Beyond Pig Latin (was Re: How can Orbital Electron Rotate Permanently without Energy Supply?)
Allan Adler
what Autymn has been doing with Latin and English. I don't think sci.chem
and the other science groups are the place to go into it, but maybe sci.lang
or humanities.classics would be a suitable venue. For that reason, I'm
cross posting this to those groups and deleting most of the science groups,
the last of which will be deleted after the thread moves to sci.lang
and humanities.classics.
As a purely linguistic exercise, no one seems to mind kids learning
pig latin, for example. So, I have no problem with Autymn's interest
trying to find replacements for words of Latin origin. I'd just like to
see more public discussion of the details about the method, so that it
can be explained to others who might like to try it, e.g. kids.
Also, I don't see any reason why the exercise should be confined to Latin.
One could try to find replacements in language A for words derived from
language B. Those replacements could be derived, in some sense, from
languages C,D,E,... (which might just be A, or not, or might be A at various
stages of its evolution). For example, suppose one wanted to get all of the
indo-european stuff out of English, according to Autymn's method. How would
that work and what would be left?
What is interesting is that Autymn isn't just trying to delete words of
Latin origin, but to develop some kind of rules for replacing them. That
seems like a legitimate language study activity, even if it doesn't actually
advance professional language studies.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I don't mean to intrude into this discussion, but I'm curious about
> what Autymn has been doing with Latin and English. I don't think sci.chem
> and the other science groups are the place to go into it, but maybe sci.lang
> or humanities.classics would be a suitable venue. For that reason, I'm
> cross posting this to those groups and deleting most of the science groups,
> the last of which will be deleted after the thread moves to sci.lang
> and humanities.classics.
You do realize we have no idea what you're talking about.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Richard Herring
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
Think yourself lucky. If you can follow the thread backward into
sci.physics, where it originated, you will find out. Autymn is the
character with weird ideas about English spelling and the permissible
uses of "data".
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
I have enough trouble stomaching AA's postings.
Dennis
>>> I don't mean to intrude into this discussion, but I'm curious about
>>> what Autymn has been doing with Latin and English. I don't think
>>> sci.chem and the other science groups are the place to go into it,
>>> but maybe sci.lang or humanities.classics would be a suitable venue.
>>> For that reason, I'm cross posting this to those groups and deleting
>>> most of the science groups, the last of which will be deleted after
>>> the thread moves to sci.lang and humanities.classics.
>>
>>You do realize we have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Think yourself lucky. If you can follow the thread backward into
> sci.physics, where it originated, you will find out. Autymn is the
> character with weird ideas about English spelling and the permissible
> uses of "data".
It sounds like I've heard they do in Iceland: coin words with native
roots to replace anything of international origin. Thus 'electricity'
becomes 'rafmagn' = "amber power".
Maybe he thinks we should do the same in English with Latin words.
Of course, if we got rid of all the words of Romance origin, more than half
the language would be gone.
Dennis
Allan Adler
> It sounds like I've heard they do in Iceland: coin words with native
> roots to replace anything of international origin. Thus 'electricity'
> becomes 'rafmagn' = "amber power".
Interesting.
> Maybe he thinks we should do the same in English with Latin words.
> Of course, if we got rid of all the words of Romance origin, more than half
> the language would be gone.
I don't know whether Autymn D.C. is male or female. I've seen the expansion
Autymn Deborah Carleton, which suggests the latter. As for words of Latin
origin, I think Autymn is trying to replace them, not conceptually, as in
the plausible Icelandic example you cited, but somewhat mechanically.
One recent example on sci.chem was replacing the word "dissolve" with
"froloose", or something like that, with dis- mechanically replaced by
fro-, as in from, and so on (I hesitate to say "et cetera").
I think that it is perfectly all right if someone wants to play games like
that with words. It can even have some merit in making people aware of some
superficial aspects of English origins and word formation. In particular, I
see no problem with kids playing with this, just as they do with pig latin.
On the other hand, I disagree with Autymn's apparent insistence that
everyone should do this all the time. However, even that doesn't really
matter. Let's take Autymn's idea to its logical conclusion. This idea
requires infrastructure. Someone needs to write the English-Autymn
dictionary that tells people what words to use instead of the ones
Autymn is trying to get people to stop using. Someone needs to write
the rules of formation that will help people figure out how to handle
words that aren't explicitly mentioned in the dictionary. Maybe Autymn
can be entrusted with this responsibility, maybe not. I don't even know
whether Autymn is interested in doing it. In any case, there is plenty
of room on the internet and these reference materials can be placed
at a suitable website in case anyone is interested in pursuing the idea
for whatever reason.
I can imagine perfectly legitimate scenarios, other than whatever Autymn
is trying to accomplish, in which someone might be interested in doing so.
Just to take one example, let us note that there is no idea so delusional
that it cannot be made law. It is therefore conceivable that someone would
write a novel in which people who view things from Autymn's point of view
wind up in power and start revising the dictionary accordingly and requiring
people to modify their manner of speaking and writing. The author of that
novel is going to have to create dialogue in the language that Autymn wants
everyone to speak. I say, let's give that author the reference materials
he/she needs!
In view of this application, I am cross posting this to misc.writing.
An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
grammar.
Peter T. Daniels
> I don't know whether Autymn D.C. is male or female. I've seen the expansion
> Autymn Deborah Carleton, which suggests the latter. As for words of Latin
> origin, I think Autymn is trying to replace them, not conceptually, as in
> the plausible Icelandic example you cited, but somewhat mechanically.
> One recent example on sci.chem was replacing the word "dissolve" with
> "froloose", or something like that, with dis- mechanically replaced by
> fro-, as in from, and so on (I hesitate to say "et cetera").
Funny that "Autymn" gives itself a name transparently from Greek roots.
> In view of this application, I am cross posting this to misc.writing.
I am uncrossposting this.
> An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> grammar.
Duh.
> --
> Ignorantly,
Duh.
Alan Anderson
> An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> grammar.
It's probably a little more accurate to say it the other way around:
Tolkien wrote stories about Middle Earth as a playground for the
languages he designed. He also seemed more focused on the process of
language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
"finished" language.
(I don't believe mentioning Klingon grammar in this context is
appropriate. You're talking about someone whose goal is apparently
spelling reform and simple substitution of one word for another, while
keeping the existing grammar. In contrast, Klingon was designed to
have a grammar quite unlike most natural languages, which is a
completely different kind of task.)
Tommi Nieminen
> Tolkien [...] also seemed more focused on the process of
> language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
> "finished" language.
That's because Tolkien's own knowledge of linguistics was strictly of a
historical kind.
--
.... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ....
Nothing is more keenly required than a defence of bores.
-G. K. Chesterton-
.... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi ....
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Alan Anderson kirjoitti:
>
> > Tolkien [...] also seemed more focused on the process of
> > language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
> > "finished" language.
>
> That's because Tolkien's own knowledge of linguistics was strictly of a
> historical kind.
?? That's what philology _was_ when he learned and practiced it.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Allan Adler wrote:
>
> > An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> > languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> > grammar.
>
> It's probably a little more accurate to say it the other way around:
> Tolkien wrote stories about Middle Earth as a playground for the
> languages he designed. He also seemed more focused on the process of
> language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
> "finished" language.
Unfortunately, we may never know -- there's an obscure note in the last
(12th) volume of Christopher Tolkien's edition of the background
materials stating that there's lots more material on the languages in
the archives (in Wheaton?), and he's not going to bother to publish it.
Neeraj Mathur
>
> It sounds like I've heard they do in Iceland: coin words with native
> roots to replace anything of international origin. Thus 'electricity'
> becomes 'rafmagn' = "amber power".
>
> Maybe he thinks we should do the same in English with Latin words.
> Of course, if we got rid of all the words of Romance origin, more than half
> the language would be gone.
It's happened twice in Hindi. First, in the early 1800's, the literary
language of Urdu (based on a spoken Delhi dialect called Khari Boli) was
purged of its Perso-Arabic vocabulary, replacing all of the 'foreign'
words with Sanskrit-derived neologisms; the result was 'pure' literary
Hindi. This has been of some success, although only a few newspapers
insist on a highly Sanskritized style; most modern Hindi admits some
Perso-Arabic words, as well as a lot of Sanskrit. (Nevertheless, the
more Persian that is admitted, the more likely a text is to be
considered Urdu rather than Hindi.)
It occurred again after independance from Britain in 1947, this time
purging Hindi of all English words and replacing them with Sanskrit.
This was almost entirely unsuccessful, since most people were confused
or amused by such words as 'agni-rath-viram-sthan' (lit. fire chariot
resting location) for 'station'.
Neeraj Mathur
Tommi Nieminen
> ?? That's what philology _was_ when he learned and practiced it.
Exactly what I meant, at least for the "when he learned it" part of your
sentence. During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
Ivor Longhorn
<tommiDOT...@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> said:
>Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>
>> ?? That's what philology _was_ when he learned and practiced it.
>
>Exactly what I meant, at least for the "when he learned it" part of your
>sentence. During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
>new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
Like what?
Dr Zen
Editor, Man of Letters of Little Renown, Writer, Liveried Lackey at Times and Occasional Masturbator
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
Editing Done Cheap. Apply for Rates. I Also Write. So Long as You Don't Want a Whole Novel. Been Known to Read Proofs.
Tommi Nieminen
>> During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
>> new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
>
> Like what?
Are you not aware of any changes in linguistic thought during those times?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
> >> During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
> >> new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Are you not aware of any changes in linguistic thought during those times?
I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would have been
English majors? I.e. prescriptivists? English majors are notoriously
ignorant of and hostile to linguistics -- they may have been required to
take one one-semester course to graduate, which they slept through.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang,misc.writing:
[...]
> I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would
> have been English majors?
I know quite a few writers; a majority of them were *not* English
majors, and several were in mathematics, computer science,
science, or engineering.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
And they wouldn't have been required to take even _one_ linguistics
course. Hence the a-fortiori irrelevance of the question I was
addressing.
Towse
I took a Logic and Philosophy class once. Got an A. Does that count?
Biology major/Chemistry, minor. Former book-shelver, 'cot cutter,
inventory taker, exo-biology researcher, computer wizard, software
engineer, proofreader, envelope stuffer, writer of code, writer of words
and investigator of cerebral tempests.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:16:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >><gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang,misc.writing:
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>>I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would
> >>>have been English majors?
