There are two parts of language that define how a word is used. They are called "denotation" and "connotation." Denotation is the dictionary definition of a word, and that is important. But while all definitions fit the same set of circumstances (used properly), the words that are attached to them do not. This we call "connotation" and it, well, it doesn't MANDATE or anything, but it is basically the emotional context of words and how they are generally agreed are used. That is today's word of the day.
Connotations are extremely important. They give life to what you want to say. They are the nuance to what would otherwise be an emotionless robot exchange. They play a major role in how your words are received. If you find that people are shoving words in your mouth, or are taking things too far out of proportion to what you were trying to say, you probably made a mistake by going with a strict definition usage, instead of using a word that would be more appropriate with a different connotation.
There is no situation where connotation isn't used and relied on to get your point across. There are no possible conversations where you can go just by dictionary rules and definitions. Absolutely no ideas can be exchanged between two or more thinking, rational human beings if the, the etiquette of speech is ignored. If you're asking me "Why is that? That sounds pretty stupid," then I will answer you with an ages old rule; What you say is not as important as how you say it. Communication only happens when the people involved agree on what the words mean. If you decide you like what the definition is but ignore the connotation, well then you're asking for a world of misunderstandings and ridicule, so smarten up.
Now go have a conversation and for fuck's sake, stop beating up my language.
Hugs and destruction,
Freeky.
I suspect that this is part of the reason pinealists are looked down on here.
:lulz:
:argh!:
Good thread. You should morph this into a word and/or phrase of the day thread, with a bent toward Discordianism.
Made up words, linguistic conglomerations and alternative definitions should be welcome and encouraged.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 14, 2011, 05:15:53 PM
:lulz:
:argh!:
Good thread. You should morph this into a word and/or phrase of the day thread, with a bent toward Discordianism.
Made up words, linguistic conglomerations and alternative definitions should be welcome and encouraged.
:crankey:
I SAID STOP BEATING UP MY LANGUAGE, PICKLE!
:mittens:
Playing around with the disconnect between connotations and denotations as a form of "lolz Discord!" is valid, but it gets fucking tedious pretty quickly. The less time we waste with it is more time that might be spent on new and interesting forms of asshattery.
Also, my iPhone now autocompletes the word "asshattery".
Quote from: Cainad on September 14, 2011, 05:18:54 PM
:mittens:
Playing around with the disconnect between connotations and denotations as a form of "lolz Discord!" is valid, but it gets fucking tedious pretty quickly. The less time we waste with it is more time that might be spent on new and interesting forms of asshattery.
Also, my iPhone now autocompletes the word "asshattery".
That's an awesome phone. :lulz:
This reminds me of a panel discussion/debate a couple of my professors were in several years ago, with the student leader of the local Campus Crusade for Christ, who had naturally packed the audience with his campus crusaders.
I no longer remember what the actual purpose of the whole thing was, but what sticks in my mind was how the crusaders, both the guy on stage and those in the audience, kept insisting that the Bible wasn't up for interpretation, that the meaning of the Bible was easy to see if you'd just do a plain, simple reading. :roll:
No matter how my professors worked at it, what angle of approach they tried, they could not get the crusaders to see that any reading of a text is an interpretation of the text, regardless of what that text is, and especially if that text is a modern English translation of a collation of 5000+ ancient, fragmentary manuscripts.
Quote from: deadfong on September 15, 2011, 04:37:15 AM
This reminds me of a panel discussion/debate a couple of my professors were in several years ago, with the student leader of the local Campus Crusade for Christ, who had naturally packed the audience with his campus crusaders.
I no longer remember what the actual purpose of the whole thing was, but what sticks in my mind was how the crusaders, both the guy on stage and those in the audience, kept insisting that the Bible wasn't up for interpretation, that the meaning of the Bible was easy to see if you'd just do a plain, simple reading. :roll:
No matter how my professors worked at it, what angle of approach they tried, they could not get the crusaders to see that any reading of a text is an interpretation of the text, regardless of what that text is, and especially if that text is a modern English translation of a collation of 5000+ ancient, fragmentary manuscripts.
Were your professors also interested in herding cats?
That seriously sounds like a debater's worst nightmare,
at best.
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on September 15, 2011, 04:40:21 AM
Quote from: deadfong on September 15, 2011, 04:37:15 AM
This reminds me of a panel discussion/debate a couple of my professors were in several years ago, with the student leader of the local Campus Crusade for Christ, who had naturally packed the audience with his campus crusaders.
I no longer remember what the actual purpose of the whole thing was, but what sticks in my mind was how the crusaders, both the guy on stage and those in the audience, kept insisting that the Bible wasn't up for interpretation, that the meaning of the Bible was easy to see if you'd just do a plain, simple reading. :roll:
No matter how my professors worked at it, what angle of approach they tried, they could not get the crusaders to see that any reading of a text is an interpretation of the text, regardless of what that text is, and especially if that text is a modern English translation of a collation of 5000+ ancient, fragmentary manuscripts.
Were your professors also interested in herding cats?
That seriously sounds like a debater's worst nightmare, at best.
At that point you ignore what the other debater is saying and try to show the audience how much of an idiot he is. You ain't changing his mind so you might as well insult him.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 15, 2011, 04:43:23 AM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on September 15, 2011, 04:40:21 AM
Quote from: deadfong on September 15, 2011, 04:37:15 AM
This reminds me of a panel discussion/debate a couple of my professors were in several years ago, with the student leader of the local Campus Crusade for Christ, who had naturally packed the audience with his campus crusaders.
I no longer remember what the actual purpose of the whole thing was, but what sticks in my mind was how the crusaders, both the guy on stage and those in the audience, kept insisting that the Bible wasn't up for interpretation, that the meaning of the Bible was easy to see if you'd just do a plain, simple reading. :roll:
No matter how my professors worked at it, what angle of approach they tried, they could not get the crusaders to see that any reading of a text is an interpretation of the text, regardless of what that text is, and especially if that text is a modern English translation of a collation of 5000+ ancient, fragmentary manuscripts.
Were your professors also interested in herding cats?
That seriously sounds like a debater's worst nightmare, at best.
At that point you ignore what the other debater is saying and try to show the audience how much of an idiot he is. You ain't changing his mind so you might as well insult him.
IASON YOU BATARD. :argh!:
Also, that's probably a good tactic, if it weren't for the fact that he brought his buddies along. A taping for posterity, to show to future students, might turn that into a victory, though. :lulz:
Yeah, it pretty quickly degenerated into a clusterfuck. But this was at the University of Kansas, back in '99 probably, around the time the Kansas School Board decided evolution wasn't good science. The department of Religious Studies was pretty active in trying to counter all the misguided religious bullshit that was flying around at the time, but that particular evening made me realize we weren't very good at framing the issues, or controlling the setting.
Quote from: deadfong on September 15, 2011, 05:01:43 AM
Yeah, it pretty quickly degenerated into a clusterfuck. But this was at the University of Kansas, back in '99 probably, around the time the Kansas School Board decided evolution wasn't good science. The department of Religious Studies was pretty active in trying to counter all the misguided religious bullshit that was flying around at the time, but that particular evening made me realize we weren't very good at framing the issues, or controlling the setting.
I am so very glad I got out of the KS educational system before it was too late. Granted, I ended up in Tucson's education system, but at least I never had to learn that Intelligent Design is as valid a theory as evolution.