Another english question
Mikhail Sah
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////The Question is right
below///////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
it is "Push And Shove".
for example,
"there are so mnay folks giving up on love
So many hearts get broken in the Push and Shove"
What else or where else can "push and shove" be used ? Thanks
athel...@yahoo
Mikhail Sah wrote:
[ an uninformative subject line followed by a lot of padding, followed
by:
>
> What else or where else can "push and shove" be used ? Thanks
If you try to formulate your question in a less irritating way, then I
might try to answer it. If not, not.
athel
Mikhail Sah
Well I did post a post to answer, but I guess people high like you
might not like my straight response although taht is what someone uses
for daily talks.
I was looking for answer to "in the Push and shove" -- I didn't
udnerstand at first, and I think some people down there didn't like to
answer my question so I made up another one. But in order to increase
group-users curiosity, I used ///// since te post content would be
shown even when readers didn't open it.
So, you come and post as what is now shown in your post ?
Sometimes I wonder if straightforward_ness would be better to
understand or if it turns things worse. But no matter what it is,
people do have or can make up a reason for what they do or did. Who
knows if that is a lie or a truth.
athel...@yahoo
Mikhail Sah wrote:
> athel...@yahoo wrote:
> > Mikhail Sah wrote:
> >
> > [ an uninformative subject line followed by a lot of padding, followed
> > by:
> > >
> > > What else or where else can "push and shove" be used ? Thanks
> >
> > If you try to formulate your question in a less irritating way, then I
> > might try to answer it. If not, not.
> >
> > athel
>
Nobody said you didn't. I said you formulated your question in an
irritating way, for the following reasons:
(1) A subject line like "Another english question" conveys absolutely
nothing about what the question is about, because if it's on-topic at
all it's obviously about English usage. Would you send a message to a
C++ group entitled "Another C++ question"?
(2) Instead of getting right down to the question you started with
about 15 lines of ASCII garbage.
(3) Once you did get to the question you wrote "What else or where
else...", assuming that anyone who answered would have read another
thread with a different subject line (a thread that seems to consist
mostly of multiple postings and apologies for multiple postings).
a.
Harry Lethall
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////The Question is right
> below///////////////////////////
>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
> ///////////////////////////
Language is a code. You take the thoughts inside your brian, encode them
into vibrations in the air, in vain the hope that others can decode and
replicate your original though process. To me, the above is a code for the
question "How do you keep someone waiting?"
> What else or where else can "push and shove" be used ? Thanks
In certain situations where there is a range of opposites in the answer or
statement. T.ex:
"When the push comes to the shove, you have to make the right choice."
= after all the talk / discussion / time wasting / ** other crap ** you
still have to make the correct decision = you have no choice.
It is a means of expressing opposites. T.ex:
"push & shove"
"give & take"
"up & down"
"black & white"
"dead or alive"
I am sure that you have more examples yourself, but please try to ask a
question so that it may be seen in the preview pane. All this "scroll-down"
sh1t shoves your message to the back of the queue BrE (the end of the line
AmE).
Don Phillipson
news:1166788397....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> for example,
> "there are so mnay folks giving up on love
> So many hearts get broken in the Push and Shove"
>
> What else or where else can "push and shove" be used ? Thanks
This appears to be a couple of lines from a song.
It may have been influenced by the American proverbial
phrase "when Push comes to Shove," used mostly
to characterize critical circumstances, when
the agent is obliged to act or make a decision. The
phrase seems to live on (i.e. to recur in American
speech) even though it may have no literal or logical
meaning.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
dontbother
[...]
>
> Language is a code.
Human language is *not* a code. Codes are metalinguistic systems of
transcribing one set of symbols into another. Semaphor is a code.
Morse code is a code. Hammurabi's Code is a code. The penal code is a
code. My son has a code in his node right now, so he's using a lot of
tissue to sop up what runs down his upper lip.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com
"as long as the human population is 90% gullible, violence-prone
dipshits, the last thing you want to do is increase the supply of
unclaimed religious real estate"[i.e., the moon]. Scott Adams, The
Dilbert Blog, December 06, 2006 http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
dontbother
> "Harry Lethall" <oei...@NOSPAAM.hotmail.com> wrote
> [...]
>>
>> Language is a code.
>
> Human language is *not* a code. Codes are metalinguistic systems
> of
Should be "used for".
Hairy Lethal
> Human language is *not* a code. Codes are metalinguistic systems of
> transcribing one set of symbols into another. Semaphor is a code.
> Morse code is a code. Hammurabi's Code is a code. The penal code is a
> code. My son has a code in his node right now, so he's using a lot of
> tissue to sop up what runs down his upper lip.