> >>
> >>I know quite a few writers; a majority of them were *not* English
> >>majors, and several were in mathematics, computer science,
> >>science, or engineering.
> >
> > And they wouldn't have been required to take even _one_ linguistics
> > course. Hence the a-fortiori irrelevance of the question I was
> > addressing.
>
> I took a Logic and Philosophy class once. Got an A. Does that count?
Linguists need to know about logic, but not vice versa, so not really.
But you might be good at linguistics!
When I was an undergraduate at Cornell, Logic was in the Math department
and Semantics was in the Philosophy department, and both were
recommended for linguistics majors. The textbook for the former was by
Kalish and Montague, and Montague went on to devise "Montague Grammar,"
a highly formalized system for describing linguistic semantics. The
latter was taught by Max Black, a very well known philosopher -- and one
day he brought to class Georg Henrik von Wright, an even more important
philosopher, who had eyebrows even more astonishing than Leonid
Brezhnev's.
> Biology major/Chemistry, minor. Former book-shelver, 'cot cutter,
> inventory taker, exo-biology researcher, computer wizard, software
> engineer, proofreader, envelope stuffer, writer of code, writer of words
> and investigator of cerebral tempests.
What's 'cot?
I shelved books in Cornell's music library for a couple of years.
Towse
> Towse wrote:
>>I took a Logic and Philosophy class once. Got an A. Does that count?
>
> Linguists need to know about logic, but not vice versa, so not really.
> But you might be good at linguistics!
I was just teasing. I took Logic and Philosophy, history, anthropology,
law (international, environmental, and some other ... constitutional,
maybe?), as interesting and easy breaks from all the science.
> When I was an undergraduate at Cornell, Logic was in the Math department
> and Semantics was in the Philosophy department, and both were
> recommended for linguistics majors. The textbook for the former was by
> Kalish and Montague, and Montague went on to devise "Montague Grammar,"
> a highly formalized system for describing linguistic semantics. The
> latter was taught by Max Black, a very well known philosopher -- and one
> day he brought to class Georg Henrik von Wright, an even more important
> philosopher, who had eyebrows even more astonishing than Leonid
> Brezhnev's.
>
>>Biology major/Chemistry, minor. Former book-shelver, 'cot cutter,
>>inventory taker, exo-biology researcher, computer wizard, software
>>engineer, proofreader, envelope stuffer, writer of code, writer of words
>>and investigator of cerebral tempests.
>
>
> What's 'cot?
apricot <http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/voices/Zarko/zarko.html>
Hot days, not much pay, stretching over the drying trays, laying out
'cots I'd sliced and pitted. I still don't care for fresh apricots,
although dried are fine. The muck and slime, overripe, gooshy fruit and
the occasional worm or two are not the most appetizing memories.
> I shelved books in Cornell's music library for a couple of years.
I worked at the San Jose Public Library the last couple years I was
going to SJSU and for several years after I graduated, before I found my
way to software development. I'd taken my degree work with plans to help
develop a rice that would feed the world or to at least work in seed
development. The guy I was married to at the time came from the Central
Valley and had absolutely no desire to head back there just so I could
get a job doing what I wanted to do. Premarital counseling. Should've
had some.
Ivor Longhorn
<tommiDOT...@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> said:
>Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
>>> During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
>>> new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
>>
>> Like what?
>
>Are you not aware of any changes in linguistic thought during those times?
I'm aware of them, bucko, but the question concerned which ideas you
think Tolkien could easily have picked.
Ivor Longhorn
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> said:
You are dimmer than Tommi. Most of misc.writing is full of people who
couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
lacking in education of any kind.
Clearly, for all your erudition, you're not too good at working out
the meaning of a plain English sentence. You certainly don't know not
to begin one with "ie". Tommi says Tolkien could have "picked new
ideas" from "modern synchronic linguistics". Now, I have a major in
linguistics and I think Tommi is pulling it out of his arse. So I say
"Like what?"
Getting it now or do you need pictures?
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most of misc.writing is full of people
Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>who
>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>lacking in education of any kind.
--
Josh
"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>
>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>
Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
Towse
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>
> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>who
>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>lacking in education of any kind.
Just wondering ...
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>
>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>
>
>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>
>> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>
>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
speaking, of course.
>>>who
>>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>>lacking in education of any kind.
>
>Just wondering ...
--
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:30:14 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>
>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>
>>
>>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
>
>Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
Were you as arrogant as I am, you'd know you're not fitted to the job.
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>
>>> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>
>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>
>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>speaking, of course.
>
Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
>>>>who
>>>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>>>lacking in education of any kind.
>>
>>Just wondering ...
Alan Hope
>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them?
The lurker part. Those sub-human bastards. They're not people, they're
scum.
--
AH
António Marques
> One recent example on sci.chem was replacing the word "dissolve" with
> "froloose", or something like that, with dis- mechanically replaced by
> fro-, as in from, and so on (I hesitate to say "et cetera").
>
> An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> grammar.
Tolkien's linguistic endeavours are consideradbly more complex and
interesting than substituting un-off-hang-ing-ness for in-de-pend-enc-e.
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:30:14 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>
>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
>>
>>Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
>
>Were you as arrogant as I am, you'd know you're not fitted to the job.
Were I as deluded as you are, I'd think I wasn't fitted to the job.
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>
>>>> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>
>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>
>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>speaking, of course.
>>
>
>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
infelicity on Santa Clause.
Josh Hill
wrote:
Best watch what you say about them -- those lurkers have sharp clause.
Stan (the Man)
Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
> <usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>
>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>
>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>
>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>speaking, of course.
>>
>
>
> Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
Google down?
>>>>>who
>>>>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>>>>lacking in education of any kind.
>>>
>>>Just wondering ...
--
Stan
gekko
Hope <not.al...@mail.com>, who went on in
news:r43nj1pu7mdkortu9...@4ax.com to bemoan:
Yes, but they have all the fun.
--
gekko
Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to use
the Net and he won't bother you for weeks. -- Author unknown
gekko
Hill <usere...@gmail.com>, who went on in
news:igmnj1htibnkguo3h...@4ax.com to bemoan:
> clause
You've already abused that cliche'd pun.
Towse
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:03 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>>
>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>
>>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>>
>>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>>speaking, of course.
>>
>>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
>
> Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
> infelicity on Santa Clause.
He was correct.
You called him on an error that wasn't one.
You were wrong. Get over it.
Tommi Nieminen
> Tommi says Tolkien could have "picked new ideas" from "modern
> synchronic linguistics". Now, I have a major in linguistics and I
> think Tommi is pulling it out of his arse. So I say "Like what?"
>
> Getting it now or do you need pictures?
I guess you need to draw pictures...
If you really have majored in linguistics you should know there's a huge
difference between the linguistics of the 19th century and
post-Saussurean times, no matter what viewpoint is taken. Even
historical linguistics have changed; for instance, Tolkien's insistence
that everything in language is based on a few primitive roots has been
abandoned long time ago.
But what are we talking about--Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
The "new ideas" I mentioned were a matter of linguistic presentation.
I've no idea whether modern linguistics would've changed the "substance"
of his languages.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:03 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>>
>>>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>>>
>>>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>>>speaking, of course.
>>>
>>>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
>>
>> Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
>> infelicity on Santa Clause.
>
>He was correct.
>
>You called him on an error that wasn't one.
>
>You were wrong. Get over it.
Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
ridiculous.
António Marques
>> It's probably a little more accurate to say it the other way
>> around: Tolkien wrote stories about Middle Earth as a playground
>> for the languages he designed. He also seemed more focused on the
>> process of language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than
>> on codifying a "finished" language.
>
> Unfortunately, we may never know -- there's an obscure note in the
> last (12th) volume of Christopher Tolkien's edition of the background
> materials stating that there's lots more material on the languages
> in the archives (in Wheaton?), and he's not going to bother to
> publish it.
Ardalambion presents all (I think) of the canonical stuff and gives
interesting conjectures:
http://move.to/ardalambion
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/ (to avoid advertisement)
Peter T. Daniels
The front page is very hard to read, but it doesn't seem to claim
anywhere that it includes JRRT's unpublished materials on the languages.
pandora
"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qb6oj1p9funuo987p...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:12:36 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>
> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:03 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> >> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
> >>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> >>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
> >>>>
> >>>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
> >>>>speaking, of course.
> >>>
> >>>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
> >>
> >> Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
> >> infelicity on Santa Clause.
> >
> >He was correct.
> >
> >You called him on an error that wasn't one.
> >
> >You were wrong. Get over it.
>
> Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
> ridiculous.
No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
Yachats is full of people who......
Marg
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:48:53 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:30:14 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>>>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>>
>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
>>>
>>>Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
>>
>>Were you as arrogant as I am, you'd know you're not fitted to the job.
>
>Were I as deluded as you are, I'd think I wasn't fitted to the job.
Were you as deluded as I am, you'd need to be fitted with...
Hang on!
Ivor Longhorn
<tommiDOT...@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> said:
>Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
>> Tommi says Tolkien could have "picked new ideas" from "modern
>> synchronic linguistics". Now, I have a major in linguistics and I
>> think Tommi is pulling it out of his arse. So I say "Like what?"
>>
>> Getting it now or do you need pictures?
>
>I guess you need to draw pictures...
>
>If you really have majored in linguistics you should know there's a huge
>difference between the linguistics of the 19th century and
>post-Saussurean times, no matter what viewpoint is taken. Even
>historical linguistics have changed; for instance, Tolkien's insistence
>that everything in language is based on a few primitive roots has been
>abandoned long time ago.
>
>But what are we talking about--Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
>The "new ideas" I mentioned were a matter of linguistic presentation.
>I've no idea whether modern linguistics would've changed the "substance"
>of his languages.
No, Tommi, you misunderstood. I said "Like what?" I can see that
English is not your first language, so let me explain. That sentence
means "which ideas are you talking about that he could have used?" I
am sending you a nice picture under separate cover.
Josh Hill
wrote:
Oh, "misc.writing is full of people who" would have been just fine.
Ivor Longhorn
No it wouldn't.
Allan Adler
>I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would
>have been English majors?
Since someone has raised a question about Peter Daniels' use of "i.e.",
I'd like to point out that folks on sci.lang often use IE as an
abbreviation for "indo-european". I'm not saying that this is what
Peter Daniels has in mind, and in fact I doubt it, but I don't wish
to offend Autymn by saying what it actually does stand for in Latin.
