"You must learn the rules so you can properly break them." —paraphrasing Picasso
----
As blacksheep of an intellectual family (lawyers, politicians, engineers), I've spent the majority of my employment around fellow bluecollars.
Despite my education (left medschool, decades ago) it scares my family when I speak in the colloquial jargon of my electrician co-workers. If I don't codeswitch back into the grammatically correct language of our upbringing, my brothers value what I have to say less ("what you said sounds dumb even though I understood you better").
Isn't the whole purpose of language to communicate the realities of World? As their brother, I think they mostly write to obfuscate intentions... I prefer the honesty of pure dumb.
> "You must learn the rules so you can properly break them.”
Paraphrasing a similar remark, I think I pulled from "sed & awk” [1]: A reference can teach you the rules, but they don’t show you how to really use them. There's the difference between reading the rules of a sport and actually playing the game.
Tangent: I’m beginning to question how broad the line is between a “rule breaker” and an acute student of tradition at odds a sort of institutionalized inertia. Maybe this “Words with Spaces” guy is on to something.
> Isn't the whole purpose of language to communicate the realities of World? As their brother, I think they mostly write to obfuscate intentions... I prefer the honesty of pure dumb.
This may speak to the significance of the court jesters of the past. And perhaps the rise of virtue signaling today?
[1]: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/sed-awk/1565922255/