you can judge the intended demographics of books published in years past...
like, children's books our high schooler's struggle with -- huck finn, etc...
yes the degradation of kids' vocabulary has been documented against prior generations and years,
and yes it is vastly declining...

so there will be LOTS of stupid people
and few with articulate function...
to tell the classes apart when we become a feudal society...
(zeitgeistmovie.com, anyone?:)

In traditional analysis, words in literal expressions denote what they mean according to common or dictionary usage, while words in figurative expressions connote additional layers of meaning. Thus, figuratively impossible refers to figurative expression and literally impossible refers to literal expression.

Perhaps your frustration rises from your unwillingness to consider the sentence in more than one possible context before becoming frustrated? Just a thought.

As to the rest, the fastest way to provide an empirical look at it is to review the historical shifts in academic instruction. Once upon a time, if one were writing to a "technical audience", one was instructed to write at an 11th to 12th grade level. If one were writing to a non-technical audience, one was instructed to write at an 9th to 10th grade level.

Today, it is commonly taught that if one is writing to a technical audience, one should write to the 9th to 10th grade level and, if to a non-technical audience, one should write to the 7th to 9th grade level.

It seems pretty straightforward and obvious to me, not so much a matter of perception at all.

Hm. I am of the mind that I did not mis-comprehend it at all, rather, I ignored the ability of the writer to use the possibility as a tool, and instead spoke about how it is impossible to provide for all possible misreadings. :)

Thank you for not posting "Here, here," as I have seen in other contexts.

Josh - "I think writers should be aware of them too."

Of course! :-)

Deborah - Fair enough, I appreciate you sharing your opinion. Certainly punctuation doesn't always follow how one would speak and there are lots rules that have little to do with spoken language (often being based upon archaic technologies and traditions, as is the case with much punctuation used in American English in particular). That said, my understanding is that the use of punctuation did evolve from spoken language and that there's an intrinsic connection between spoken and written language.

Certainly the intent of punctuation is to clarify meaning, this doesn't negate the reality that some rules actually confuse meaning or don't make a great deal of sense when considered on a practical level in terms of clarifying meaning. Anyone who works as an editor, or corrects papers or is involved in similar activities, will have their own pet peeves about common errors or have stylistic preferences. I take it that you take particular issue with the overly liberal use of commas :-)

Speaking of punctuation, does anyone else have fun reading Kerouc? I love his writing, but the lack of punctuation has me holding my breath for pages on end. I have to consciously stop myself and breathe or I fear I'll pass out. Heehee.