Having said that, I feel I need to clarify that when linguists write
PIE, they do NOT, with possibly one exception, mean "Peterdaniels' i.e."
but Proto-Indo-European.
Since there has been considerable controversy, not only over Autymn's
opinions about language, but also about the meanings that Autymn seems
to attach to what is now standard scientific terminology, I'd just like
to ask one question: is everyone completely certain that Autymn's scientific
meanings are not really derived from some classical sources, such as Plato and
Aristotle, or perhaps from medieval philosophy? Since this question pertains
to the ongoing discussions with Autymn on sci.physics, I am cross posting this
to sci.physics.
> Linguists need to know about logic, but not vice versa, so not really.
> But you might be good at linguistics!
When Peter Daniels says that linguists need to know about logic, does that
mean that they have to have an appreciation of it, or of its importance,
much in the same way that some people have to pass a music appreciation
course, or does it mean that they actually have to be good at logic?
For example, is Peter Daniels good at logic?
> I shelved books in Cornell's music library for a couple of years.
Logic books?
Anyway, I'd like to return to Peter Daniels' premise that writers don't
need to know about linguistics. It is one thing to decide, based on the
lack of demand or need for competence, that there doesn't need to be a
university course in linguistics for writers. It is another thing to decide
that people who are interested in writing couldn't possibly have any need
for information about linguistics in a public forum such as misc.writing.
Writers are individuals who define their needs individually. They draw on
the entire spectrum of human activity and have to depict situations involving
people who, generally speaking, are not writers. They obsess about details
that one doesn't generally associate with writing. They have to acquire
knowledge about many subjects, orient themselves quickly and make themselves
credible. There is absolutely no reason to assume that an unspecified writer
doesn't need to know about linguistics. There is likewise no reason to assume
that a writer who does need to know about linguistics has years to invest
in learning it according to professional standards. So, in my ignorant opinion,
there is a genuine need for reference materials which writers can rely on to
make their burden easier. In the case of an imaginary society with a language
such as English would be if Autymn's reforms were enacted, the construction of
dictionaries and grammars would be a heavy burden on a writer. All I'm
suggesting is that someone compile some such reference materials, based on
all kinds of linguistic ideas, however schematic, including Autymn's, and make
them available on websites for use by writers. Linguists are better qualified
to do that than the average writer. So, I perceive that they have a need to
talk to each other.
Just look at Finnegans Wake. It took Joyce 17 years to write it. How long
would it have taken if all the reference materials people need to read FW
had been available when he wrote it? He might have lived long enough after
writing it to write his contemplated novel about the sea.
Linguists who don't feel like compiling an English-Autymn Dictionary, Grammar
and Chestomathy don't have to compile one. Writers who would rather write about
a futuristic society in which everyone speaks Pig Latin (a very poetic
language, great for opera libretti...), don't have to use the English-Autymn
Dictionary, Grammar and Chrestomathy. Just run it up the flagpole and see who
salutes. I predict that in the futuristic society that speaks Autymn, they will
do just that and there will be a heated controversy about the "unde god"
phrase, on the following grounds:
(1) It contains Latinisms.
(2) Some will think that the phrase ought to be there, but that some kind
of inflectional modification is needed.
(3) The usual and unusual theological and constitutional arguments.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
Tommi Nieminen
> No, Tommi, you misunderstood. I said "Like what?" I can see that
> English is not your first language, so let me explain. That sentence
> means "which ideas are you talking about that he could have used?" I
> am sending you a nice picture under separate cover.
True, English isn't my native language, thanks to the relevant deities
for that!, but it seems I *didn't* misunderstand you after all.
Let me repeat: are we talking about Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
If the latter, I guess it's true that no matter how studiously and
painstakingly he read newer linguistics, the substance of his invented
languages would've remained pretty much the same.
What I meant was the mode of presentation and style of his linguistic
descriptions, or his "linguistics". Tolkien never got around to
presenting a clean, clear-cut, état de langue-style description of any
of his languages; instead he preferred diachronic descriptions of
atomistic changes of the linguistic units. That's clearly
19th-centurish: it's the style of linguistics (or philology) he had learned.
António Marques
> The latter was taught by Max Black, a very well known philosopher --
> and one day he brought to class Georg Henrik von Wright, an even more
> important philosopher, who had eyebrows even more astonishing than
> Leonid Brezhnev's.
And according to unnamed source, a von [vrixt] - but how could the name
be swedish at all?
Richard Herring
In message <y93irwj...@nestle.csail.mit.edu>, Allan Adler
<a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> writes
>Since there has been considerable controversy,
IMO it's not controversy unless both sides have something substantial
and interesting to say. I can think of a number of words and phrases to
describe the tedious fad of miscorrecting spelling, but "controversy" is
not one of them.
>not only over Autymn's
>opinions about language, but also about the meanings that Autymn seems
>to attach to what is now standard scientific terminology, I'd just like
>to ask one question: is everyone completely certain that Autymn's scientific
>meanings are not really derived from some classical sources, such as Plato and
>Aristotle, or perhaps from medieval philosophy?
Who cares? Etymology is no guide to contemporary meaning, particularly
in specialist technical vocabularies..
>Since this question pertains
>to the ongoing discussions with Autymn on sci.physics, I am cross posting this
>to sci.physics.
FWIW I am quite certain that Autymn's "scientific" postings are mere
word salad, so the derivation of the words involved is doubly
irrelevant.
--
Richard Herring
Tommi Nieminen
>> Georg Henrik von Wright,
...
> And according to unnamed source, a von [vrixt] -
That would be the German pronunciation--otherwise [vrikt].
Most web sources don't seem to mention the pronunciation, but this one does:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/g/ge/georg_henrik_von_wright.htm
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > The latter was taught by Max Black, a very well known philosopher --
> > and one day he brought to class Georg Henrik von Wright, an even more
> > important philosopher, who had eyebrows even more astonishing than
> > Leonid Brezhnev's.
>
> And according to unnamed source, a von [vrixt] - but how could the name
> be swedish at all?
Black introduced him as if he were pronounced like any American or
British Wright.
But Max Black (this was spring 1970, when Cornell was disrupted by
antiwar protesters), in a debate he invited a Cornell Daily Sun editor
to have with him in front of the semantics class, proudly proclaimed he
was "born in Baku, Russia; citizen of Great Britain; but _chose_ to live
in America."
I believe he was born well before 1917 (certainly he was at least a
decade older than my parents), but even in the Russian Empire, Baku was
in Azerbaijan, not Russia.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> JWJAB <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would
> >have been English majors?
>
> Since someone has raised a question about Peter Daniels' use of "i.e.",
> I'd like to point out that folks on sci.lang often use IE as an
> abbreviation for "indo-european". I'm not saying that this is what
> Peter Daniels has in mind, and in fact I doubt it, but I don't wish
> to offend Autymn by saying what it actually does stand for in Latin.
> Having said that, I feel I need to clarify that when linguists write
> PIE, they do NOT, with possibly one exception, mean "Peterdaniels' i.e."
> but Proto-Indo-European.
Can Allan "Ignoranty" Adler not see the difference between <i.e.> (or
even <I.e.> or the unattested <I.E.>) and <IE>?
He has, in years past, claimed to be a mathematician, but in at least
some segments of mathematics, the ability to perceive a <.> (or even a
<·>) would seem to be rather crucial.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
> > No, Tommi, you misunderstood. I said "Like what?" I can see that
> > English is not your first language, so let me explain. That sentence
> > means "which ideas are you talking about that he could have used?" I
> > am sending you a nice picture under separate cover.
>
> True, English isn't my native language, thanks to the relevant deities
> for that!, but it seems I *didn't* misunderstand you after all.
>
> Let me repeat: are we talking about Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
>
> If the latter, I guess it's true that no matter how studiously and
> painstakingly he read newer linguistics, the substance of his invented
> languages would've remained pretty much the same.
>
> What I meant was the mode of presentation and style of his linguistic
> descriptions, or his "linguistics". Tolkien never got around to
> presenting a clean, clear-cut, état de langue-style description of any
> of his languages; instead he preferred diachronic descriptions of
> atomistic changes of the linguistic units. That's clearly
> 19th-centurish: it's the style of linguistics (or philology) he had learned.
I repeat: We _don't know_ what Tolkien's descriptions of his languages
look like, because Christopher Tolkien has declined to publish them, and
it doesn't appear that anyone else interested in this topic has had
access to the archives.
I don't doubt that his grammatical descriptions resemble those handbooks
of earlier forms of English (and some other Germanic languages) by
Wright (I think it's Joseph Wright) and colleagues published by
Clarendon, many of which have remained in print for a century or more.
Tommi Nieminen
> I repeat: We _don't know_ what Tolkien's descriptions of his languages
> look like, because Christopher Tolkien has declined to publish them,
Okay, that's true, but I think we can form a reasonable hypothesis based
on the material that IS published: the LR appendix, "The Lhammas" (The
Lost Road, pp. 167-), "The Etymologies" (op. cit. pp. 341-) and
"Lowdham's Report on the Adunaic Language" (Sauron Defeated, pp. 413-).
Especially interesting is the last one.
--
... Tommi Nieminen ... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ...
Miracles may happen. But they don't come in batches like a
conjuring performance. -John Dickson Carr-
... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyvaskyla dot fi ...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>
> > I repeat: We _don't know_ what Tolkien's descriptions of his languages
> > look like, because Christopher Tolkien has declined to publish them,
>
> Okay, that's true, but I think we can form a reasonable hypothesis based
> on the material that IS published: the LR appendix, "The Lhammas" (The
> Lost Road, pp. 167-), "The Etymologies" (op. cit. pp. 341-) and
> "Lowdham's Report on the Adunaic Language" (Sauron Defeated, pp. 413-).
> Especially interesting is the last one.
I'm afraid all my volumes were haphazardly unboxed and shelved behind
stacks of more boxes by incompetent movers, so I can't look at those
references, but do they look anything at all like the grammatical
sketches of classical languages that were produced by philologists in
the first third of the 20th century?
António Marques
>>Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
>>ridiculous.
>
> No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
> Yachats is full of people who......
Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
Josh Hill
wrote:
As good an explanation as I've seen. (Of course, it's the /only/
explanation I've seen . . . )
--
Josh
"It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity
and incumbency." - George W. Bush
Tommi Nieminen
>> "The Lhammas" (The Lost Road, pp. 167-), "The Etymologies" (op.
>> cit. pp. 341-) and "Lowdham's Report on the Adunaic Language"
>> (Sauron Defeated, pp. 413-). Especially interesting is the last
>> one.
