Remove Advertisements

Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Passionario » Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:58 pm

Think of it as a threat: "I could care less about this subject, and if you keep pestering me, I will".
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Epimer » Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:22 pm

Passionario wrote:Think of it as a threat: "I could care less about this subject, and if you keep pestering me, I will".


Still does a terrible job of conveying that you "couldn't care less" - your threatened position would have you, in fact, caring less than your current position, so as an expression of apathy it still doesn't work :(

(I did catch the undertone, I'm just loathe to miss out on opportunity to rail against this nonsense phrase :) )
User avatar
Epimer
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:54 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Chicken » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:15 pm

Korola's point as I understood it was mostly that language changes. All of us likely use examples of this on a daily basis, and the phrase we're talking about actually contains a great example of it in "couldn't", which to someone enough years ago would be entirely unacceptable when written down, why do those uncultured barbarians not take the time to just write "could not"? Besides, that's not how you do a contraction, who puts the apostrophe in the middle of the second word! Couldn't just become so widespread as written language that it's now basically completely acceptable; only a few very formal uses of the written word would not accept it (I doubt you'll see it in any laws for instance).

The same thing happened with "could care less" over in some parts of the English speaking world.

If you want more of an explanation for it, I've heard some people say that it originally arose as a sarcastic variation on "couldn't care less", which became widespread in some places.
Image
User avatar
Chicken
 
Posts: 1597
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Hayz » Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:58 pm

Just for you all i present grammar and the internet (linked because there is a lot of swearing so possibly nsfw):
http://i.imgur.com/HL1ZR.jpg
Deathknights are whores! They're cheap, easy, and spread diseases.
OOM, pulling more trash.
Its alright, I'm a Paladin!
They can't stop us let 'em try, for heavy metal we will die!
Image
User avatar
Hayz
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:13 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby bldavis » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:04 pm

Hayz wrote:Just for you all i present grammar and the internet (linked because there is a lot of swearing so possibly nsfw):
http://i.imgur.com/HL1ZR.jpg

oh my f'ing god!

that is classic!
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Korola » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:33 pm

The point was to illustrate that logic does not always dictate language. Logic takes a back seat and most certainly can do so when culture has accepted the meaning. Communication whether in print, verbal, or physical becomes accepted on its commonality.

However if you truly apply logic to the examples given -

Arcand wrote:Profanity is about shock value and taboo-busting at the expense of literal meaning. This is old news.


Profanity is about shock value. Profanity also describes something. Profanity can be used to incorrectly describe something, which is all that was being illustrated. Just because it is profanity does not place outside of the realm of logic.

Arcand wrote:If you know anything about the appearance, origin and smell of dog shit, do you really have to try
some to determine if it's something you want in your mouth?


I know all about where it comes from, what it looks like, and what it smells like. Inferring that something tastes like it does not fit the logic puzzle. Coffee can't taste like dog shit as they are chemically different, each one inferring their own specific taste on ones taste buds. See above for incorrect usage of profanity.

Arcand wrote:Non-sequitur choice of species for humorous effect. What does it mean if a human pisses like a
three-quarter-ton animal?


I made the assertion that this is illogical and an incorrect use of the English language. Your argument is that it is a "non-sequitur choice of species for humorous effect." You would be correct. It is precisely a non-sequitur choice.


Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation: \ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said


I'm not sure that there was anything I inferred that wasn't affirmed by your reply.

Arcand wrote:The precipitation is totally outside of ordinary experience.


With a basic understanding of how rain works, it is not possible for cats and dogs to take the place of raindrops. The statement you made expresses perfectly what the conditions are like. A logical person would make the same statement that you made. Just because you defined what the original statement means, does not mean that it becomes logical.

Arcand wrote:Atmospheric air is thin, as synonymous with 'diffuse', compared to
everything else one encounters on a regular basis. The worst you
could say is that the word is superfluous.


Air is thin makes a true statement. People do not vanish. According to the principles of science, the molecules would still exist in some part of the universe. It does not really exceed what is necessary (superfluous), it doesn't even take place.

Arcand wrote:And car washes wash more than one car, shoe stores have more than one
shoe and my keyboard has more than one key. It's almost as if there's
a linguistic convention there, or something.


Thus the point I was trying to make in my post. Culture has made these word a part of the language. Logic did not choose them.

