zlacker

>>giulio+(OP)
"Recent large-scale upticks in the use of words like “delve” and “intricate” in certain fields, especially education and academic writing, are attributed to the widespread introduction of LLMs with a chat function, like ChatGPT, that overuses those buzzwords."

OK, but please don't do what pg did a year or so ago and dismiss anyone who wrote "delve" as AI writing. I've been using "delve" in speech for 15+ years. It's just a question where and how one learns their English.

>>milanc+p6
Same thing as with em dashes. Some of us have been using em dashes from before ChatGPT.

>>diego_+m8
Unfortunately the em dash has already been relegated to the dungeon of AI suspicion for the next 5-10 years.

>>Fade_D+lc
Good. It's a crutch for poorly composed sentences or for prose intending to imitate the affect of poorly composed sentences. There's not a single sentence under the sun that needs an emdash. Commas and parentheses can do it all, and an excess of either is a sign of poorly edited prose.

I don't buy the pro-clanker pro-em dash movement that has come out of nowhere in the past several years.

>>viccis+JB
> prose intending to imitate the affect of poorly composed sentences

Anyone who makes errors like this should not be talking.

>>jibal+dR
What's the error? I'd hyphenate "poorly-composed" (most wouldn't these days, but they can go to hell) and I think it's a bit too wordy for what it's communicating, but I don't see what I'd call an actual error.

I would personally avoid writing that "poorly composed sentences" have an "affect"—rather than the writer having or presenting an affect, or the sentences' tone being affected—as I find an implied anthropomorphizing of "sentences" in that usage, which anthropomorphizing isn't serving enough useful purpose, to my eye, that I'd want it in my writing, but I'm not sure I'd call that an error either.

What did you mean?

> Commas and parentheses can do it all, and an excess of either is a sign of poorly edited prose.

This attitude, however, is a disease of modern English literacy.

>>slippe+IK2
> What's the error?

a) prose doesn't have intentions ... it should be "prose intended to"

b) "effect of", not "affect of"

> I don't see what I'd call an actual error.

That's a serious problem. It's downright weird that you thought he was actually talking about affect (the noun).

This is an old conversation ... I won't revisit it.

>>jibal+jj3
I read it as the word aff-ect, not uh-ffect (American pronunciation; both are spelled “affect”). Noun sense of “affect”, not verb.

But it’s possible I was reading too generously and this was a botched attempt to employ “effect”, which would also fit (and better, I think).