• lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m sorry, my tone was off somewhere. I was not criticizing you at all, but rather the source material. It just surprised me that they characterized it that way.

    I do apologize for the confusion.

    • sleepydragn1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      No worries, I feel like it’s hard to convey tone on the internet. I often personally find it challenging not to come off as confrontational, no matter what my actual intent is.

      Reflecting on it a little further, I also think my inconsistent use of “modern” in the prior posts as sometimes a shorthand for both “contemporary” and also “plainly understood” wasn’t doing me any favors in conveying my argument.

      • lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Right, understood. I’m saying that’s it’s Modern English as opposed to, say, Middle English. I can (mostly) read Chaucer, for example, but I still have to look stuff up. To me, that’s archaic. I cannot read Old English at all. And difficult, to me, would be, say, James Joyce (over my head, honestly), or Thomas Pynchon (readable, but requires a lot of thought), or say Foucault’s Pendulum (Eco is so much more erudite than I am).

        Edit: punctuation, ironically