BREAKING: MAN CHANGES GLASS OF WATER INTO AN OAK TREE!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.  

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

This.  English is a language, just like math.  "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".

[Jenne]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb.  

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

Ahem.  Yeah, it is a rule.  In my field.  

But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.

I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason.  There is no can't, truly, in the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism).  What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean.  And so on.

/linguist hat

*edited to add a preposition

[Jenne]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb. 

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

This.  English is a language, just like math.  "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".

Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.

Like Ecole Francaise for the French.

Americans have no such "ecole."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

When someone says "Get off that", I don't take them to mean I should sexually gratify whatever I'm on.  It is commonly understood.

It's commonly understood that the Earth was created in 6 days, and that evolution is "just a theory".  It's commonly understood that Obama - a corporate whore if ever there was one - is a "socialist".  It's commonly understood that climate change is just something some of those durned librul eggheads dreamed up.

"Commonly understood" most often means "everyone is wrong at once".

And it's no excuse for poor English.  It certainly doesn't mean that words don't have exact meanings most of the time.  It also doesn't excuse shit like claiming a glass of water has become an oak tree.

Unless you're Yoko Ono.

[BabylonHoruv]

Hooray for René 

I find it absurd how much our brain just filters out as ''unimportant''.
As young infants we never did this. A conversation in this room was just as important as he dishwasher in the next. Sure before around 18-24 months we didn't have a measurable sense of self but our senses requiring outside input were superhuman. Yet if we experienced that sort of unfiltered input in adult life it'd fuck us up. Royally. It's a shame really. I'd love to experience that unfiltered input whist being self aware even if just for a moment. 

Who is by brain to make all these decisions as to what i am aware of at any one time? 

LSD can, sometimes, provide this experience.

LSD always gives you that experience, as I already posted.

It also makes you a complete fucking moron for 8 hours.

Yeah, I found your post after I made mine. I think that it making you a moron is absolutely connected with it removing your filters.

I doubt that it would be possible to remove all of someone's filters without making them into a moron.  The young infants used as the first example are a good one here, what do they do?  drool, vomit, and shit themselves.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb. 

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

This.  English is a language, just like math.  "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".

Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.

Like Ecole Francaise for the French.

Americans have no such "ecole."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, I found your post after I made mine. I think that it making you a moron is absolutely connected with it removing your filters.

I doubt that it would be possible to remove all of someone's filters without making them into a moron.  The young infants used as the first example are a good one here, what do they do?  drool, vomit, and shit themselves.

I fucking hate agreeing with you, BH. 

[LMNO]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb. 

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

Ahem.  Yeah, it is a rule.  In my field. 

But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.

I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason.  There is no can't, truly, the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism).  What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean.  And so on.

/linguist hat

Ok, point taken.  I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.

[Jenne]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb. 

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

This.  English is a language, just like math.  "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".

Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.

Like Ecole Francaise for the French.

Americans have no such "ecole."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Does not equate ecole...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb. 

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

Ahem.  Yeah, it is a rule.  In my field. 

But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.

I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason.  There is no can't, truly, the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism).  What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean.  And so on.

/linguist hat

Ok, point taken.  I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.

IT IS UP TO TGRR TO ENFORCE THIS.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb. 

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

This.  English is a language, just like math.  "Rounding" is an abomination in the eyes of "Bob".

Actually, that only works if there's a common standard, set up for use by a college of adults who scream and rant about usage.

Like Ecole Francaise for the French.

Americans have no such "ecole."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Does not equate ecole...

It's close enough.  Words have meaning.  The English language IS clunky...But if used properly, it leaves very little room for misunderstanding, at least in written form.

[Phox]

We're discussing English.  The Belgians will have to look out for themselves.

Fucking phlegms.

It still happens in English, it's just not "supposed" to.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

Yes, and no. The rules of language aren't defined by the textbooks, as much as that would make things simpler. Common use is what makes a language, as problematic as that is.