...
> do they look anything at all like the grammatical sketches of
> classical languages that were produced by philologists in the first
> third of the 20th century?
Hmm... let me see. Lhammas seems to contain no linguistic information,
now that I read it again... I sure had a different mental picture of it.
It is only a brief description of the division of languages in Middle-earth.
The Etymologies is what its name says: an etymological dictionary. There
you can clearly see Tolkien's idea that the words of a language could be
traced back to a few primitive roots; almost nothing of grammar is revealed.
Lowdham's Report, OTOH, is interesting. It is divided in the following
sections: First the section on "General structure" describes the common
form of Adunaic words: a bi- or triconsonantal root with a
"characteristic vowel". The next three sections cover the consonants,
their alternations ("Assimilations in contact"), and the vowels. The
last two sections are on the declension of nouns and examples of it. The
order of the description would hardly be different for modern grammars
(phonology first, then morphology, then possibly syntax), but I'd say
the description definitely has an oldfashioned aftertaste. It is not
just the terminology--there's something in how the material is presented.
--
.... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ....
Nothing is more keenly required than a defence of bores.
-G. K. Chesterton-
.... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi ....
Ivor Longhorn
<m....@sapo.pt> said:
Stick to Spanish, big boy.
"Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
weren't.
"Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
"Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
"Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:34:17 +0100, António Marques <m....@sapo.pt>
>wrote:
>
>>pandora wrote:
>>
>>>>Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
>>>>ridiculous.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
>>> Yachats is full of people who......
>>
>>Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>>with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>>of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>>X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>>full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>>full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>
>As good an explanation as I've seen. (Of course, it's the /only/
>explanation I've seen . . . )
U r stupid. The best you can muster is some guy who never learned in
his ESOL class that things that have parts can be full in those parts
or empty in those parts.
Joachim Pense
> António Marques kirjoitti:
>
>>> Georg Henrik von Wright,
> ...
>> And according to unnamed source, a von [vrixt] -
>
> That would be the German pronunciation--otherwise [vrikt].
No, [vrikt] would also be the German pronounciation. (g devoiced, and h
ignored)
I guess what you are thinking of is the German spelling *Wricht (As in
Night <-> Nacht), but that would be pronounced [vrict] because i is a front
vowel.
Joachim
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:34:17 +0100, António Marques <m....@sapo.pt>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>pandora wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
>>>>>ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
>>>> Yachats is full of people who......
>>>
>>>Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>>>with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>>>of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>>>X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>>>full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>>>full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>>
>>As good an explanation as I've seen. (Of course, it's the /only/
>>explanation I've seen . . . )
>
>U r stupid. The best you can muster is some guy who never learned in
>his ESOL class that things that have parts can be full in those parts
>or empty in those parts.
Dude, your theories don't mean shit: the sentence bites the big one.
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, António Marques
><m....@sapo.pt> said:
>
>>pandora wrote:
>>
>>>>Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
>>>>ridiculous.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
>>> Yachats is full of people who......
>>
>>Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>>with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>>of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>>X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>>full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>>full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>
>Stick to Spanish, big boy.
>
>"Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>weren't.
>"Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>"Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>"Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
The kittens were already sinking. Did you really have to add stones?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, António Marques
> <m....@sapo.pt> said:
>
> >pandora wrote:
> >
> >>>Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
> >>>ridiculous.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
> >> Yachats is full of people who......
> >
> >Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
> >with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
> >of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
> >X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
> >full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
> >full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>
> Stick to Spanish, big boy.
>
> "Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
> weren't.
> "Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
> "Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
> "Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
If you can't distinguish between .es and .pt, maybe you should stay out
of sci.lang.
Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less discrete
parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such that "most of it"
could be "full."
Tommi Nieminen
>>> And according to unnamed source, a von [vrixt] -
>>
>> That would be the German pronunciation--otherwise [vrikt].
>
> No, [vrikt] would also be the German pronounciation. (g devoiced, and h
> ignored)
>
> I guess what you are thinking of is the German spelling *Wricht (As in
> Night <-> Nacht), but that would be pronounced [vrict] because i is a front
> vowel.
Of course... My bad.
--
... Tommi Nieminen ... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ...
Miracles may happen. But they don't come in batches like a
conjuring performance. -John Dickson Carr-
... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyvaskyla dot fi ...
António Marques
>>Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>>with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>>of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>>X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>>full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>>full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>
> Stick to Spanish, big boy.
Why, I have little spanish.
> "Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
> weren't.
> "Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
> "Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
> "Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
...all of which show why, misc.writing not being made of parts, 'most of
misc.writing is full of people' is poor to say the very least. It's the
sort of sentence you assemble when you've seen how the dish looks but
don't actually know how to cook.
Cornwall as english as Finchley?
Ivor Longhorn
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>>
>> You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, António Marques
>> <m....@sapo.pt> said:
>>
>> >pandora wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
>> >>>ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
>> >> Yachats is full of people who......
>> >
>> >Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>> >with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>> >of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>> >X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>> >full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>> >full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>>
>> Stick to Spanish, big boy.
>>
>> "Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>> weren't.
>> "Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>> "Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>> "Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
>
>If you can't distinguish between .es and .pt, maybe you should stay out
>of sci.lang.
Is it part of the science of language to read headers then? Can
Antonio not speak Spanish?
>
>Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less discrete
>parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such that "most of it"
>could be "full."
Usted es stupido.Think harder about what MW consists of.
Ivor Longhorn
<m....@sapo.pt> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>>Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>>>with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>>>of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>>>X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>>>full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>>>full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>>
>> Stick to Spanish, big boy.
>
>Why, I have little spanish.
>
My apologies. I didn't read your header and misplaced you in Iberia.
>> "Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>> weren't.
>> "Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>> "Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>> "Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
>
>...all of which show why, misc.writing not being made of parts, 'most of
>misc.writing is full of people' is poor to say the very least.
Usted es stupido. Sorry, don't know it in Portuguese but I'm sure you
can translate, even with little Spanish.
> It's the
>sort of sentence you assemble when you've seen how the dish looks but
>don't actually know how to cook.
>
Cheeky cunt. You are seeing the dish but are unaware of the
ingredients.
>Cornwall as english as Finchley?
Sorry, what? Try using a verb.
António Marques
>>Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less discrete
>>parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such that "most of it"
>>could be "full."
>
> Usted es stupido.Think harder about what MW consists of.
So, besides speaking & writing broken english, 'Ivor' is a complete jerk
('Been known to jerk off at eliciting disgust at own self'?)
Ivor Longhorn
<m....@sapo.pt> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>>Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less discrete
>>>parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such that "most of it"
>>>could be "full."
>>
>> Usted es stupido.Think harder about what MW consists of.
>
>So, besides speaking & writing broken english, 'Ivor' is a complete jerk
A man who does not know to capitalise the "e" in "English" is telling
me I can't write my native language. A man, one hesitates to add, who
seems to have gargled a dictionary and is now spitting it up and
making a horrid mess of this thread.
> ('Been known to jerk off at eliciting disgust at own self'?)
Erm. I recommend studying harder in your night classes.
António Marques
>>>>Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>>>>with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>>>>of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>>>>X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>>>>full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>>>>full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>>>
>>>Stick to Spanish, big boy.
>>
>>Why, I have little spanish.
>
> My apologies. I didn't read your header and misplaced you in Iberia.
Oh, I am in Iberia. I have little spanish.
>>>"Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>>>weren't.
>>>"Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>>>"Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>>>"Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
>>
>>...all of which show why, misc.writing not being made of parts, 'most of
>>misc.writing is full of people' is poor to say the very least.
>
> Usted es stupido. Sorry, don't know it in Portuguese but I'm sure you
> can translate, even with little Spanish.
But it isn't spanish.
You have a chance to convince at least some people you can speak any
english at all: devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of
misc.writing is full of people (...)' as the first element.
(Actually it's unfeasible.)
>>It's the
>>sort of sentence you assemble when you've seen how the dish looks but
>>don't actually know how to cook.
>
> Cheeky cunt. You are seeing the dish but are unaware of the
> ingredients.
Not at all, sir. It's your ingredient that's been applied the wrong
recipe; which would only be spurious if the ingredient had been looked
for to match the dish. However, what you needed was the reverse, a dish
to match the ingredient, and as such poor wording skills are the
straight explanation.
The metaphor was a kind way to say the following:
. Quality of speech is more than being grammatically correct
(An acceptable dish needs more than just correct cooking of its
ingredients)
. The rules of quality must be learned from someone, from one's own
observation or from successful mapping of enough examples; they are too
many to be learned from some book. That is similar to knowlege* in any
field, be it science, art or what not.
(You can't learn to cook just from some recipe book)
. Until the above is met, and too many people never meet any of it, the
uncareful one is prone to make all sorts of mistakes - in this case of
yours, either ugly pleonasm or applying a construct to situation it is
not meant to be. Necessarily, this stems from an impossibility to
correctly learn good speech from someone, insufficient observation, or
not-completely-successful mapping of examples.
(You think you can cook and your guests have to suffer your cooking)
. In 999 out of a thousand cases, those who know best will cramp in
silence and just hope the poor soul one day learns it. That may or may
not happen. The immediate reaction is usually to get seriously troubled
about the quality of the other's education and the worthiness of further
communication, though that is not always the case.
. Nowadays, with the media explosion and all that, many of those who
think they can produce quality get to flaunt their misery - it's usually
what drives remarks such as 'anyone can write a book these days'.
(Here the cooking analogy misses; people aren't as fond of cooking as
of speaking or writing, and plus it's more work)
. The careful one, to the extent possible, tries (though possibly not
always succeeding) to avoid the areas of less proficiency, for sure.
(I prefer good boiled eggs to unedible mwamba)
(In short: you look like one who can't speak (because of insufficient
education, slowness, lazy mind, whatever) but thinks he can.)
(*) For the uninitiated, I like to spell it that way.
>>Cornwall as english as Finchley?
>
> Sorry, what? Try using a verb.
(This comment of yours is so pathetic as to inspire pity...)
Peter T. Daniels
He already told you he barely speaks Spanish. How could he "stick to"
it?
> >Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less discrete
> >parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such that "most of it"
> >could be "full."
>
> Usted es stupido.Think harder about what MW consists of.
?? It's a newsgroup, right? Newsgroups don't have discrete parts.
Ivor Longhorn
Not when I'd wrote that, he hadn't. I'd hardly need to ask whether he
was able had he already informed me that he wasn't.
