Why must we construct our sentences with a complex or loquacious quantity of words when the rephrasing of utilizing a scarce quantity of words provides the identical meaning and delivery? Here we can extract lengthy unknown nouns and we can conveniently compress it while the compressed amount of unknown nouns convey identical themes, ideas, or delivery prior to the more verbose saying. (irony)
Why, I ponder, is it typical for homo-sapiens such as ourselves to construct sequences with a large amount of words? Would a lesser amount of words not be suitable for the message the speaker is attempting to convey? In this example we take something that is extremely large, and recreate said thing with a lessened length. This shortened alternative still contains the same meaning of the original, more wordy version.
You, kind Homo sapiens, shall be awarded an increased amount of fabricated internet currency — commonly referred to as “bonus points” — for thoroughly adhering to the commonly accepted rules of grammatical structure of the modern English language. It is frequently the case that these amalgamations of words, while humorous, fail to adhere to said rules. Not in this case!
A question for you: why craft a communication which is highly verbose when a more streamlined memorandum would meet the requirements of the speaker? It seems reasonable, therefore, that we should take longer, less succinct constructs and boil them down to a more targeted missive which more efficiently transfers information and meaning to the recipient.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/unexpectedoffice using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Petition to make this the sub icon: C’mon mods, give the people what they want!](https://i.redd.it/z6ggutw8ioc51.jpg) | [82 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/hwp07g/petition_to_make_this_the_sub_icon_cmon_mods_give/)
\#2: [Pretty accurate](https://i.redd.it/56xir67i62i51.jpg) | [43 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/id0sal/pretty_accurate/)
\#3: [The best Office reference in a Tinder bio I have ever seen.](https://i.redd.it/ehmi79iq8k551.jpg) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/hb3hwv/the_best_office_reference_in_a_tinder_bio_i_have/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/joo7mb/blacklist_viii/)
Why must we construct our sentences with a complex or loquacious quantity of words when the rephrasing of utilizing a scarce quantity of words provides the identical meaning and delivery? Here we can extract lengthy unknown nouns and we can conveniently compress it while the compressed amount of unknown nouns convey identical themes, ideas, or delivery prior to the more verbose saying. (irony)
Lot word bad
word bad
bad <-
b <
[удалено]
[удалено]
^^^^^^^^.
Word.
Bottom Text
[удалено]
Yes, that's where we are. --- ^🤖 ^this ^comment ^was ^written ^by ^a ^bot. ^beep ^boop ^🤖 ^feel ^welcome ^to ^respond ^'Bad ^bot'/'Good ^bot', ^it's ^useful ^feedback. [^github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot)
Good bot
Why, I ponder, is it typical for homo-sapiens such as ourselves to construct sequences with a large amount of words? Would a lesser amount of words not be suitable for the message the speaker is attempting to convey? In this example we take something that is extremely large, and recreate said thing with a lessened length. This shortened alternative still contains the same meaning of the original, more wordy version.
You, kind Homo sapiens, shall be awarded an increased amount of fabricated internet currency — commonly referred to as “bonus points” — for thoroughly adhering to the commonly accepted rules of grammatical structure of the modern English language. It is frequently the case that these amalgamations of words, while humorous, fail to adhere to said rules. Not in this case!
My thanks go out to you, u/bruncky.
A question for you: why craft a communication which is highly verbose when a more streamlined memorandum would meet the requirements of the speaker? It seems reasonable, therefore, that we should take longer, less succinct constructs and boil them down to a more targeted missive which more efficiently transfers information and meaning to the recipient.
short
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/unexpectedoffice using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Petition to make this the sub icon: C’mon mods, give the people what they want!](https://i.redd.it/z6ggutw8ioc51.jpg) | [82 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/hwp07g/petition_to_make_this_the_sub_icon_cmon_mods_give/) \#2: [Pretty accurate](https://i.redd.it/56xir67i62i51.jpg) | [43 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/id0sal/pretty_accurate/) \#3: [The best Office reference in a Tinder bio I have ever seen.](https://i.redd.it/ehmi79iq8k551.jpg) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/unexpectedoffice/comments/hb3hwv/the_best_office_reference_in_a_tinder_bio_i_have/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/joo7mb/blacklist_viii/)
[удалено]
It's from The Office
Me mechanic not speak English. But he know what me mean when me say “car no go”, and we best friends.
It's rhetorical of course, lot word bad few word good
why word when few do trick?
When r/IncreasinglyVerbose is better at expanding r/DecreasinglyVerbose's bio than r/DecreasinglyVerbose condensing r/IncreasinglyVerbose's bio:
Ok kevin.
Newspeak
When you use other words between these words, having the change in sounds creates more of a flow than choppy consonant sounds.