Eschewingallpunctuationforscriptocontinuaisofcourseppossiblethoughitishelltoread.Itisevendifficulttotypewithoutaddingthespacesreflexivelyifindasipostthis.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua>
There's a reason monks of old read aloud. It was about the only way to confirm the actual meaning of a text.
(Bass-ackwards hint: "Arabic" expresses poorly when vowels are excluded.)
Some people do talk like that . All complete thoughts . Sequential.
Other people—and I very much count myself among them—have a less linear, more tree-like mode of expression; where the ideas, instead of building on what came before, are being laid out out of order – the ideas aren’t completed – and more complex punctuation is needed to establish the relationships between those thoughts.
It sounds like I’m saying the former is less sophisticated than the latter. I don’t think that’s true.
I think we should probably try to express our ideas in a way that doesn’t require out-of-sequence reasoning. Short, simple sentences. With clear meanings. Building on one another. Much easier to follow.
The tree-like mode of endless nested parentheticals and asides is just a rendering of an incomplete thought process.
Not better or more sophisticated. Just still in progress.
so when he wrote something . he used only periods to denote pauses . no other punctuation symbols . no capital letters . some people were thinking that his periods stand for perl concatenation operators . i dont know if he is still doing this . i hope he stopped