> How could he "stick to"
>it?
>
Okay, just for you, Pete, because you're such a stickler: he should
stick to Portuguese and you should stick to grunting. Happy now?
>> >Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less discrete
>> >parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such that "most of it"
>> >could be "full."
>>
>> Usted es stupido.Think harder about what MW consists of.
>
>?? It's a newsgroup, right? Newsgroups don't have discrete parts.
Silly fucker. Just keep digging.
Ivor Longhorn
<m....@sapo.pt> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>>>>Far from me a willingness to enter the debate, but I think the issue is
>>>>>with the simultaneous use of 'most' and 'full'. Cf. *'All of X is full
>>>>>of Y' and *'Most of X is half full of Y'. If one specifies it's most of
>>>>>X, then it's redundant that it is the whole of that 'most'. If OTOH X is
>>>>>full of Y, it's not most of X, but the whole of X. But 'Most of X is
>>>>>full of Y' just doesn't look very good and sounds worse.
>>>>
>>>>Stick to Spanish, big boy.
>>>
>>>Why, I have little spanish.
>>
>> My apologies. I didn't read your header and misplaced you in Iberia.
>
>Oh, I am in Iberia. I have little spanish.
>
No, sorry, you misunderstood. It's going to happen with a language you
are not wholly comfortable in. "I misplaced you in Iberia" can mean
both that I misplaced you and the misplacing was in Iberia and that I
misplaced you in the wrong part of Iberia. Just one of the subtleties
of our wonderful tongue.
>>>>"Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>>>>weren't.
>>>>"Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>>>>"Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>>>>"Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
>>>
>>>...all of which show why, misc.writing not being made of parts, 'most of
>>>misc.writing is full of people' is poor to say the very least.
>>
>> Usted es stupido. Sorry, don't know it in Portuguese but I'm sure you
>> can translate, even with little Spanish.
>
>But it isn't spanish.
I don't care. I have little Spanish too, and that's close enough for
me.
>You have a chance to convince at least some people you can speak any
>english at all: devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of
>misc.writing is full of people (...)' as the first element.
You have a chance to walk out of here with all your teeth...
Dr Zen awaits the predictable and dull response that one is not
physically in a newsgroup and one's teeth are *not really* under
threat. Except from the grinding.
>
>(Actually it's unfeasible.)
It actually hurts to read your nonsense. Do you realise that? It's a
key problem for foreign speakers of English that they do not use it
idiomatically and it shows.
You should write "Actually, it's not feasible". Don't ask me why. You
wouldn't understand the explanation.
>
>>>It's the
>>>sort of sentence you assemble when you've seen how the dish looks but
>>>don't actually know how to cook.
>>
>> Cheeky cunt. You are seeing the dish but are unaware of the
>> ingredients.
>
>Not at all, sir. It's your ingredient that's been applied the wrong
>recipe
Are you convinced that that's English? If you are, unconvince
yourself.
And don't use a semicolon before "which". It's an abomination.
>; which would only be spurious if the ingredient had been looked
>for to match the dish.
Sorry, what would be "spurious"? May I recommend that you use only
words you are entirely sure of and avoid those that you cannot deploy
correctly without reference to a dictionary unless you are willing to
use the dictionary more often?
> However, what you needed was the reverse, a dish
>to match the ingredient, and as such poor wording skills are the
>straight explanation.
>
Perhaps you should have done that in Spanish?
>The metaphor was a kind way to say the following:
What? See, I always say, do I not, that metaphors should be avoided
unless they are absolutely necessary. And they are certainly not
necessary for you, Antonio, in any circumstance, unless they have been
thoroughly killed.
I feel it is only kind to point out to you that I understood your
metaphor perfectly, and turned it around to make you look the fool you
are. I needn't have bothered though, because here you are dribbling on
at length, convincing any that were not already sure that you not only
have little English but little in the way of sense too.
>. Quality of speech is more than being grammatically correct
> (An acceptable dish needs more than just correct cooking of its
>ingredients)
You'd still be well advised to be grammatically correct though, old
son.
>. The rules of quality must be learned from someone, from one's own
>observation or from successful mapping of enough examples; they are too
>many to be learned from some book. That is similar to knowlege* in any
>field, be it science, art or what not.
> (You can't learn to cook just from some recipe book)
You'd still be well advised to read the books, rather than rely on
your audience's laughing at your every error.
>. Until the above is met, and too many people never meet any of it, the
>uncareful one is prone to make all sorts of mistakes - in this case of
>yours, either ugly pleonasm or applying a construct to situation it is
>not meant to be.
Yes, indeed the careless are liable to make mistakes, Antonio. I'm
glad of it. Not only do I get paid for fixing them, but I also enjoy
laughing in the face of pompous Iberians who cluelessly make them for
my enjoyment.
> Necessarily, this stems from an impossibility to
>correctly learn good speech from someone, insufficient observation, or
>not-completely-successful mapping of examples.
> (You think you can cook and your guests have to suffer your cooking)
>
Yes. Possibly a lesson I'd learn more readily from someone who wasn't
feeding me undercooked paella though.
>. In 999 out of a thousand cases, those who know best will cramp in
>silence and just hope the poor soul one day learns it. That may or may
>not happen. The immediate reaction is usually to get seriously troubled
>about the quality of the other's education and the worthiness of further
>communication, though that is not always the case.
>
No, indeed. I'm not worried at all about the quality of your education
and I'm happy to continue to laugh in your face until doomsday.
>. Nowadays, with the media explosion and all that, many of those who
>think they can produce quality get to flaunt their misery - it's usually
>what drives remarks such as 'anyone can write a book these days'.
Yes. As I say, I'm glad for it. If it weren't for writers of your
calibre, Antonio, I'd be out of a living.
> (Here the cooking analogy misses; people aren't as fond of cooking as
>of speaking or writing, and plus it's more work)
"and plus". And fucking plus!
Now look, I can stand your boring diatribe, which, if it had a
purpose, squandered it in the meanders. But I refuse to tolerate "and
plus".
Choose! It's the key to quality writing, bucko. And cooking too, now
we're discussing it. Choose the right words and the right ingredients.
Don't just throw them all in and hope for the best.
And plus, buddy, take care that your referent is clear. Good advice
pissed away on stony ground, I know, but still, you ought to have
something valuable to take away from this encounter.
>
>. The careful one, to the extent possible, tries (though possibly not
>always succeeding) to avoid the areas of less proficiency, for sure.
> (I prefer good boiled eggs to unedible mwamba)
>
>(In short: you look like one who can't speak (because of insufficient
>education, slowness, lazy mind, whatever) but thinks he can.)
Says the man who writes "unedible". And "and plus".
>
>(*) For the uninitiated, I like to spell it that way.
Which of the words you misspelled are you referring to?
>
>>>Cornwall as english as Finchley?
>>
>> Sorry, what? Try using a verb.
>
>(This comment of yours is so pathetic as to inspire pity...)
Well, call me a silly old fool if you will but I simply think most
sentences work better with a verb.
RJM
news:slv3k1hno2u3csh5l...@4ax.com...
First Ivor post in Find! I imagine you shouting gleefully, "Got one!"
You should be ashamed. Mind, I adored the "misplaced you in Iberia"
pars. Oh . . . sci.lang. I get it now. One of those cunts. Still, as I say,
surely you have better things do to than this sort of kitten kicking? You
being . . . oops. Sorry, poppet, didn't mean to be cruel.
> Dr Zen
> Editor, Man of Letters of Little Renown, Writer, Liveried Lackey at Times
> and Occasional Masturbator
> http://gollyg.blogspot.com
> Editing Done Cheap. Apply for Rates. I Also Write. So Long as You Don't
> Want a Whole Novel. Been Known to Read Proofs.
Aah, bless. A toecurlingly cute sig after all these years. Says it all,
innit?
António Marques
>>>> Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less
>>>> discrete parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such
>>>> that "most of it" could be "full."
>>>
>>> Usted es stupido.Think harder about what MW consists of.
>>
>> So, besides speaking & writing broken english, 'Ivor' is a complete
>> jerk
>
> A man who does not know to capitalise the "e" in "English"
Oh, I do (know). I don't (capitalise adjectives-made-proper-names)
because I don't like to do it.
> is telling me I can't write my native language.
No; you seem to speak it poorly; you seem to write the way you speak.
> A man, one hesitates to add, who seems to have gargled a dictionary
> and is now spitting it up and making a horrid mess of this thread.
Hark - education is a 'horrid mess' - precisely the attitude one would
expect.
>> ('Been known to jerk off at eliciting disgust at own self'?)
>
> Erm. I recommend studying harder in your night classes.
You poor sod.
António Marques
>>>My apologies. I didn't read your header and misplaced you in Iberia.
>>
>>Oh, I am in Iberia. I have little spanish.
>
> No, sorry, you misunderstood. It's going to happen with a language you
> are not wholly comfortable in. "I misplaced you in Iberia" can mean
> both that I misplaced you and the misplacing was in Iberia and that I
> misplaced you in the wrong part of Iberia. Just one of the subtleties
> of our wonderful tongue.
Yada, yada, yada. Why do you assume I should assume one of your possible
mistakes in particular?
Like the other issue, it has little to do with your language, and much
to do with logic.
>>>>>"Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>>>>>weren't.
>>>>>"Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>>>>>"Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>>>>>"Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
>>>>
>>>>...all of which show why, misc.writing not being made of parts, 'most of
>>>>misc.writing is full of people' is poor to say the very least.
>>>
>>>Usted es stupido. Sorry, don't know it in Portuguese but I'm sure you
>>>can translate, even with little Spanish.
>>
>>But it isn't spanish.
>
> I don't care. I have little Spanish too, and that's close enough for
> me.
But it makes you look worse than the one you're trying to tease.
>>You have a chance to convince at least some people you can speak any
>>english at all: devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of
>>misc.writing is full of people (...)' as the first element.
>
> You have a chance to walk out of here with all your teeth...
>
> Dr Zen awaits the predictable and dull response that one is not
> physically in a newsgroup and one's teeth are *not really* under
> threat. Except from the grinding.
I give the maybe more predictable reply: you haven't answered.
Devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of misc.writing is full of
people (...)' as the first element.
>>(Actually it's unfeasible.)
>
> It actually hurts to read your nonsense. Do you realise that? It's a
> key problem for foreign speakers of English that they do not use it
> idiomatically and it shows.
