robyurkowski/grammar.txt

## grammar.txt
I disagree strongly with the notion that emotion and tone must be left up to the imagination in written communication. It's often repeated, I think, because we don't have the full range of subtext provided by the body when communicating in person, but I'd argue that there is a whole host of metadata that accompanies the written statement, anyway. Semiological constructions have evolved over time to provide these visual cues—perhaps not in the same way, but certainly in a way that is respectible and replete with its own intricacies of meaning.

Credo: I believe that it is entirely possible to communicate without ambiguity in writing. Most importantly, I believe it is possible to do so in a concise manner. Correspondingly, I tend to get upset when I see prohibitions of parts of written speech. There's a difference between guarding against overuse and the often deontological imperative implied with such prohibitions. The occasional adverb adds spice, and the occasional exclamation point will clarify a sentence just as much as a comma before or after a vocative might. (Obligatory joke about 'Let's go eat, Grandma!' here.)

I think a better rallying cry might be 'With Purpose!'. So many people write and use grammar as they were taught without a thought toward why it might actually be important. In actuality, so long as the meaning of a sentence is clear, and its grammatical subtext spelled out in such a way that the reader does not achieve a different understanding than the one the writer would have him or her achieve, punctuate with abandon! It might be somewhat gauche to terminate every sentence with an exclamation point (I think that 'sales' copy tends to be particularly odious for this, off-hand), but a gentle rejoinder serves the Ancient Order of Grammar Keepers far better than an outright ban.

TL;DR: Grammar is so wonderful. Why would we stop using parts of it? We ought to keep the exclamation mark, even in business writing, so long as we use it in its proper place or where its use would produce a desired effect. Yes, amateurs tend to overuse such punctuation, but a blanket ban just makes the study of grammar irritatingly contrary.
	I disagree strongly with the notion that emotion and tone must be left up to the imagination in written communication. It's often repeated, I think, because we don't have the full range of subtext provided by the body when communicating in person, but I'd argue that there is a whole host of metadata that accompanies the written statement, anyway. Semiological constructions have evolved over time to provide these visual cues—perhaps not in the same way, but certainly in a way that is respectible and replete with its own intricacies of meaning.

	Credo: I believe that it is entirely possible to communicate without ambiguity in writing. Most importantly, I believe it is possible to do so in a concise manner. Correspondingly, I tend to get upset when I see prohibitions of parts of written speech. There's a difference between guarding against overuse and the often deontological imperative implied with such prohibitions. The occasional adverb adds spice, and the occasional exclamation point will clarify a sentence just as much as a comma before or after a vocative might. (Obligatory joke about 'Let's go eat, Grandma!' here.)

	I think a better rallying cry might be 'With Purpose!'. So many people write and use grammar as they were taught without a thought toward why it might actually be important. In actuality, so long as the meaning of a sentence is clear, and its grammatical subtext spelled out in such a way that the reader does not achieve a different understanding than the one the writer would have him or her achieve, punctuate with abandon! It might be somewhat gauche to terminate every sentence with an exclamation point (I think that 'sales' copy tends to be particularly odious for this, off-hand), but a gentle rejoinder serves the Ancient Order of Grammar Keepers far better than an outright ban.

	TL;DR: Grammar is so wonderful. Why would we stop using parts of it? We ought to keep the exclamation mark, even in business writing, so long as we use it in its proper place or where its use would produce a desired effect. Yes, amateurs tend to overuse such punctuation, but a blanket ban just makes the study of grammar irritatingly contrary.