Oh yes it is. Thought processes are reality, but words are only a code
consisting of modulation, designed to transmit that basic information.
Languages are only different forms of modulation, but all are designed to
communicate human thought.
Hello = Hejsan = Yobbu-sayu = Salam alekum wa rahmat illahi wa barakaatuhu
... (when "spoken") are acoustic examples of different modulation codes
(languages), each conveying the same thought. Language IS a modulated code
waveform for one of the few communication mediums possible between thinking
brains. The same ***code** can be expressed as visual images (writing
written right, and not writing written rotten), or as audible compressions
in a gas medium (sound).
Language is a code, and there are many different codes to express the same
thought.
Stuart Chapman
How is the 'basic information' of 'thought processes' encoded before
they are 'decoded', either by (sign) / (body) language, text, smell
etc.....??
I would argue (inexpertly, mind you), that the mode of language is
indivisible from the thought expressed, and that the language used
moulds the thought expressed. I don't believe there are pure, platonic
thoughts encoded in some sort of 'brain-code' that can be expressed
identically regardless of the mode of language used.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Japanese lacking a
word for 'pink', with the equivalent of 'light red' being used instead?
Stupot
dontbother
> Harry Lethall wrote:
>>>> Language is a code.
>>
>>> Human language is *not* a code. Codes are metalinguistic
>>> systems of transcribing one set of symbols into another.
>>> Semaphor is a code. Morse code is a code. Hammurabi's Code is
>>> a code. The penal code is a code. My son has a code in his
>>> node right now, so he's using a lot of tissue to sop up what
>>> runs down his upper lip.
>> Oh yes it is. Thought processes are reality,
I would have said something more along the lines of "People think
and their toughts are real, whether they are in words or pictures
or silent (i.e., heard only in the brain of the thinker) sounds".
>> but words are only a code consisting of modulation,
and therefore "not "reality"?
>> designed to transmit that basic information.
"Basic information" is quite different from the abbstract ideas and
complex feelings that some individuals communicate3 when they speak
and write. Everyone communicates basic information such as "I'm
hungry", but not everyone tells jokes or spews Husserl's
phenomenology.
>> Languages are only different forms of modulation,
Modulation. So he's babbling on about speech only. And as the
example immediately below suggests, only the most basic expressions
common to all human languages regardless of culture.
>> but all are designed to communicate human thought.
Would you be referring to some sort of "intelligent design"? The
only languages I can think of that are "designed" are languages
like Fortran, Cobol, C, and Esperanto. Natural languages are not
the products of design but of evolution.
>> Hello = Hejsan = Yobbu-sayu = Salam alekum wa rahmat illahi wa
>> barakaatuhu
>>
>> ... (when "spoken") are acoustic examples of different
>> modulation codes (languages), each conveying the same thought.
I would not call "hello" a "thought" but a "greeting" that is
usually expressed without thinking. But I won't insist on that.
>> Language IS a modulated code waveform for one of the few
>> communication mediums possible between thinking brains.
I wonder what qualities of modulation can be found in ASL or other
sign languages.
>> The same ***code** can be expressed as visual images (writing
>> written right, and not writing written rotten), or as audible
>> compressions in a gas medium (sound).
Oh, yes, one code can be transcribed into another, but that's what
I said before. He hasen't demonstrated or proved or even supported
his claim that language is merely a code of many modulations. He
can stamp his feet all he wants, but he has no support for his
thesis other than his own word, which I am certainly not willing to
accept as any more authoritative than the word of any other
anonymous poster here.
>> Language is a code, and there are many different codes to
>> express the same thought.
>
> How is the 'basic information' of 'thought processes' encoded
> before they are 'decoded', either by (sign) / (body) language,
> text, smell etc.....??
>
> I would argue (inexpertly, mind you), that the mode of language
> is indivisible from the thought expressed, and that the language
> used moulds the thought expressed.
This is (oversimplified though it be) the Whorfian thesis.
> I don't believe there are pure, platonic thoughts encoded in
> some sort of 'brain-code' that can be expressed identically
> regardless of the mode of language used.
Platonic forms aside, there are some ideas and feelings and things
that can be expressed identically enough to count as being
identical, IMHO. But it certainly isn't possible for every thought
or idea. There are just too many cultural differences for that to
occur. Good translators can reach close approximations in most
cases, but that they are not always identical is demonstrated by
our inability to translate some of the humor of one culture into
the appropriate language to make it identically humorous in
another. Gary Larson's _The Far Side_ is a good case in point. The
humor in his drawings and language is usually lost on Japanese who
see his cartoons. Not all Americans get them either, of course, but
that's a different problem.
