Re-visiting "Light is making your body earlier"

  • Hello Everyone:

    I am new to this site, so sorry about earlier mis-postings. I couldn't find the editing function.

    I know the Support Team has locked this conversation in the past, but I am troubled by the poor grammar. More critically, the phrase makes no sense at all - at least not to us non-scientific types.

    I understand the spacing constraints and I am no expert in this area, but can I suggest a possible (simple) revision:

    "Light is setting my internal clock earlier".

    It's not perfect - but it's a major improvement, I believe.

    Thank you


  • It is not poor grammar. As stated multiple times, when you know what it's saying, you realize that it's absolutely perfect English in every way. We have explained what it means many, many, many times. The thread and all posts are still on this site, so just read them. We don't need to keep making new posts on this! If you read them, then you should no longer have any problem understanding what it means.

    I am honestly tired of seeing this question asked over and over on here even though it has been explained extremely well and extremely thoroughly. There are multiple posts now that are simply repeating the same information and the same explanations. Do we really need another one? So, instead of waiting for more posts to be made in your new thread here (posts which will just be saying what has already been said multiple times), go read those posts since they already exist. If you don't want to do that, then we can't expect you to read or listen to any new posts we make that just say the same thing we've already tried to say several times. Right?

  • @twocables you're going to dislike my opinion but I agree the message is oddly stated.

    It is correct grammar sure, but it could be defined without needing prior explanation.

    "Light is making your circadian schedule (rhythm) earlier."

    "Light is making your body schedule later".

    I understand it in its current form but for those new to this subject, it would be helpful to have a "what's this" as the fluxometer website has--then it could be thoroughly explained with a drop down box of some kind.

  • @tungsten_smooth said in Re-visiting "Light is making your body earlier":

    @twocables you're going to dislike my opinion but I agree the message is oddly stated.

    It is correct grammar sure, but it could be defined without needing prior explanation.

    "Light is making your circadian schedule (rhythm) earlier."

    "Light is making your body schedule later".

    I understand it in its current form but for those new to this subject, it would be helpful to have a "what's this" as the fluxometer website has--then it could be thoroughly explained with a drop down box of some kind.

    Michael and Lorna told us in the other thread that they are creating such a page (we asked for it many times now) but it's still far from being done due to all of the exhausting work they still have to do in order to complete the page. I posted a reply saying that they should just create a very simple temporary page in the meantime that just gives a very brief explanation with a note at the end that far more information is coming in the future for those who want to learn much more. That way, people who refuse to read any of those posts can just have a web page they can look at instead that explains it (a page they can access right from the f.lux window). I think they said they are just going to wait until they are done with the project-sized task of creating such a page instead. I hope they make sure it doesn't take longer than just 30 seconds to a minute to read it. heh

    The first time these two statements were questioned on here, it was understandable because there was nothing anywhere that explained them. That's why I stepped up to the plate and did my best to explain them, making attempt after attempt after attempt (frustratingly futile attempts), and it consumed several hours of my personal time and I'm honestly feeling that my time has been completely wasted. I wasn't the only one trying to explain these statements either. Today, this forum has dozens of posts explaining both statements, and all anyone has to do is read some of them and then they will understand - meaning, they won't have to make any new posts or new threads on this where all they would end up with is several MORE posts to read - and possibly a discussion that goes nowhere like this one. I can find the existing posts right now by just doing a simple forum search for either of these 2 statements. So, there's no excuse for anyone now.

    I don't think this is difficult at all. I took the time to understand these statements on the day they were added to the f.lux window. Yes, they struck me as extremely odd-sounding at first too, but that's why I took the time to understand them. Once I understood them, I no longer saw them as odd-sounding or in bad grammar, etc. Oh sure, I could have easily just fired a thread at Michael and Lorna on here instead saying or complaining that these statements are all wrong and need to be corrected, but I decided to see WHY they worded these statements this way. I figured it out (it wasn't hard and it really didn't take that long), and now I'm convinced these 2 statements have been carefully worded, and no, they don't break any rules of the English language whatsoever. They are just very uncommon types of statements. Take the time to understand them, and then you will be able to accept them and move on. (I don't mean you, Tungsten_smooth, just people in general).

  • Ok, I know there have been past threads about this matter, so I definitely don't want to make this a bigger issue than it actually is. I really love what f.lux is about, and I love what it's helping me achieve. My intent is to help back if I can.

    With that out of the way, I have to admit that I had to google the "Light is making.." sentence to figure out what it means/meant. That's not very helpful if the sentence is meant to educate the end user about how light affects them. I have a suggestion for alternate wording, and I'm willing to work with the creators to come up with something else if this doesn't work.


    • "Ambient light is delaying your internal/body clock" / "Ambient light is rushing your internal/body clock" (choose between "internal" and "body")
      (These can sound like it's a bad thing or a judgement versus a neutral thing or an observation. But other that that, it might be the most concise and easy-to-understand way of putting it---assuming that I have correctly understood the intent of the original.)

    • "Ambient light is starting you earlier" / "Ambient light is pushing you later"
      (This option uses the original "earlier/later". I'm providing this option in case my first suggestions don't correctly grasp/portray the science.)

