Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

Re: That didn't elevate my opinion of your intelligence any. text inside [ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

Re: That didn't elevate my opinion of your intelligence any. text inside

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mikko on January 22, 2001 at 17:08:22:

In Reply to: Re: That didn't elevate my opinion of your intelligence any. text inside posted by Bartholomew on January 22, 2001 at 13:37:23:

: But I did! I said that I never talked about computer languages in my main message, and you then acted as if that quote was a contradiction of my statement. I DID refer to threads, further on in the paragraph. (right here)

Did it ever occur to you that an argument is a back-and-forth kinda deal?

: : Get this in your head and get it there now: Human languages are unique. Anything else you can call a 'language' isn't comparable.

: Human languages are unique? What do you mean by that? Support your statement. [blah blah] Don't speak in unsupported generalities to try to prove specifics.

*LOL* Human languages are uniquee and it's the feature that sets us apart from any other creature on this planet. Ok, try these:
Duality (or patterning) -- the ability to use a small number of meaningless elements in combination to produce a large number of meaningful elements.
Displacement and open-endedness -- the ability to say things that don't relate to here-and-now and haven't said or heard before
and stimulus-freedom, which means the ability to say anything you like in any context.

Just try and find these features in any non-natural human language.

: The difference is not irrelevant, but the similarity is large enough that I CAN use the word "dialect" to describe both human and computer languages. Notice that when I used it I put it in quotes - that means in this case that the word applies only to an extent. It is a metaphor.

That comparison is a bad one and irrelevant.

: I already am a fourth-year student in Spanish. Too late. And yes, learning Spanish does scare me - sometimes I find myself obsessively translating everything I see or hear, and once I almost wrote a sentence in Spanish on a European History report. I had it in my head, and it seemed a little strange to me in some undefinable way, but it took me maybe ten seconds to figure out why.

"Makes you afraid"? Strange. I've studied 6 languages myself and I've found that it's irritating, at times, how the languages sometimes affect each other. Nothing scary about it, though.

: It sounds a little more formal. And yes, they are both incorrect in academic writing. I was not talking about being formal or academic; I was talking about SOUNDING formal.

What's the fucking difference here?

: I wasn't writing formally. Sounding formal is not equal to being formal.

Yeah. The same way as saying "I think you are a bastard" doesn't equal to saying "you are a bastard".

: When I write for school, I actually AM formal, and not just trying to reduce a sense of informality. I don't use contractions or refer to myself at all when I write for school.

So school is cool, eh?

: : You sound like I did 5 years ago.

: Give the Enneagram some credit. You are an 8w9 and I am a 5w4.

Ever heard of 8c5?

: : Hell no. They tend to be very concrete and in-your-face. (woof!)

: I got the impression that that was supposed to be a joke, but I don't get it. Would you like to explain?

An inside joke maybe. Not anything you'd get.

: : So you didn't say that standards are arbitrary or suggested so. You only implied and that doesn't mean much, because you can read implications in whichever way you want.

: How would you read this one in a contradictory manner? I think it was fairly clear what I thought, behind what I was writing.

Yeah, you THINK.

: : :If I was trying to say that good reasons exist behind every standard, I probably would have noticed the tone of my paragraph and gone to extra pains to counteract it.

: : ?

: Why are you confused? What I was saying makes sense.

Maybe to you.

: : So it can be dismissed right away. The only way to study languages is to study them in action.

: The only way to study science is to study nature in action, but physics courses make use of "thought experiments" for explanatory purposes regularly.

But languages aren't physics, are they?

: I would like you to be specific. What part of my definition is incorrect? Yes, I suppose that it is different from some other definitions, but since when did "different" mean "wrong"? String theory is different from Newtonian physics, but they are both valid world descriptions. And to think you were accusing me of acting like a know-it-all without support such a short time ago.

I explained to you the 'correct' definition. I'd expect you'd understand.

: That was all you had to say about standards in your entire description? One mention of them, almost off-hand? Dialects don't BECOME standards - they have to be MADE standards. If no one makes a concerted effort, the language will remain transient and keep changing. What you said, in both the above paragraph and the below one, I already knew from what our English class did with semantics a few months ago.

Not quite so. You're dismissing that an awful lot of people WANT to sound good. It takes no effort on the part of the people speaking the soon-to-be "standard".

