Gray is a bit of a misery really. From the Wikipedia page on him:

>Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life.

I can't say I agree with him on not scholarly, embarrassingly feeble, primitive and the like.

If you are trying to signal to an out crowd that Pinker is misguided, ill informed, or otherwise wrong, provide evidence.

If you are signaling to a crowd that they are right to ignore him for reasons they know, this is how you do it. With a broad grin and no effort to actually engage. :(

That is, this seems to be setting up a battle of "elites" where the call to action is to loudly decry Pinker without having to read him.

Is there more to this story than this? Was this just a particularly bad quote?

He's trying to "signal" that he wants you to read the article that he linked, and to entice you into doing so he has picked a few quotes that sum up the author's point of view. If you disagree, perhaps you should click and find out if the article is any good...

Apologies, my criticism was at the linked article. The quoted part was particularly bad. To the point that it really detracted from any point and only seems to exist for the signaling aspect.

I don't mean to be overly picky about Gray's response, but proper English is: "Yet even if Pinker were capable...". (I am not aware of this being a British-ism.)

When an author, none less, writes incorrectly -- it makes me question his basic thesis.

This is interesting, given Pinker's recent work in linguistics, and his "Sense of Style" [0]

Pinker makes some persuasive arguments for abandoning to some degree such rigid interpretation of grammatical rules, where usage has evolved.

We would do well to abandon such sniping and focus on the meat of what an author is saying, so long as the meaning they convey is clear.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sense_of_Style

That rule is all but forgotten in American English, sadly.

Gray is not American.

I knew that Gray was not American. I do not know British English, so I don't know whether Brits speak that way. I pointed this out. Do you know the answer?

I'd expect your suggested form to be used, by an educated Brit or American.

Many would argue that using these forms to denote subjunctive mood is archaic, like words like "thou". Certainly this is not a clear mistake.

I suppose at schools that don't teach English well, those 'many' could argue anything that's not correct as being correct. I was taught in Catholic school, and there we learned that other schools had lower standards.

Shall we lower our standards so we all speak more grunt-like? Is this where we are headed?

"But it's quite useful (and aesthetically pleasing, at least to us), and careful users of English should do their part to preserve it." http://grammarist.com/grammar/subjunctive-mood/

Why is my comment down-voted? I believe it does not violate any HN rules or is otherwise erroneous. Just trying to 'get it right'. I'm genuinely curious -- would one of the anonymous down-voters please create a throw-away account and explain, in detail, your reasoning? Thank you!

I suspect it's that it comes across as overly pedantic. I'm a big fan of the subjunctive mood myself, but I also understand that language changes and prescriptivism just makes me miserable. It's also in the middle of a contentious discussion, so people are going to be more on edge and probably more likely to react more harshly to what they perceive as nitpicks. That's my read on it, anyway, and it's supported indirectly by other comments down thread.

FWIW, with respect to the HN rules, it is frowned upon to comment on voting:

> "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thanks. I greatly appreciate your comment. I thought it might be others, not me. I'll assume that was it, as I would think that accuracy would be prized by programmers and such.

I think that 'guideline' about not commenting on voting is circumspect, because it means that people, in the heat of the moment, can press a button when they are pissed off, and don't have to craft a logical response ('the why'). It cheapens HN, I believe, and I'll mention this to Paul next time I see him.

Removing the guideline won't change voting behavior. And I'm pretty sure people who are going to downvote without commenting aren't likely to add a comment at the urging of another comment. The guideline is there to avoid exactly the type of thread this has become: tedious, boring (in the sense that it's been repeated time and again in other threads) and unlikely to do any good.