* Jerry Friedman:
> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Jerry Friedman:
>>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 11:26:38 AM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Anders D. Nygaard:
>>>>> Den 14-01-2022 kl. 15:54 skrev Quinn C:
>>>>>> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scientists find oldest ever
>>>>>> confirmed human fossils are
>>>>>> even older than previously
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils", "find" really
>>>>>> wants to have another meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't find it too bad - I got it in one.
>>>
>>>> That seems hardly possible. Is there something wrong with your internal
>>>> parser that it didn't recognize at "fossils" that you have a complete
>>>> sentence now? Or do you routinely jump around the sentence and took in
>>>> the "are" before processing the "oldest ever ..." part?
>>>
>>> Maybe you could consider making your point without suggesting that
>>> there's something wrong with the person you're arguing with.
>
>> Would you allow this: You can't run? Is there something wrong with your
>> heart (or legs)?
>
> Maybe in certain settings (though I can't allow or disallow it).
I think you can, once you land on the right meaning of "allow".
> When Ross Howard, a respected regular, mentioned here that he was in a
> wheelchair, no one asked him what the cause was, as I recall.
It might be inappropriate to ask for causes this way, because it's quite
a personal matter. But that's a different point from the one I was
making, whether a peculiarity is a personal failing or not.
> But the main thing I want to say is that I see a big difference between
> suggesting a physical disability and suggesting even a minor and localized
> mental one. In my opinion the latter is far more offensive to most people.
> (I'm not speaking for Anders, but offering you advice in general.)
I truly appreciate the advice. Even if it's just to know that my words
are received differently from how I intended them, or how I believe I'd
receive them (insofar as I can tell), that's valuable information, and I
I'm not offended by the way you present it.
The rest of my comments is also not meant as "but I'm right". I'm not
saying there's something wrong with you (or others) because you receive
the words differently than intended. I'm working through how I can apply
the lessons I take from your advice.
----
I'd not classify an unusual working of someone's language comprehension
as a mental disability, unless it's a repeated impediment to
communication.
The crux here may be that I have training in linguistics, and from that,
a certain idea of how language processing works in the mind/brain that
may differ from the general public. The result may be a kind of
misunderstanding that is vaguely similar to that which often happens
with accusations of acting in racist ways. Both are variations on the
theme that the majority of your mental processes aren't accessible to
your consciousness (not even to introspection, even less to conscious
control), an idea that many aren't comfortable accepting.
> And see below.
>
>> I didn't conceptualize the above as a personal failing, as it's not
>> something I think we have conscious control over. At best we may be able
>> to improve its working by training, but that's not something most people
>> do intentionally, either, certainly not in a native language.
>
> Calling someone a moron, a retard, etc., is offensive though we don't have
> conscious control over it.
Because those words have a history of being used to disparage. And given
existing prejudices, it's hard to protect any word from that fate.
And then there's the privacy issue, which makes it difficult to ask
about disabilities even when the motive is genuine empathy and a
willingness to make accommodations.
>>>> That might be the biggest issue - the "are" is so far out when you need
>>>> to know it'll come that you can't be expected to hold out for it. Seven
>>>> words before "are", that about fills the short-term memory.
>>>
>>> As I see it, you don't need "are" till after "fossils", which is where it is.
>
>> You need to know it's coming in order to realize that "fossils" is not
>> the object of "find" and to get to the right meaning of "find": "find
>> out", not "unearth", the latter being primed by "scientists find
>> fossils".
>>
>> So when I arrived at "fossils", my parser jumped on the obvious
>> interpretation and then at "are", I needed to a) reinterpret the
>> structure of the sentence and b) reinterpret "find".
>
> I agree with all that.
>
>> The challenge is to keep multiple decisions of that kind open. So
>> really, what is "wrong" with Anders' parser as opposed to mine seems to
>> be that his is able to keep more ambiguities undecided. A bit like
>> there's something wrong with my mental mathematics module in that I
>> often don't see the continuation of a sequence that is obvious to most
>> people, because I still see other good options.
>
> Yes, exactly, so there wasn't even any basis for you to think something
> was wrong (without scare quotes) with his English parser.
>
>> "What's wrong with you?" in casual conversation can mean "you're not
>> normal", and that can mean you're extraordinary.
>
> If there are clues to the irony.
I think there's a spectrum of possible attitudes, not all of which I'd
classify as irony.
If I'd say "You enjoy classical music? What's wrong with you?", then I
might really think that's weird, in the sense that I can't imagine it or
that I don't know anyone else who enjoys it. What I'd hope in order for
the other person to receive it the right way is that they know I
wouldn't actually judge a person by their taste in music, because I
don't think it's a measure of their character or moral standing, but
something there's no accounting for. I.e., wrong in the sense of "not
working within normal parameters", but not wrong in any ethically
relevant sense.
----
On some level, I may also have internalized "what's wrong with you?"
(and variations) as a traditional way of talking on Usenet, which isn't
to be taken literally.
--
Genocide is not like gifts - the thought doesn't count.
-- 22 minutes,
on Erin O'Toole's statement that residential
schools were "meant to try and provide education."