: I agree, and I never said or implid that there can be only one standard for a given language. There can be several elitist groups who feel that their own particular grammar is correct, and thus several standards.

I never said you are an idiot and will never get what I'm saying here.

Mikko

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comments:
: : But I did! I said that I never talked about computer languages in my main message, and you then acted as if that quote was a contradiction of my statement. I DID refer to threads, further on in the paragraph. (right here) : Did it ever occur to you that an argument is a back-and-forth kinda deal? : : : Get this in your head and get it there now: Human languages are unique. Anything else you can call a 'language' isn't comparable. : : Human languages are unique? What do you mean by that? Support your statement. [blah blah] Don't speak in unsupported generalities to try to prove specifics. : *LOL* Human languages are uniquee and it's the feature that sets us apart from any other creature on this planet. Ok, try these: : Duality (or patterning) -- the ability to use a small number of meaningless elements in combination to produce a large number of meaningful elements. : Displacement and open-endedness -- the ability to say things that don't relate to here-and-now and haven't said or heard before : and stimulus-freedom, which means the ability to say anything you like in any context. : Just try and find these features in any non-natural human language. : : The difference is not irrelevant, but the similarity is large enough that I CAN use the word "dialect" to describe both human and computer languages. Notice that when I used it I put it in quotes - that means in this case that the word applies only to an extent. It is a metaphor. : That comparison is a bad one and irrelevant. : : I already am a fourth-year student in Spanish. Too late. And yes, learning Spanish does scare me - sometimes I find myself obsessively translating everything I see or hear, and once I almost wrote a sentence in Spanish on a European History report. I had it in my head, and it seemed a little strange to me in some undefinable way, but it took me maybe ten seconds to figure out why. : "Makes you afraid"? Strange. I've studied 6 languages myself and I've found that it's irritating, at times, how the languages sometimes affect each other. Nothing scary about it, though. : : It sounds a little more formal. And yes, they are both incorrect in academic writing. I was not talking about being formal or academic; I was talking about SOUNDING formal. : What's the fucking difference here? : : I wasn't writing formally. Sounding formal is not equal to being formal. : Yeah. The same way as saying "I think you are a bastard" doesn't equal to saying "you are a bastard". : : When I write for school, I actually AM formal, and not just trying to reduce a sense of informality. I don't use contractions or refer to myself at all when I write for school. : So school is cool, eh? : : : You sound like I did 5 years ago. : : Give the Enneagram some credit. You are an 8w9 and I am a 5w4. : Ever heard of 8c5? : : : Hell no. They tend to be very concrete and in-your-face. (woof!) : : I got the impression that that was supposed to be a joke, but I don't get it. Would you like to explain? : An inside joke maybe. Not anything you'd get. : : : So you didn't say that standards are arbitrary or suggested so. You only implied and that doesn't mean much, because you can read implications in whichever way you want. : : How would you read this one in a contradictory manner? I think it was fairly clear what I thought, behind what I was writing. : Yeah, you THINK. : : : :If I was trying to say that good reasons exist behind every standard, I probably would have noticed the tone of my paragraph and gone to extra pains to counteract it. : : : ? : : Why are you confused? What I was saying makes sense. : Maybe to you. : : : So it can be dismissed right away. The only way to study languages is to study them in action. : : The only way to study science is to study nature in action, but physics courses make use of "thought experiments" for explanatory purposes regularly. : But languages aren't physics, are they? : : I would like you to be specific. What part of my definition is incorrect? Yes, I suppose that it is different from some other definitions, but since when did "different" mean "wrong"? String theory is different from Newtonian physics, but they are both valid world descriptions. And to think you were accusing me of acting like a know-it-all without support such a short time ago. : I explained to you the 'correct' definition. I'd expect you'd understand. : : That was all you had to say about standards in your entire description? One mention of them, almost off-hand? Dialects don't BECOME standards - they have to be MADE standards. If no one makes a concerted effort, the language will remain transient and keep changing. What you said, in both the above paragraph and the below one, I already knew from what our English class did with semantics a few months ago. : Not quite so. You're dismissing that an awful lot of people WANT to sound good. It takes no effort on the part of the people speaking the soon-to-be "standard". : : I agree, and I never said or implid that there can be only one standard for a given language. There can be several elitist groups who feel that their own particular grammar is correct, and thus several standards. : I never said you are an idiot and will never get what I'm saying here. : Mikko
Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/2009.html

Your Ad Here