> Parenthetical type grammar with an explicit start character and end character is pivotal for encoding information unambiguously.

You argue against multiple types of dashes because context is sufficient, despite there being typographical ambiguity. But you insist that we must have typographically unambiguous bracket characters. I must admit that I am struggling in this conversation to determine when we can depend on context and when we need unambiguous markers. Perhaps I am just incapable of picking up on the subtle context that backs up this position of yours. (:

> everything beyond that is strawmanning me

In fact, you will find examples of real human languages that exhibit more extreme versions of the things I have suggested.

FOREXAMPLELATINWASORIGINALLYWRITTENINASINGLECASEWITHNOSPACESBETWEENWORDS SENTENCESWERESEPARATEDBYASINGLESPACE OBVIOUSLYALLOFTHEPUNCTUATIONISUNNECESSARY SOALLARGUMENTSABOUTTYPOGRAPHYOTHERTHANTHATOFFONTSAREBASEDINREALITY

There are languages with simpler tense systems than what English has. Slavic languages, for example, tend not to have a pluperfect. So, the example of removing tenses is based in reality.

Hawaiian has an alphabet of just 13 letters. So, removing letters from the 26 in the English alphabet is based in reality.

The Dictionnaire de l'Académie française is being updated to its 9th edition and is expected to have ~60K words[0], whereas English dictionaries report an order of magnitude more[1] (even with the issues in the linked source, this is a large gap). Basic English[2] has a vocabulary of less than 1,000 words (if you desire a vast overhaul of the existing norms of typography, I hope that you are at least willing to entertain prior art in the area of overhauling the use of natural language as a valid example, even if you disagree with the intention or outcome). If you wanted me to go to extremes (which again, I did not in the post you replied to), I could have just suggested we use Toki Pona. Of course, if I did suggest such a conlang, you may have been correct that I was strawmanning you and going to extremes just for a point. Nevertheless, we can definitely conclude that there are, in fact, natural human languages with substantially fewer words than modern English, and there are definitely constructed and artificially restricted natural languages with enormously smaller vocabularies.

You need not agree that these examples constitute best practice, or that they represent desirable goals in the continued evolution of language and written communication. I hope, though, that you can recognize that none of these are strawmen, but based in reality, many in natural languages, and some in artificially constrained natural languages for specific purposes. If anything, I presented examples that do not represent the extremes of any position (I could easily have brought up languages with no written representation, for example). I merely selected additional examples that conform to a broad categorization of removing stuff from modern English.

I welcome further discussion on the topic, but I worry you might dismiss things I say you disagree with, as you have done once above by ascribing an intention of strawmanning you, and as you seem wont to do with typographical conventions you dislike. And if you want to eliminate the punctuation you dislike, what might you do to a person whose arguments you dismiss? (;

It seems though, that you just don’t like the various dashes, which is totally fine. Many other people and I find value in them. Still more probably just go along because, as I said, a big part of language norms comes from inertia. The point of language (other than perhaps some, but not all, artistic expression) is communication. Why abandon the norms that facilitate this communication? Is it better to stand on preference (or perhaps principle) and harm your attempts at communication or to yield to norms and be better understood (though perhaps annoyed)? I do not know that there is a correct answer to this question.

I do hope, though, that I have disabused you of the fanciful notions that I was cherry-picking ideas that are extreme just to prove a point and that I was strawmanning your argument. I have shown above numerous examples that back up each of my suggestions, grounded in the reality of natural human languages. Further, I have shown several examples that are truly extreme to show that my original suggestions were not “intentionally extreme to prove a point.”

[0] https://www.thoughtco.com/academie-francaise-1364522
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-how-many-english-wo...
[2] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English