    [TwoCables, I've seen your opinions on more than one thread and you seem pretty sold on them, so forgive me for deciding not to engage with you---because this is not an attack of any kind on Michael or Lorna. I am however referencing what you say for the benefit of everyone else who may read my comment here: No, that sentence is not perfectly good grammar/usage. (I am a language editor, and I have good reason for saying that.) I can explain why I think the sentence as it is doesn't work, but I'll do so only if someone really wants to understand this and requests an explanation. My comment is not about who's right or why or about the complexities and idiosyncrasies of English grammar. It is not about any perceived superiority in myself. And it certainly isn't about going on and on about "bad grammar." It is no more or less than an attempt to fix something that many (myself included) find confusing language---and not for reasons of being pedantic but because it is a barrier to understanding a very valuable piece of information.]

  • "Ambient light" doesn't tell me that I have to consider the light coming from my monitor because that's direct light. Ambient light is what's around me. Think of the word "ambience". Who thinks of the light being emitted by their monitor as "ambient light"?

    I doubt Michael and Lorna want to have any possibility of anyone forgetting to consider the light coming from their monitor.

    Anyway, as I have said dozens of times before, you can see that it's perfectly good English if you understand what it's saying. I and others on here beaten this horse to death explaining what it means and I'm absolutely sick and tired of seeing this come back up every so often because it shouldn't have to anymore. So, the only reason why you think it's not good English is, you don't fully understand what it's saying. Take the time to study what has been posted. As for me, well, I simply understood it because I took the time to think about it. Nobody explained it to me, so if I can figure it out, anyone can.

    Imagine if you're learning a new language and you hear phrase before you understand what it means. You would say it doesn't make any sense. This is no different, except you are familiar with each individual word. Once you understand what this phrase means though, the proverbial light turns on and you just go "omg now I get it. Now I see it's perfect as-is and it couldn't be any better than this."

  • @TwoCables You are wrong.
    I've read through all the various threads over the past (checks ... ) 2 years.

    Multiple people have explained in detail the Grammatical flaws in the sentence, many of whom have agreed that it is attempting to express a perfectly sound scientific concept (and have explained that concept in detail, to demonstrate that they fully understand all the concepts and words)

    All you do is keep arbitrarily asserting that you're right and that anyone else that disagrees with you is wrong, thus must not understand what the sentence means. They do understand. The sentence is wrong.

    You are "sick and tired of this coming up over and over again" ... because that sentence is NOT grammatically sound.

    You need to start considering the possibility that perhaps it is you that are wrong.

    (Credentials: 30 years highly educated Native English Speaker. 2 degrees, from Cambridge. 10 years experience of a profession that requires a great deal of articulating complex and abstract concepts)

  • I refuse to discuss this any further, especially with someone who starts off with "You are wrong". I am absolutely sick and tired of this discussion, and I'm absolutely sick and tired of people who start off responses with "You are wrong". I didn't read your post. I only read up to the period after "You are wrong", and then I began giving you this response. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.

  • @twocables You are right.
    See what I did there ;)

    But more seriously ... yes, it was foolish of me to start my post in such an inflammatory manner, and it obviously didn't achieve anything that I wanted to achieve.

    I'm sorry, and I will attempt a more conciliatory tone ...

    That said, "I'm not going to bother reading your posts because you disagree with me", is both never actually helpful, and also demonstrative of why this conversation keeps coming up (and also, I suspect, why you're frustrated with it.)

    You appear to be citing "I didn't read your post" as some sort of badge of honour. It isn't.


    Looking back through the conversation history, it doesn't seem like you're ever actually reading the posts of the people you're disagreeing with, or at least you aren't addressing the content of their posts. Throughout the history, your answers can be consistently paraphrased as:

    You don't understand the sentence, and that is why you're wrong. And I know that you don't understand the sentence because you keep saying the sentence doesn't make sense. Let me explain to you what the sentence means and/or why you don't understand it.

    You don't literally start each response with "You're wrong", the way I did. But it's very clear that you aren't seriously considering the possibility that they might be right, which amounts to the same thing.

    By comparison, the people you're arguing with responding (sometimes, not universally) that they do understand the intent behind the sentence, and they do understand the science backing that intent up (with summaries of that science, to demonstrate that they understand), and that there is still a grammatical flaw in the sentence.

    Several of them go into detail about the nature of that flaw, and explain specifically why they believe it is ungrammatical, in terms of English Grammar. You don't do the same; you don't attempt to explain why it is that the sentence IS grammatical.
    At every turn your response is always "I just know that you're wrong, and that must mean that you don't understand the sentence".

    Your argument is circular:

    "You think X, because Y. And I know Y is true because you have said you think X"

    You never provide any evidence of either X actually being false or Y actually being true. You just keep re-asserting "X if and only if Y", as though that proves your point. It doesn't.
    For the avoidance of doubt, in this context X = "The sentence is ungrammatical" and Y = "You don't understand the sentence".

  • Maybe I wasn't clear enough the first time: I am done with this discussion. I'm tired of it! It has been beaten to death over and over and over, and now you want to beat it to death some more. I'm not interested.