Talk:3229: Grammar

E3EeE E3eE!! Logalex8369 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I created a transcript, but used OCR for all the E's because I kept losing count of how many there were. If someone wants to factcheck that, please do. 104.28.215.220 22:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Factchecked 19 E's counted in the image and 19 E's counted in the transcript. 12.155.149.34 23:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the bot picked up the April Fool's "feature" as interactive, should we keep it or remove? 104.28.215.220 22:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Side note: I have heard people using both alternate niche methods of language structure, kinda like those people who adopt a losing format even after it's clear it has lost. On character who has on occasion dabbled in both is Homer Simpson, BTW. --94.73.49.13

I still say that Video2000 was the superior home VCR format, in every way...81.179.199.253 23:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Any "competitors" to grammar would still be grammars since a grammar, by definition, describes how a language is structured. 75.248.235.98 00:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, the Random Words one seems to have no particular structure beyond being word-utterances, and the EEEEEEEEEEEEEE one doesn't even have much that can be structuralised (though I'm half expecting it to actually supposed to be a modem 'yowl', it needn't even be that), so I'm willing to bet that this exempts them from any consistent quality of being grammar. 81.179.199.253 00:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The second example used the term word-s which in itself is a structure with grammar. And the last example might well have grammar, if eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee is a single morpheme, we siply wouldn't be able to recognize the grammar. 195.65.24.115

I interpreted "words order words random words words random good" differently. I assumed it was missing commas and should be read as "words-order", "words-random" "words-words" "random-good". Maybe(probably?) not what Randall intended, but if anyone interpreted it the same as me, you're not alone! 69.204.108.174 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

i reconsider this: non-verbal communication isn't another rival for communication, as it is a subset (after seeing and liking this anon's edit), but i'm not sure what other methods there could be than just communication and non-communication; Lenhart says "rivals" plural -- somefan (talk | contribs) 00:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Pretty sure the joke is that any alternative to communication would by definition be impossible to communicate. --Biotronic (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I worded that wrong - what I meant is that is an example of non-communication, which is not very effective at transmitting information --Biotronic (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you 137.25.230.78 00:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

steal orange me steal eat orange me eat orange steal me eat orange steal me you King Pando (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

orange orange orange orange orange orange orange orange orange yellow orange you glad I didn't say orange? 98.22.184.160 11:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that light/photons are the most popular way of transmitting information? to (most) humans anyway... 2a02:a468:b8cb:0:5a82:a830:1528:55af (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Only up until the last mile. 82.13.184.33 14:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Why waste time use good grammar when bad grammar do trick? 70.40.121.82 15:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Cuz if you're doing too bad grammar, sometimes you'll see some sentences that triggers Uncanny Valley effect (or related stuff). (I would guess this way) Cream Starlight (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)