One should always use the word that conveys ones meaning in the cleanest, most concise way possible. The written word is a terrible substitute for face-to-face communication as it is; getting all "whatevs yo" about it only leads to confusion. We're now five comments deep on whether or not the word is appropriate. QED, it's not. But just to prove a point: - rationalwiki is the only site I can find on the Internet that refers to "a poe" which, paradoxically, uses the statement "'Poe' as a noun has become almost as ubiquitous as Poe's Law itself." - Urbandictionary has seven definitions of "poe", none of which match the usage here. In fact, Urbandictionary asserts that "a poe" is the author of said parody, not the parody itself. - Poe's Law is easy to invoke without confusion. There are times when inventing new words is beneficial to the language. Then there are times when attempting to shoehorn a definition just adds confusion. We all know what satire is. We all know what Poe's Law is. We don't, however, agree on what "a Poe" is so perhaps it's not the best word to use. That's all I'm saying. FFS.
It's blinkered to say language is solely for "convey[ing] ones [sic] meaning in the cleanest, most concise way possible." That sounds like language according to a mirthless bureaucrat (well, anyone who prescribes rules about language using the word "always" sounds like a bureaucrat). I think ambiguities should be welcome—the mot juste may sometimes be the word that is more fanciful than it is pragmatic. It's true: language is first and foremost for communication. But there's obviously a sensuous, frolicking side to it, a side that shouldn't be overlooked (watch master wordsmith Stephen Fry elaborate). It was fun to see this blog post dubbed "a poe"; quite a bit more fun than to read countless others who gabbed about it's legitimacy as "satire" (how dreary!). Most of the nonce words in Finnegans Wake don't exist because they are "beneficial to the language". To the contrary: Joyce invented words out of sheer playfulness. Quibbling with that impulse seems to me like dourness or, worse, pedantry. That's all I am saying.
It is. Good thing I didn't say that. I said: I didn't say "language." I said "the word." See, that was me being clean and concise and getting my point across. You, on the other hand, got all loosey-goosey with it and now we have a misunderstanding. And then he explained them. Or put them in context. Or otherwise used them in a way in which he improved the dialog between himself and his readers. He did not say "that was a Poe" only to have someone else say "What's a poe" only to respond "it's one of several meanings in this article here, I think, there weren't any better links." You know what's dreary? Pointing out that a word choice is imprecise and then, six layers deep, having someone slap you in the face with Stephen Fucking Fry. [sic] yourself. Have you ever seen [sic] used by anyone who wasn't trying to be a dick to the other person?It's blinkered to say language is solely for "convey[ing] ones [sic] meaning in the cleanest, most concise way possible."
One should always use the word that conveys ones meaning in the cleanest, most concise way possible.
Most of the nonce words in Finnegans Wake don't exist because they are "beneficial to the language". To the contrary: Joyce invented words out of sheer playfulness.
Au contraire, deploying [sic] was merely an attempt to live up to your standards of cleanness and concision (although that standard applies to words but, paradoxically, not to language? Puzzling.) I'm glad you qualified your "beneficial to the language" diktat. You see, regarding [sic], I feared that a less fortunate reader than myself might get snagged on the absence of the possessive apostrophe: " 'conveys ones meaning' — What the dickens does that mean?" So I took it upon myself to swoop in with [sic] and save those hypothetically befuddled readers...just like how you averted disaster by clarifying exactly what "a poe" was, right? We're both so very gallant, you and I. I'm a newcomer here, but I read through some of your comment history and apparently this isn't the first time the question of dickishness (in conjunction with you, specifically) has come up on hubski. I saw that you've written, "The problem here is that some people really want to be offended." In light of your utterly gratuitous "poe" clarification, we could revise that: some people here are really looking for ways to be confused.
Remember to differentiate between normative and positive statements in order to more directly declare your intent ("should" and "always" in the same sentence).One should always use the word that conveys ones meaning in the cleanest, most concise way possible.