>
> You should write "Actually, it's not feasible". Don't ask me why. You
> wouldn't understand the explanation.
No. 'Unfeasible' I wrote, 'unfeasible' it is. Had I wanted to write 'not
feasible', I would have.
>>>>It's the
>>>>sort of sentence you assemble when you've seen how the dish looks but
>>>>don't actually know how to cook.
>>>
>>>Cheeky cunt. You are seeing the dish but are unaware of the
>>>ingredients.
>>
>>Not at all, sir. It's your ingredient that's been applied the wrong
>>recipe
>
> Are you convinced that that's English? If you are, unconvince
> yourself.
Is that the best you can manage? You had better stay quiet.
> And don't use a semicolon before "which". It's an abomination.
Only if you don't know what a semicolon is for.
>>; which would only be spurious if the ingredient had been looked
>>for to match the dish.
>
> Sorry, what would be "spurious"? May I recommend that you use only
> words you are entirely sure of and avoid those that you cannot deploy
> correctly without reference to a dictionary unless you are willing to
> use the dictionary more often?
Sorry, I assumed you knew what 'spurious' means. I'll make it simpler
for you:
If what you were looking for were an ingredient to be used in the
preparation of a dish, your handling of the recipe* would be nothing
more than spurious**.
(*) Using 'most of misc.writing is full of people who (...)', when the
'parts' m.w can be considered to be made of are people, and 'people'
can't be its own container.
(**) In this case, something that may look correct but is not.
>>However, what you needed was the reverse, a dish
>>to match the ingredient, and as such poor wording skills are the
>>straight explanation.
>
> Perhaps you should have done that in Spanish?
Done what, sir?
>>The metaphor was a kind way to say the following:
>
> What? See, I always say, do I not, that metaphors should be avoided
> unless they are absolutely necessary. And they are certainly not
> necessary for you, Antonio, in any circumstance, unless they have been
> thoroughly killed.
>
> I feel it is only kind to point out to you that I understood your
> metaphor perfectly, and turned it around to make you look the fool you
> are.
You really think you've done that? All you did was plant half-arsed
remarks below each point!
(Another hint on the meaning of 'spurious'. You think you've replied
because for each point you were able to post a sentence that looks like
it relates to it.)
> I needn't have bothered though, because here you are dribbling on
> at length, convincing any that were not already sure that you not only
> have little English but little in the way of sense too.
It is not my fault if not only you don't understand why 'most of
misc.writing is full of people who (...)' is barbaric, but actually hurt
at being explained why (could it be that you think you had most of
misc.writing full of respect for you?).
>>. Quality of speech is more than being grammatically correct
>> (An acceptable dish needs more than just correct cooking of its
>>ingredients)
>
> You'd still be well advised to be grammatically correct though, old
> son.
But why? It's necessary in most cases, but not always.
>>. The rules of quality must be learned from someone, from one's own
>>observation or from successful mapping of enough examples; they are too
>>many to be learned from some book. That is similar to knowlege* in any
>>field, be it science, art or what not.
>> (You can't learn to cook just from some recipe book)
>
> You'd still be well advised to read the books, rather than rely on
> your audience's laughing at your every error.
Read what books, smart jack? I talk above of 'learning from some book'.
Are you implying you got your (giggle) education from 'the books' on
good style?
>>. Until the above is met, and too many people never meet any of it, the
>>uncareful one is prone to make all sorts of mistakes - in this case of
>>yours, either ugly pleonasm or applying a construct to situation it is
>>not meant to be.
>
> Yes, indeed the careless are liable to make mistakes, Antonio. I'm
> glad of it. Not only do I get paid for fixing them, but I also enjoy
> laughing in the face of pompous Iberians who cluelessly make them for
> my enjoyment.
But you don't look like you're enjoying it at all... could that suggest
you're not laughing either?
'Everybody's got a job, kid'. That don't mean they do it good.
>>Necessarily, this stems from an impossibility to
>>correctly learn good speech from someone, insufficient observation, or
>>not-completely-successful mapping of examples.
>> (You think you can cook and your guests have to suffer your cooking)
>
> Yes. Possibly a lesson I'd learn more readily from someone who wasn't
> feeding me undercooked paella though.
Is the translation of this 'I've possible made a mistake, but won't take
a correction from some furriner who can't write the english well'?
>>. In 999 out of a thousand cases, those who know best will cramp in
>>silence and just hope the poor soul one day learns it. That may or may
>>not happen. The immediate reaction is usually to get seriously troubled
>>about the quality of the other's education and the worthiness of further
>>communication, though that is not always the case.
>
> No, indeed. I'm not worried at all about the quality of your education
> and I'm happy to continue to laugh in your face until doomsday.
But you haven't produced any amused comment until now (saying in a
ravenous tone that something amuses you doesn't count, you know).
>>. Nowadays, with the media explosion and all that, many of those who
>>think they can produce quality get to flaunt their misery - it's usually
>>what drives remarks such as 'anyone can write a book these days'.
>
> Yes. As I say, I'm glad for it. If it weren't for writers of your
> calibre, Antonio, I'd be out of a living.
That would mean...?
>> (Here the cooking analogy misses; people aren't as fond of cooking as
>>of speaking or writing, and plus it's more work)
>
> "and plus". And fucking plus!
:DDDD
Now this is getting good!
And plus and moreso.
> Now look, I can stand your boring diatribe, which, if it had a
> purpose, squandered it in the meanders. But I refuse to tolerate "and
> plus".
>
> Choose! It's the key to quality writing, bucko. And cooking too, now
> we're discussing it. Choose the right words and the right ingredients.
> Don't just throw them all in and hope for the best.
...point which I saved until now to avoid repetition.
Think for a second what could ever lead someone to say 'and plus'.
In fact, take one full minute to think what could prompt the apparent
mistakes in other people's writing.
You'll certainly cling to english not being one of their (mine, in this
case, lest it's not clear) best abilities. But don't you think that's a
little too easy?
I write the way I like. English being a language I only know from
watching TV now and then and reading*, I'm positive I'll never sound
native. I'm not the least worried about that; I don't care at all.
Probably, if I cared, I could move closer. However, the joy of english,
for me, is to be able to use it in ways that are not norm but could
reasonably be so. Though sometimes I make real mistakes, and it's only
educating that someone points it out.
Is it obviouser now?
It's the sort of thing that is fun to do - like one also may with latin,
and in fact every language, though some are more amenable than others
and my own is lacking in that regard.
But either way, your comments miss their mark - I never claimed to sound
native.
(*) Obviously also chatting; but seldom, and more often then** not to
non-english natives.
(**) Would y'all know? For some reason, I sometimes write 'then' for
'than'. But it has nothing to do with the word 'then', nor the fact that
I ususally see it misspelt; it's a typo that creeps in with no explanation.
> And plus, buddy, take care that your referent is clear. Good advice
> pissed away on stony ground, I know, but still, you ought to have
> something valuable to take away from this encounter.
Like...?
Cooking is more work than writing.
>>. The careful one, to the extent possible, tries (though possibly not
>>always succeeding) to avoid the areas of less proficiency, for sure.
>> (I prefer good boiled eggs to unedible mwamba)
>>
>>(In short: you look like one who can't speak (because of insufficient
>>education, slowness, lazy mind, whatever) but thinks he can.)
>
> Says the man who writes "unedible". And "and plus".
And plus, I'll keep writing 'unedible' (unlike 'knowlege', it's the
applying of a different prefix, and before you complain as maybe you
will because maybe you know it, that un- is to be preferably used with
elemts of germanic origin, I choose it past that - I like it for most of
infrequent words).
>>(*) For the uninitiated, I like to spell it that way.
>
> Which of the words you misspelled are you referring to?
The one with the asterisk following it, which you lost above - probably
in your fit to scribble a reply before reading my text. Is there any other?
>>>>Cornwall as english as Finchley?
>>>
>>>Sorry, what? Try using a verb.
>>
>>(This comment of yours is so pathetic as to inspire pity...)
>
> Well, call me a silly old fool if you will but I simply think most
> sentences work better with a verb.
But not all.
The verb is implied. Do you understand the question?
Ivor Longhorn
<m....@sapo.pt> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>>>> Moreover, your four examples involve entities with more or less
>>>>> discrete parts; misc.writing does not have discrete parts such
>>>>> that "most of it" could be "full."
>>>>
>>>> Usted es stupido.Think harder about what MW consists of.
>>>
>>> So, besides speaking & writing broken english, 'Ivor' is a complete
>>> jerk
>>
>> A man who does not know to capitalise the "e" in "English"
>
>Oh, I do (know). I don't (capitalise adjectives-made-proper-names)
>because I don't like to do it.
Oh right.
>
>> is telling me I can't write my native language.
>
>No; you seem to speak it poorly; you seem to write the way you speak.
How do you know how I speak it?
>> A man, one hesitates to add, who seems to have gargled a dictionary
>> and is now spitting it up and making a horrid mess of this thread.
>
>Hark - education is a 'horrid mess' - precisely the attitude one would
>expect.
You are falling foul of the common (but nonetheless wrong)
misconception that using slightly obscure words is a sign of
erudition. Au contraire, Antonio, the cognoscenti know better than to
indulge themselves. It smells of the overuse of thesauruses.
>
>>> ('Been known to jerk off at eliciting disgust at own self'?)
>>
>> Erm. I recommend studying harder in your night classes.
>
>You poor sod.
Well, not really. I speak the lingo like a native and write it like a
dream. You're the guy who's struggling to string a sentence together.
Ivor Longhorn
<scrat...@virgin.net> said:
If there was anything better on offer...
>
>
>> Dr Zen
>> Editor, Man of Letters of Little Renown, Writer, Liveried Lackey at Times
>> and Occasional Masturbator
>> http://gollyg.blogspot.com
>> Editing Done Cheap. Apply for Rates. I Also Write. So Long as You Don't
>> Want a Whole Novel. Been Known to Read Proofs.
>
>
>Aah, bless. A toecurlingly cute sig after all these years. Says it all,
>innit?
Glad you like it. Who knows? Next I might move onto fanciful yet
rather dull diatribes about my imaginary life as marketer
extraordinaire and man about town.
Ivor Longhorn
<m....@sapo.pt> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>>>My apologies. I didn't read your header and misplaced you in Iberia.
>>>
>>>Oh, I am in Iberia. I have little spanish.
