good reason

[navi]

1) The only good reason for not getting a good night's sleep is writing
stories.

2) The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.
(attributed to Aldo Leopold)

3) The test of intelligent tinkering is saving all the parts.

Are the sentences correct and idiomatic?

I can understand them, and maybe I am being too logical here, but is
'writing stories' a 'reason' and is 'to save all the parts' a 'test'?
Something here bothers me.

'The intention to write stories' is a reason to do something.

The test would be whether one has saved all the parts or not.

Success in the test of intelligent tinkering is having saved all the
parts.



That's what I think.

I might be nitpicking here. I am just hoping you will see what I mean.
I am afraid the accusations will start to fly!

--
Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by navi
1) The only good reason for not getting a good night's sleep is writing
stories.
2) The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.
(attributed to Aldo Leopold)
3) The test of intelligent tinkering is saving all the parts.
Are the sentences correct and idiomatic?

Correct, no, idiomatic yes.

Correct is
"The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces."
(attributed to Aldo Leopold)
And not just attributed to, by.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Leopold
<https://www.maine.gov/dacf/mfs/projects/kennebec_woodlands/downloads/presentations/kwp_mike_dann.pdf>

The first step of understanding correctly is quoting correctly.
Replacing 'pieces' by 'parts' gives a misleading impression
of what it is all about,

Jan

[Hibou]

Post by navi
1) The only good reason for not getting a good night's sleep is writing
stories.
2) The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.
(attributed to Aldo Leopold)
3) The test of intelligent tinkering is saving all the parts.
Are the sentences correct and idiomatic?

I think (1)'s all right - reason as cause. (I'm reminded that Desmond
Morris, of Naked Ape fame, spent his small hours painting surrealist
pictures. This also seems a good reason.
<Loading Image...>)

I think I'd like to see a 'whether' in (2) and (3).

The test of intelligent tinkering is whether one saves all the parts.

Post by navi
I can understand them, and maybe I am being too logical here, but is
'writing stories' a 'reason' and is 'to save all the parts' a 'test'?
Something here bothers me.
'The intention to write stories' is a reason to do something.
The test would be whether one has saved all the parts or not.
Success in the test of intelligent tinkering is having saved all the
parts.
That's what I think.
I might be nitpicking here. I am just hoping you will see what I mean.
I am afraid the accusations will start to fly!

[navi]

Thank you both very much.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by navi
Thank you both very much.

First rule of Usenet: don't say "you" with no indication of who "you" is.

[navi]

Thank you, Athel,

I meant to thank Jan and Hibou. Two people had answered my question, and
I thanked both of them. In the internet site I use, it was clear that
only Jan and Hibou had answered my question, so if I was thanking two
people, the two people in question could only be Jan and Hibou. I guess
that in usenet it wasn't clear who I was thanking. I don't know how
usenet works.

I find it ironic that in usenet we have ambiguity!

Just kidding.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by navi
Thank you, Athel,
I meant to thank Jan and Hibou. Two people had answered my question, and
I thanked both of them. In the internet site I use, it was clear that
only Jan and Hibou had answered my question, so if I was thanking two
people, the two people in question could only be Jan and Hibou. I guess
that in usenet it wasn't clear who I was thanking.

Not clear at all: you didn't tell us. Were we supposed to read the
whole thread to find out?

Post by navi
I don't know how
usenet works.
I find it ironic that in usenet we have ambiguity!

Ambiguity that you have created yourself.

Post by navi
Just kidding.

What's amusing about it?

[Snidely]

Post by navi
Thank you, Athel,
I meant to thank Jan and Hibou. Two people had answered my question, and
I thanked both of them. In the internet site I use, it was clear that
only Jan and Hibou had answered my question, so if I was thanking two
people, the two people in question could only be Jan and Hibou. I guess
that in usenet it wasn't clear who I was thanking.

Not clear at all: you didn't tell us. Were we supposed to read the whole
thread to find out?

Post by navi
I don't know how
usenet works.
I find it ironic that in usenet we have ambiguity!

Ambiguity that you have created yourself.

Post by navi
Just kidding.

What's amusing about it?

It's Navi's thing. He accesses usenet to resolve ambiguity, and
demonstrates ambiguity through its use.

/dps "O to remember to include the message responded to"

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Hibou

Post by navi
1) The only good reason for not getting a good night's sleep is writing
stories.
2) The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.
(attributed to Aldo Leopold)
3) The test of intelligent tinkering is saving all the parts.
Are the sentences correct and idiomatic?

I think (1)'s all right - reason as cause. (I'm reminded that Desmond
Morris, of Naked Ape fame, spent his small hours painting surrealist
pictures. This also seems a good reason.
<https://uploads6.wikiart.org/images/desmond-morris/disturbance-in-the-colony-

1973.jpg>)

Post by Hibou
I think I'd like to see a 'whether' in (2) and (3).
The test of intelligent tinkering is whether one saves all the parts.

There is no 'whether' about it in the original source,

Jan