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Japanese
> lacking a word for 'pink', with the equivalent of 'light red'
> being used instead?
The Japanese for "pink" is now the gairaigo (borrowed foreign word)
"pinku". It's written in katakana to show that it's not a native
Japanese word.
Hairy Lethal
"Stuart Chapman" <ten.no.e...@nampahc.trauts> wrote in message
news:12op7u9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hairy Lethal wrote:
> >>> Language is a code.
> >
> > Oh yes it is. Thought processes are reality, but words are ...
> > Language is a code, and there are many different ...
> I would argue (inexpertly, mind you), that the mode of language is
> indivisible from the thought expressed, and that the language used
> moulds the thought expressed. I don't believe there are pure, platonic
> thoughts encoded in some sort of 'brain-code' that can be expressed
> identically regardless of the mode of language used.
The human body has a limited number of "external senses". Thought is NOT one
of them. Language is just a medium for encrypting those thoughts in a manner
that than be de-crypted by other thinking brains. When thoughts can be
shared between humans then there will be no need for language codes. Untill
then, shalom.
> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Japanese lacking a
> word for 'pink', with the equivalent of 'light red' being used instead?
... and Arabic has no word for the colour "silver". They use "white"
(abyadh) instead. For example, a 10 hallala coin is often coloquially called
"10 whites", because of the coins metalic silver-ish colour. In Iceland they
have seven different words for the different types of snow, and in France
they have several words for the different types of "love".
BR Harry
Chess One
"Hairy Lethal" <oei...@hootmail.com (spellin mistaik)> wrote in message
news:vyzjh.27354$E02....@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Stuart Chapman" <ten.no.e...@nampahc.trauts> wrote in message
> news:12op7u9...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Hairy Lethal wrote:
>> >>> Language is a code.
>> >
>> >> Human language is *not* a code. Codes are metalinguistic ...
>
>> > Oh yes it is. Thought processes are reality, but words are ...
>
>> > Language is a code, and there are many different ...
>
>> I would argue (inexpertly, mind you), that the mode of language is
>> indivisible from the thought expressed, and that the language used
>> moulds the thought expressed. I don't believe there are pure, platonic
>> thoughts encoded in some sort of 'brain-code' that can be expressed
>> identically regardless of the mode of language used.
>
> The human body has a limited number of "external senses". Thought is NOT
> one
> of them. Language is just a medium for encrypting those thoughts in a
> manner
> that than be de-crypted by other thinking brains. When thoughts can be
> shared between humans then there will be no need for language codes.
> Untill
> then, shalom.
Language is a means to refer to what is not present. It is a substitution
paradigm. A sign pointing to the territory, rather than the territory
itself. 'This is not a hat'.
>> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Japanese lacking a
>> word for 'pink', with the equivalent of 'light red' being used instead?
>
> ... and Arabic has no word for the colour "silver". They use "white"
> (abyadh) instead. For example, a 10 hallala coin is often coloquially
> called
> "10 whites", because of the coins metalic silver-ish colour. In Iceland
> they
> have seven different words for the different types of snow, and in France
> they have several words for the different types of "love".
As indeed did the Greeks; and the Bushmen have hundreds of words relating to
types of landscape, or better said, the life present within such. Language
is determined by needs, and these are various.
Although what is written differs from that which is spoken. Most people get
by in volunteered speech using only some 1,000 words, though they know as
many as 8,000 [Typical undergraduate]. This seems true across all income
structures, classes, geographies, religions and times!
Some time ago in a Shakespearean newsgroup I wrote that the 100 most used
words in English are /all/ Anglo Saxon, and indeed, Armstrong's first words
on the Moon were all A. Sax!
A was Churchill's famous 'on the beaches' speech, save the last word
'surrender' which is from French.
If you wanted to construct a language, or advise on what is essential, these
hundred A. Sax words would be core, supplemented by both environmental and
work needs [I should say these are indicated from studies of medieval
English], plus a few necessary legal, commercial or hierarchial phrases, or
such formalisms as are necessary to conduct ordinary life.
The interestering thing for /written/ language is the combinative aspect of
words; words which Fowles points out, are fungible, and whose value is not
their specificity [!] quite the opposite, but which can thereby combine with
other words and within a context, to achieve an expressive colur and
distinction they do not possess otherwise.
I think these things need to be differentiated between values expressed as
speech, and what is written - and any codification of speech is of emotional
sense or feeling sensibility, rather than intellectualisations.
Speech acheives its tone by other means than writing, by sound, and is
besides, normally interactive and interogative, while writing is typically
declamatory, and in fact, a less typical means of self expression than
speech and 'body-language' which massively informs our understanding of what
informs speech.
Phil Innes
> BR Harry
>
>