I find myself disliking the way parentheses are used; not the instances of their use, rather, the role each parenthesis is allotted. Whereas standard form of sentences bearing parenthetically bound statements, PBS henceforth, is: sent (statement) ence, I propose: sent) statement (ence as replacement.
Mid writing escalation: I hate the use. It seems a twice unjust sentence for the sentence bearing the PBS, which is penetrated and barred from knowing by what.
If the purpose of parentheses is to separate, while keeping whole, a statement within the sentence, and if the relationship of Sentence and PBS is hierarchical in the sentence’s favour, or even as long as it is not inversely hierarchical, the problematic nature of standard parentheses use is self-evident.
Parentheses don’t have to be used as the cleavers of sentences and the glue of their dubiously prioritized splicing; my proposed formal inversion of each parenthesis facilitates a change in their essence. Used this) proposed (way, the parentheses become interconnected portals; the first parenthesis is the wormhole through which the sentence enters, and through the second it emerges instantly. The PBS now exists on a higher) Two (dimensional loop, anchored in the space between the preceding and succeeding words, expressed in the sentence’s One dimensional plane as if unbounded in its sentenspace.
The proposed formal inversion of the parentheses maintains the non-inverted form’s clarity of separation between Sentence and PBS, while granting emancipation to the former, from the latter.
For you, Zealots of Language and Gatekeepers of its history, I close by admitting that no multidimensional playground with which I try convince you bests the etymology of Parenthesis itself, which tells us it is not inside the sentence, it is beside it.