>>
>> No, sorry, you misunderstood. It's going to happen with a language you
>> are not wholly comfortable in. "I misplaced you in Iberia" can mean
>> both that I misplaced you and the misplacing was in Iberia and that I
>> misplaced you in the wrong part of Iberia. Just one of the subtleties
>> of our wonderful tongue.
>
>Yada, yada, yada. Why do you assume I should assume one of your possible
>mistakes in particular?
Oh dear. You're not making it any better, Tonio. You'll need to ask
your teacher what was wrong with that sentence.
>
>Like the other issue, it has little to do with your language, and much
>to do with logic.
Oh dear. You know that you have thoroughly spanked a luser when they
use the L-word.
But I have yet to meet the luser who actually employs any of the
aforesaid. Zero excepted, naturally. He sticks to refuting it.
>
>>>>>>"Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>>>>>>weren't.
>>>>>>"Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>>>>>>"Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>>>>>>"Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
>>>>>
>>>>>...all of which show why, misc.writing not being made of parts, 'most of
>>>>>misc.writing is full of people' is poor to say the very least.
>>>>
>>>>Usted es stupido. Sorry, don't know it in Portuguese but I'm sure you
>>>>can translate, even with little Spanish.
>>>
>>>But it isn't spanish.
>>
>> I don't care. I have little Spanish too, and that's close enough for
>> me.
>
>But it makes you look worse than the one you're trying to tease.
Only because you don't get the joke.
>>>You have a chance to convince at least some people you can speak any
>>>english at all: devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of
>>>misc.writing is full of people (...)' as the first element.
>>
>> You have a chance to walk out of here with all your teeth...
>>
>> Dr Zen awaits the predictable and dull response that one is not
>> physically in a newsgroup and one's teeth are *not really* under
>> threat. Except from the grinding.
>
>I give the maybe more predictable reply: you haven't answered.
>Devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of misc.writing is full of
>people (...)' as the first element.
Usted es boring. Ciao fuckhead.
António Marques
> Lhammas seems to contain no linguistic information (...) brief
> description of the division of languages in Middle-earth.
>
> The Etymologies (...) an etymological dictionary (...) Tolkien's idea
> that the words of a language could be traced back to a few primitive
> roots; almost nothing of grammar is revealed.
>
> Lowdham's Report, OTOH, is interesting (...) but I'd say the
> description definitely has an oldfashioned aftertaste. It is not just
> the terminology--there's something in how the material is presented.
You may be correct, but I think a more modern treatment would look
somewhat out of place - afterall,
1) His languages, in good measure, are what you see. Even if there is
some unpublished material which approaches them differently, I think it
would have to be considered a convenient systematisation rather than the
underlying thing.
2) His presentations are usually consistent with what elven philologists
would do, and let's face it, Arda to the Fourth Age is medieval. 20th
century linguistics isn't what you'd expect from an elf.
It may also be that he wasn't much too interested in modern linguistics.
Maybe because his impulse to create languages (actually, words and
texts) predated and was independent from his education on Linguistics,
the latter having only modestly been put to the service of the former?
I think this is the key point.
Ivor Longhorn
<tommiDOT...@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> said:
>Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
>> No, Tommi, you misunderstood. I said "Like what?" I can see that
>> English is not your first language, so let me explain. That sentence
>> means "which ideas are you talking about that he could have used?" I
>> am sending you a nice picture under separate cover.
>
>True, English isn't my native language, thanks to the relevant deities
>for that!
Why on earth would you be thankful for that? It's one of the chief
blessings of being English, frankly.
> but it seems I *didn't* misunderstand you after all.
Well, it doesn't seem that way to me.
>
>Let me repeat: are we talking about Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
You were talking about linguistics, Tommi.
>
>If the latter, I guess it's true that no matter how studiously and
>painstakingly he read newer linguistics, the substance of his invented
>languages would've remained pretty much the same.
Lord knows. I could barely stay awake reading that turgid nonsense,
let alone analyse his languages.
>What I meant was the mode of presentation and style of his linguistic
>descriptions, or his "linguistics".
Yes, I know what you meant, Tommi. Unlike you, I understand English
perfectly. I'm still wondering what exactly you feel he might have
included.
> Tolkien never got around to
>presenting a clean, clear-cut, état de langue-style description of any
>of his languages
And you consider that the hallmark of "modern" linguistics?
> instead he preferred diachronic descriptions of
>atomistic changes of the linguistic units.
I'd advise you to steer clear of words you're only partly sure of the
meaning of.
> That's clearly
>19th-centurish: it's the style of linguistics (or philology) he had learned.
Tommi, I think your linguistics is as poor as your exposition.
Language change is still an important and fruitful area of study. What
has changed is that linguistics has sought a firmer, scientific
footing. It's the outcome of logical positivism, which had a strong
impact on linguistics. Tolkien was far from a positivist.
It's not that I don't agree that he was a premodernist but that I
think you're pulling it from your arse when you suggest that there was
something from "modern synchronic linguistics" that he could
profitably have included.
Ivor Longhorn
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>Tommi Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>>
>> > No, Tommi, you misunderstood. I said "Like what?" I can see that
>> > English is not your first language, so let me explain. That sentence
>> > means "which ideas are you talking about that he could have used?" I
>> > am sending you a nice picture under separate cover.
>>
>> True, English isn't my native language, thanks to the relevant deities
>> for that!, but it seems I *didn't* misunderstand you after all.
>>
>> Let me repeat: are we talking about Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
>>
>> If the latter, I guess it's true that no matter how studiously and
>> painstakingly he read newer linguistics, the substance of his invented
>> languages would've remained pretty much the same.
>>
>> What I meant was the mode of presentation and style of his linguistic
>> descriptions, or his "linguistics". Tolkien never got around to
>> presenting a clean, clear-cut, état de langue-style description of any
>> of his languages; instead he preferred diachronic descriptions of
>> atomistic changes of the linguistic units. That's clearly
>> 19th-centurish: it's the style of linguistics (or philology) he had learned.
>
>I repeat: We _don't know_ what Tolkien's descriptions of his languages
>look like, because Christopher Tolkien has declined to publish them, and
>it doesn't appear that anyone else interested in this topic has had
>access to the archives.
>
How one is supposed to derive dialectal difference without any
reference to "diachronic linguistics" is another question for Tommi.
>I don't doubt that his grammatical descriptions resemble those handbooks
>of earlier forms of English (and some other Germanic languages) by
>Wright (I think it's Joseph Wright) and colleagues published by
>Clarendon, many of which have remained in print for a century or more.
Sssh. We're pretending that no one described a language until the
1930s.
RJM
in message news:4cm6k19alvuqdv96d...@4ax.com...
when "RJM" <scrat...@virgin.net> said:
>>First Ivor post in Find! I imagine you shouting gleefully, "Got one!"
>>You should be ashamed. Mind, I adored the "misplaced you in Iberia"
>>pars. Oh . . . sci.lang. I get it now. One of those cunts. Still, as I
>>say,
>>surely you have better things do to than this sort of kitten kicking? You
>>being . . . oops. Sorry, poppet, didn't mean to be cruel.
>
> If there was anything better on offer...
Sadly, there isn't, mate. You've found your level. Shouldn't
there be a full stop after your ellipsis, luvvy? I'd write it thus -
blah blah blah . . ..
>>> Dr Zen
>>> Editor, Man of Letters of Little Renown, Writer, Liveried Lackey at
>>> Times
>>> and Occasional Masturbator
>>> http://gollyg.blogspot.com
>>> Editing Done Cheap. Apply for Rates. I Also Write. So Long as You Don't
>>> Want a Whole Novel. Been Known to Read Proofs.
>>
>>
>>Aah, bless. A toecurlingly cute sig after all these years. Says it all,
>>innit?
>
> Glad you like it.
Like? Feel embarrassed. I never would have predicted it.
> Who knows? Next I might move onto fanciful yet
> rather dull diatribes about my imaginary life as marketer
> extraordinaire and man about town.
Oh dear. Diatribes. If I may say so, an inelegant choice of word
in the Usenet environment, in MW. I can't speak for the strangers,
but in my opinion established usage in MW is that diatribes are
abusive, bitterly critical rants. Accepting that your implication leans
more to the meaning "time wasting discourses", I'm flattered. Not
your intention, alas. But then, your intention was to suggest that my
posts are unimportant scribblings quite beneath the attention of the
august Usenet personage you believe yourself to be. If only, eh? I'm
trying to remember that time, years ago, I was imagining myself as
marketeer extraordinaire and man about town . . . I'll just pop out to
google. I may be gone some time.
Fuck me, I hate Google - here it is, poppet http://tinyurl.com/9gllb
Enjoy.
António Marques
>>> is telling me I can't write my native language.
>>
>> No; you seem to speak it poorly; you seem to write the way you
>> speak.
>
> How do you know how I speak it?
It's an assumption.
>>> A man, one hesitates to add, who seems to have gargled a
>>> dictionary and is now spitting it up and making a horrid mess of
>>> this thread.
>>
>> Hark - education is a 'horrid mess' - precisely the attitude one
>> would expect.
>
> You are falling foul of the common (but nonetheless wrong)
> misconception that using slightly obscure words is a sign of
> erudition. Au contraire, Antonio, the cognoscenti know better than to
> indulge themselves. It smells of the overuse of thesauruses.
'Au contraire'! 'cognoscenti'! 'falling foul of'!
You must be really very slow if you think so.
>>>> ('Been known to jerk off at eliciting disgust at own self'?)
>>>
>>> Erm. I recommend studying harder in your night classes.
>>
>> You poor sod.
>
> Well, not really. I speak the lingo like a native and write it like a
> dream. You're the guy who's struggling to string a sentence
> together.
:DDDDDDDD
You 'write it like a dream'! Poor delusional sod!!!
António Marques
>>>>>My apologies. I didn't read your header and misplaced you in Iberia.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I am in Iberia. I have little spanish.
>>>
>>>No, sorry, you misunderstood. It's going to happen with a language you
>>>are not wholly comfortable in. "I misplaced you in Iberia" can mean
>>>both that I misplaced you and the misplacing was in Iberia and that I
>>>misplaced you in the wrong part of Iberia. Just one of the subtleties
>>>of our wonderful tongue.
>>
>>Yada, yada, yada. Why do you assume I should assume one of your possible
>>mistakes in particular?
>
> Oh dear. You're not making it any better, Tonio. You'll need to ask
> your teacher what was wrong with that sentence.
Getting poorer each day.
>>Like the other issue, it has little to do with your language, and much
>>to do with logic.
