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.
I don't buy the pro-clanker pro-em dash movement that has come out of nowhere in the past several years.
Anyone who makes errors like this should not be talking.
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.
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.
Oh no, oh lord lmao
I meant "affect" and not "effect." You need to learn what affect means. I'm not asking you to learn about affect theory, but ffs no part of my sentence implied it meant "effect" and not "affect." Ugh. It doesn't even make sense. What would the "effect" of "poorly composed sentences" be? Only affect makes sense there.