely am not expressing myself according to any native language. Even in my native language it happened quite normally that, for example, professors at school said "ok, let me concentrate intensely now" before starting discussions and exams. I can tell you that I was said to have the highest talent for writing - but unfortunately for this public, here we exchange information and ideas instead of "poetry". :) This is not a translation of anything, just the transposition of elaborated thoughts (of thoughts as they are developed).
--
Edit: I also believe that "Now drop and give me twenty" will return us fitter personnel than "Please, be fed from a straw" - about the Newspeak I mentioned. That is not to be over-used and certainly not abused - just used proportionally to the intended message.
If you intend to accuse my style of something, be more substantive - I just rechecked what I wrote and, yes, I had to correct a 'could' into a 'can'. For the rest, I do not see anything wrong.
You state you "«feel»", but in a discussion board you should elaborate.
-- the article seems to convey the idea of the emergence of grounds for further degradation of quality in the material used for printing books, and I observed that in some territories the "build" quality (for publishers with the highest output) is already dire, using other territories as a parameter. So, "worse than that it will be either a challenge (vertically, for the publishers already going for "pulp fiction" quality) or a further spread (horizontally, for the publishers that still tried to avoid "pulp fiction" quality)"
-- the article seems to stress the issue of "verbosity vs scarcity", and focus on that "literature for spare time" in which "the longer the text, the merrier" is more frequent than in intentional artistic literature, where text length varies from a few megabytes, but very exceptionally, to possibly very little (I noted in a different recent post that texts seem to vary from ~100k to ~1000k at the quintiles) - to write huge texts is much more frequent in works with the sole purpose of filling gaps in an "entertainment market". So, I noted that it is an odd presentation that which brings books as a topic but seems to focus on "attempted blockbusters" (which may be prominent in quantity but will not match what a book, i.e. "«the codified way to convey information and wisdom»", represents).
What I originally wrote does not seem that complicated to me - at least, not unnecessarily: it matches what its intended content is. You are not "at McDonalds", "where chewing is an effort you are spared": real world, relative effort is part of the game. When you "read" something, you have to be an active part in understanding, you are called to "fill in the gaps". I mean, you would be right in accusing of making it overly complicated if there existed ways to express what I wrote - but exactly that - in a different way; whereas, what I wrote was exact (though incomplete, to keep within a reasonable amount of text).
And if something is not clear, just ask.
--
Edit: also (speaking in general, really not necessarily about the present exchange): one can note a phenomenon of "people who simply cannot read, unless the message and its form are the simplest" - this, out of experience. This is extremely worrisome, in the social context. One can also note that some seem to be embracing an idea according to which, "if they don't understand, the problem must be in the message" - which is differently but equally worrisome. These are signals that should call for the highest concern.
Well, in a way, but that comes because when one is asked for clarifications one tends to be more "complete" in the writing, leaving "less gaps to be filled by the reader". The verbosity is there because the original shorter expression was not clear to some.
--
Edit2:
> the way you communicate
I would say, it's (also) "the way I think". From reflection to expression it's pretty literal (apart from the hassle of picking the most proper terms).
As nearby a co-member (Hnrobert42) noted, this public does not come from the same village and household, and I have no idea what the expression «up your own» may mean. You will have to use a more legitimately "common" language, if you want to exchange.
> one can note a phenomenon of "people who simply cannot read, unless the message and its form are the simplest"
This is not the problem here.
> - this, out of experience. This is extremely worrisome, in the social context. One can also note that some seem to be embracing an idea according to which, "if they don't understand, the problem must be in the message" - which is differently but equally worrisome. These are signals that should call for the highest concern.
The highest concern for everyone reading this thread has been your pompous writing style (think in SNR terms if the word "pompous" is too loaded/offensive)
But feel free to believe everyone is lying and only you know the truth.
You have no reason to be "«concerned»" for the "«pompous writing style»", while there is every reason to be concerned from people's inability to read, and for people blaming lack of understanding on the speaker, and for the inability to carry on a discussion constructively, and for the gratuitous dismissals. As paramount concerns.
As I was posting (the initial, original post), I was actually a bit concerned about "you are saying that publications from the UK and USA already often feel a bit cheap in their make, and you are noting that the article's author indicates a book crisis but heavily remains in the "entertainment" area: that is probably not the most insightful of posts" (it was meant to be an initial kernel for possible further development), and instead there has been an uproar about the style. Oh well.
> It is difficult being a deep thinker manytimes
I would not regard myself as a particularly «deep thinker» - I could not measure and rank that, the level is that which it is - though I have a mandate to that for academic and other reasons, but I am seeing strange directions, exacerbated by social networks, involving people claiming rights to judge through basic emotional reactions, and dismissals of whatever is not immediately digestible (and more). That "everything" requires an effort was a basic tenet, in a past society.