>
> Oh dear. You know that you have thoroughly spanked a luser when they
> use the L-word.
>
> But I have yet to meet the luser who actually employs any of the
> aforesaid. Zero excepted, naturally. He sticks to refuting it.
Nearly all the times you've pointed at other people's supposed deficient
command of english, either it's because you didn't understand what they
were saying, and the fault is yours, or the matter at hand has nothing
to do with english itself (but rather with logic).
OK, you're disabled, let's not dwell on it.
>>>>>>>"Most of the train was full of children." The front two carriages
>>>>>>>weren't.
>>>>>>>"Most of my day was full of laughter." The early hours weren't.
>>>>>>>"Most of his life was full of fun." He became demented after 80.
>>>>>>>"Most of England is full of Arabs". But Cornwall, Arab-free, is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...all of which show why, misc.writing not being made of parts, 'most of
>>>>>>misc.writing is full of people' is poor to say the very least.
>>>>>
>>>>>Usted es stupido. Sorry, don't know it in Portuguese but I'm sure you
>>>>>can translate, even with little Spanish.
>>>>
>>>>But it isn't spanish.
>>>
>>>I don't care. I have little Spanish too, and that's close enough for
>>>me.
>>
>>But it makes you look worse than the one you're trying to tease.
>
> Only because you don't get the joke.
No, because it's hopeless.
>>>>You have a chance to convince at least some people you can speak any
>>>>english at all: devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of
>>>>misc.writing is full of people (...)' as the first element.
>>>
>>>You have a chance to walk out of here with all your teeth...
>>>
>>>Dr Zen awaits the predictable and dull response that one is not
>>>physically in a newsgroup and one's teeth are *not really* under
>>>threat. Except from the grinding.
>>
>>I give the maybe more predictable reply: you haven't answered.
>>Devise a parallel to the 4 above using 'Most of misc.writing is full of
>>people (...)' as the first element.
>
> Usted es boring. Ciao fuckhead.
OK, so the 'man of letters' admits defeat.
Peter T. Daniels
> How one is supposed to derive dialectal difference without any
> reference to "diachronic linguistics" is another question for Tommi.
I don't know what you might have in mind by "derive dialectal
difference," but the Linguistic Atlases of, roughly, the first half of
the 20th century are strictly descriptive. Fieldworkers interviewed
consultants at great length, recording the minutiae of their speech, and
plotted the data on maps.
Even in England.
You seem to know considerably less about linguistics than Tommi or
Antonio or just about anyone at sci.lang. You'd be happier if you
stopped crossposting.
> Tommi, I think your linguistics is as poor as your exposition.
> Language change is still an important and fruitful area of study. What
> has changed is that linguistics has sought a firmer, scientific
> footing. It's the outcome of logical positivism, which had a strong
> impact on linguistics. Tolkien was far from a positivist.
Ooh, you learned a big word! Logical positivism was a brief aberration
in 20th-century philosophy, which attempted to integrate American
Descriptivist linguistics (Leonard Bloomfield wrote a short treatise for
Carnap's "Encyclopedia"), which had no effect on the practice of
linguistics, including whatever "firmer, scientific footing" you may be
fantasizing about.
Peter T. Daniels
> Well, not really. I speak the lingo like a native and write it like a
> dream.
Sleepwriting, is it? I suppose that might explain the deficiencies in
style that you have imposed on this newsgroup.
Peter T. Daniels
RJM
in message news:4343C8...@worldnet.att.net...
> Why don't you two stop crossposting your little spat?
Which two, you unutterably tedious little cunt? I'll crosspost
wherever the fuck I like. And if you have the nerve to reply
to this crosspost with anything but an apology for presuming
to censor me, I'll crosspost your arse into orbit. What's more
I'll take up residence in your stupid newsgroup and fuck you
over until your eyes bleed. The more intelligent subscribers to
sci.lang are even now groaning to themselves wondering why
it is that unutterably tedious cunts like you can't see it coming.
Why, they ask themselves rhetorically, can't they see it coming?
Unutterably tedious little cunts like you, the self appointed self
annointed guardians of the sanctity of ngs never ask themselves
anything. They shoot themselves in each foot before ramming
both into their mouths, thewhile tapping out their pitiful whines -
"Why don't you two stop crossposting your little spat?" they
whine. Because there are officious nerks like you everywhere
in Usenet, dumbshit.
Now fuck off and mull over my advice. I'll be back tonight and,
as I say, I'll expect an apology.
Peter T. Daniels
This sort of childish invective is much more at home in soc.culture.* or
alt.usage.english. We generally don't do it here.
And the followups were set so you two could continue your little spat
where it had evidently been raging for quite a while, without disturbing
the neighbors.
RJM
> . . . childish invective is much more at home in soc.culture
> or alt.usage.english.
No it isn't, you ludicrously pompous twit. Childish invective,
certainly my childish invective, is much more at home in biker
bars and the sleazier pool halls. And how dare you insult the
good folk of soc.culture and alt.english.usage. They'll tell you
themselves they're a bunch of gobshites, always have been.
Especially in alt.english.usage. The language!
> We generally don't do it here.
Where? In the toilet? In your pants? Here? You mean you
don't do it in your parochial hideaway sci.lang, Tunnel Vision
Boy. Of course you don't, you generally spend all your time
contemplating your navels. From the inside.
> And the followups were set so you two could continue your little spat
> where it had evidently been raging for quite a while
I know why the followups were set, dickhead. What you don't
know is who the fuck you're talking about. You don't know
because you're an interfering busybody earnestly trying to save
your cosy ng from the invasion of the body snatchers. Well,
tough. If you had any sense you'd have apologised nicely to me
as I suggested and I might have left you to your grim linguistic
thought processes. As it is, here you are providing me with free
entertainment every time I open misc.writing. If you persist in
your generosity I shall join in the discussions - especially yours.
I know from fuck all about either sci or lang, by the way, but
I'll wing it.
> without disturbing the neighbors.
Fuck the neighbours. The neighbours (apparently multiplying) can
kiss my arse.
António Marques
'talk.repetitious.adnauseam.boors'. We naively assumed it was some kind
of playground for wannabe writers.
Ivor Longhorn
<scrat...@virgin.net> said:
>
>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:4343F4...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>> . . . childish invective is much more at home in soc.culture
>> or alt.usage.english.
>
>
>No it isn't, you ludicrously pompous twit. Childish invective,
>certainly my childish invective, is much more at home in biker
>bars
Leather bars, shurely?
Ivor Longhorn
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> How one is supposed to derive dialectal difference without any
>> reference to "diachronic linguistics" is another question for Tommi.
>
>I don't know what you might have in mind by "derive dialectal
>difference,"
No, that's because you're talking out of your fat arse.
> but the Linguistic Atlases of, roughly, the first half of
>the 20th century are strictly descriptive. Fieldworkers interviewed
>consultants at great length, recording the minutiae of their speech, and
>plotted the data on maps.
>
Which explained how the dialectal differences came into being.
>Even in England.
>
>You seem to know considerably less about linguistics than Tommi or
>Antonio or just about anyone at sci.lang. You'd be happier if you
>stopped crossposting.
You are pulling it out of your arse. Like all "conlangers", you read
each other's "work" and think that makes you experts on linguistics.
Sadly, you remain clueless. It's the Fallacy of the Repeated
Assertion, very common on the Uselessnet, but for all it's commonness,
still a fallacy.
>
>> Tommi, I think your linguistics is as poor as your exposition.
>> Language change is still an important and fruitful area of study. What
>> has changed is that linguistics has sought a firmer, scientific
>> footing. It's the outcome of logical positivism, which had a strong
>> impact on linguistics. Tolkien was far from a positivist.
>
>Ooh, you learned a big word!
I direct you to my note that using big words is not a sign of
erudition, which is more clearly demonstrated by using the right ones.
> Logical positivism was a brief aberration
>in 20th-century philosophy
Wrong. U r stupid. In a broad sense, it redefined both philosophy and
linguistics.
> which attempted to integrate American
>Descriptivist linguistics (Leonard Bloomfield wrote a short treatise for
>Carnap's "Encyclopedia"), which had no effect on the practice of
>linguistics, including whatever "firmer, scientific footing" you may be
>fantasizing about.
Entirely wrong. I recognise your inability to understand what a
science is, and why it might be considered a good thing for
linguistics to become one.
Ivor Longhorn
<m....@sapo.pt> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>>>> is telling me I can't write my native language.
>>>
>>> No; you seem to speak it poorly; you seem to write the way you
>>> speak.
>>
>> How do you know how I speak it?
>
>It's an assumption.
Dear Antonio, I am beginning to feel sorry for you. You'll be wishing
you hadn't mentioned the L-word.
You assume I speak a certain way and it seems to you I write the same
way, which goes to show only that the seeming is entirely particular
to you.
>
>>>> A man, one hesitates to add, who seems to have gargled a
>>>> dictionary and is now spitting it up and making a horrid mess of
>>>> this thread.
>>>
>>> Hark - education is a 'horrid mess' - precisely the attitude one
>>> would expect.
>>
>> You are falling foul of the common (but nonetheless wrong)
>> misconception that using slightly obscure words is a sign of
>> erudition. Au contraire, Antonio, the cognoscenti know better than to
>> indulge themselves. It smells of the overuse of thesauruses.
>
>'Au contraire'! 'cognoscenti'! 'falling foul of'!
Senhor Marques cannot understand when his pisser is being pulled.
"Falling foul of" is only obscure to you, Senhor. Maybe you will be
introduced to it at next week's class.
>You must be really very slow if you think so.
One of us must be.
>
>>>>> ('Been known to jerk off at eliciting disgust at own self'?)
>>>>
>>>> Erm. I recommend studying harder in your night classes.
>>>
>>> You poor sod.
>>
>> Well, not really. I speak the lingo like a native and write it like a
>> dream. You're the guy who's struggling to string a sentence
>> together.
>
>:DDDDDDDD
>
>You 'write it like a dream'! Poor delusional sod!!!
My poor Antonio. You ought to be dreaming that you could write like
me. Instead you seem to be fixated on matching Professor Yaffle.
Ivor Longhorn
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>Ivor Longhorn wrote:
>
>> Well, not really. I speak the lingo like a native and write it like a
>> dream.
>
>Sleepwriting, is it? I suppose that might explain the deficiencies in
>style that you have imposed on this newsgroup.
Next: my dog complains about my accent.