Listening to Miles Davis radio and doing homework. Currently listening to Joe Pass, one of the all-time great jazz guitarist.
Can take the main subject (me) out of the sentence and it still makes sense. This way can talk about the secondary subject (the sentence) more clearly.
I'm simply getting out of the way.
Think my blogs should lean more and more to this style. Short paragraphs, minimalistic but highly grammatic language.
I like that my vocabulary is large than Google's. It tells me minimalistic and grammatic are both not words.
Shit, I am getting in the way again. Look at that! I managed to completely change topics and significantly alter the voice just by inserting the subject into the sentence.
When I add myself as the subject instead of just implying it, it inherently becomes more about me that what I am trying to say. By merely implying the subject the reader is focusing more on what I am trying to say. However, when the subject is still necessary, I still add a subject.
Hence, I returned to the initial point I was attempting to make after the introductory paragraph.
I guess this kind of makes this a guide to my style; I use my own version of the standard form of English.
Or am attempting too. I believe only if people understand what I am trying to communicate (clearly) that I will be successful. The ideas have to tie together not just logically but also structurally.
I would say that when ideas are built in structurally they are easier to understand. It is evident in good poetry, like Blake. Yes, it might take a better understanding of the standard form to understand in depth, but it will also be superficially inherent to people who are mostly familiar just with their own dialect -- since all dialects are derived in some way from the standard form and follow logic that is either parallel or sharply contrasting and obvious. Either that, or, the standard form began as a dialect and through acts of government (whether by an elected government or by a collaboration of the people as a society and following basic tenets of the social contract) became the standard form.
In general, all good writing -- since written language is different from spoken languages and has its own set of challenges, is built around the standard form -- even when mirroring a dialect, the rules that govern it are inherent to anyone who speaks any form of language. I believe it should be more based more around grammatical universalities, which, in general, the direction language is going due to the internet and globalism.
Either that or we are all being slowly brainwashed by the powers that be and that accounts for it all, but I really don't by that sort of paranoia-based bullshit. I do believe that language is always evolving and that it is interesting to follow its currents, even through literature from the past to today.
Also, I should point out that perhaps I should have established sooner that I differentiate between spoken and written language. It is a presupppostion, I suppose, but perhaps it shouldn't be. I imagine it is easily understand or even already assumed by my audience. Plus I have probably made mention of it in previous blogs. I'm not 100% sure about that, but, it seems to me to be pretty likely.
Then again, taking all that into consideration, back to my main point... Did I maintain my voice throughout that, my subjective point of view, throughout all of that, even when it wasn't presented as such? I would like to think I did but then again it is hard for me to consider otherwise since I am, like all others, except for Professor X, I am trapped in my own mind. And I am not at all discounting the possibility that my mind might be a warped, scrambled, confusing place where most speech acts or uses of language are really just mindless rambles.
Is it bad that I kind of hope that most people are all cross-eyed and confused by the time they get to the end of this post?
And She Was