Ahem.  Yeah, it is a rule.  In my field.  

But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.

I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason.  There is no can't, truly, in the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism).  What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean.  And so on.

/linguist hat

*edited to add a preposition

This.

It's commonly understood that the Earth was created in 6 days, and that evolution is "just a theory".  It's commonly understood that Obama - a corporate whore if ever there was one - is a "socialist".  It's commonly understood that climate change is just something some of those durned librul eggheads dreamed up.

"Commonly understood" most often means "everyone is wrong at once".

And it's no excuse for poor English.  It certainly doesn't mean that words don't have exact meanings most of the time.  It also doesn't excuse shit like claiming a glass of water has become an oak tree.

Unless you're Yoko Ono.

Also this.

Ok, point taken.  I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.

And this.

Goddamn you people. I'm too fucking late to the party!  

[Jenne]

Blatant example, but it generalizes well.  If semantics were simple, people wouldn't fuck it up so much.

Laziness has nothing to do with semantics.  "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" is gramatically incorrect; it is missing the preposition "of".  Don't blame semantics for that.


Not to mention, the fact that "Jack" is capitalized indicates a proper noun, not a verb. 

Unless it is commonly understood that a certain word will be left out. This is very often the case in inflected languages. Not so much in English, though.

"Commonly understood" is not a rule.  When the possibility of interpretive confusion arises, the sentence should be written clearly, with formal grammar.  Like I said, laziness.

Ahem.  Yeah, it is a rule.  In my field. 

But then, grammar is descriptive where my knowledge base comes from--not prescriptive.

I tend to stay out of the "language should say this and mean that" sort of debates for that very reason.  There is no can't, truly, the holistic sense (and no, I don't mean holistic as in Paganism).  What an interlocutor intends is what the words mean...what they are heard or interpreted as are also what they mean.  And so on.

/linguist hat

Ok, point taken.  I will say, however, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF MISINTERPRETATION PRESENTS ITSELF, IT IS UP TO BOTH THE SENDER AND RECEIVER TO CLARIFY THE MESSAGE.

Better. 

I mean, it's an academic conversation at this point anyway.  People WILL use language as a means to their own ends.  But with the use of it comes the responsibility of being UNDERSTOOD.

[Jenne]

It's close enough.  Words have meaning.  The English language IS clunky...But if used properly, it leaves very little room for misunderstanding, at least in written form.

No, it actually isn't.  You see, when I say there's a school, it's an actual legislative BODY that says what you CAN and CANNOT say.  What words REALLY actually mean.

Now, we have to ask ourselves, do we REALLY want that?  Sure, you get a looser meaning, what some might call "watered-down" version, of the language and the words and their combinations used.

But what are we attacking when we assign "right" and "wrong" to usage?  THIS cannot MEAN *THAT*!  What does that actually say?

It's securing a finite detail to a large potential.  When we restrict meaning to the point that we disallow creativity, we are trying to squeeze the mind into a crevice.  And we all know what happens to humans when they're trapped.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's close enough.  Words have meaning.  The English language IS clunky...But if used properly, it leaves very little room for misunderstanding, at least in written form.

No, it actually isn't.  You see, when I say there's a school, it's an actual legislative BODY that says what you CAN and CANNOT say.  What words REALLY actually mean.

Now, we have to ask ourselves, do we REALLY want that?  Sure, you get a looser meaning, what some might call "watered-down" version, of the language and the words and their combinations used.

But what are we attacking when we assign "right" and "wrong" to usage?  THIS cannot MEAN *THAT*!  What does that actually say?

It's securing a finite detail to a large potential.  When we restrict meaning to the point that we disallow creativity, we are trying to squeeze the mind into a crevice.  And we all know what happens to humans when they're trapped.

I already addressed the idea of making clear speech mandatory...It's wrong.  We should rely on mockery, not legislation.