Arcand wrote:Yes. A pant is a covering for one leg. The Levis I'm wearing right
now could be said to consist of a left pant, right pant, zippered codpiece
and I'm not sure what the part over the hips and butt is called.


Yep. Without thought for the fact that they call it a "pant leg", I used this example that actually does fit the logic puzzle. It would truly make a pair of "pants" and thus makes a bad example for my illustration.

Arcand wrote:A parkway is a road adjoining a park. And you drive onto a driveway before you
get to the parking part


A parkway is also an interstate highway in North American English. They are commonly referred to as such. You do not park on them. A driveway does get "parked" on. Parking is the action that takes place after one has stopped driving and exited the vehicle. You are literally parked on a driveway. There are clearly better ways to describe these objects. It was a mere attempt at humor and a tip of the cap to George Carlin, who had a lot to say about irrational and illogical human behavior.

Arcand wrote:Or, as I've pedantically illustrated at the cost of twenty minutes of my life, you
try a little harder and stretch your imagination a tiny bit rather than abandoning
the logic ship at the first sign of adversity.


I think you've spent 20 minutes on a proof for a problem that doesn't exist. I didn't abandon the logic ship. I merely accept that language does not always follow it. I know there will be someone tonight who will say there when he means they're. I know that people will say "I could care less". I do know what they mean, even though the statement itself is a misrepresentation of the exact meaning the user is trying to convey. It doesn't bother me because I choose to ignore it.
Image
User avatar
Korola
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:57 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Arcand » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:27 pm

Korola wrote:The point was to illustrate that logic does not always dictate language. Logic takes a back seat and most certainly can do so when culture has accepted the meaning.


However - and this is what all my retorts were about - much language does have some underlying logic.
Your examples seemed to be saying

"Making no effort at all to see logic in these expressions, I see no logic in them. Therefore
logic is not an important part of language and can be dispensed with whenever culture
(defined as 'any detectable group of people'?)'s whim so dictates."

That my inexpert self was able to suggest logical underpinnings for every item on your
list except the profane ones (for which I would more readily agree with you) makes me
think you undervalue the role of logic and structure.
Arcand
Moderator
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:15 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Hayz » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:50 pm

Arcand wrote:
"Making no effort at all to see logic in these expressions, I see no logic in them."

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Deathknights are whores! They're cheap, easy, and spread diseases.
OOM, pulling more trash.
Its alright, I'm a Paladin!
They can't stop us let 'em try, for heavy metal we will die!
Image
User avatar
Hayz
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:13 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Joanadark » Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:39 pm

- That's gay as shit. (I wasn't aware that shit had a sexual preference, but ok.)
- That guy is queer as fuck. (So fuck is queer?)


"as *expletive*" is pretty much synonymous with "is extremely". So; "That is extremely gay."

- I have to piss like a racehorse. (Wait, what?)

I fail to see what is illogical about this obvious simile. If you have ever actually SEEN a horse pissing, you will recall it consists of a pretty impressive quantity of urine. The intent is a more descriptive way of quantifying how over-full the speaker's bladder is precisely.

- It's raining cats and dogs. (Sure it is.)

The nature of the rain is surprising and amazing, or out of the expected norm for rain.

- He disappeared into thin air. (Since when did air go on a diet?)

Air at high elevation is described as "thin". The intent of the figure of speech is to imply that the subject disappeared so imperceptibly it is as if they flew up into the sky without a trace of their departure.

- Toothbrush (Who goes to the effort of brushing ONE tooth?)

The literary convention is to constantly have the object singular. Bootbrush. Toenail clipper. Weedwhacker. Eyeglasses.

- A pair of pants. (So there are two pants?)

Pants come from the more archaic Pantaloons, which were the poofy things worn over stockings in the medieval and renaissance era. They where separate adornments, and it went in and out of fashion to wear either just one on a particular leg, or a pair of them.
Arkham's Razor: a theory which states the simplest explaination tends to lead to Cthulu.
Joanadark
 
Posts: 3087
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:09 pm

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Korola » Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:10 pm

Sigh....

Joanadark wrote:"as *expletive*" is pretty much synonymous with "is extremely". So; "That is extremely gay."


You can extract a meaning from that because you already know what it means. You have not proven that what is being said logically equates to anything at all. What was said does not equal the one thing you said it does. It can be a symbol for so many more.

Joanadark wrote:I fail to see what is illogical about this obvious simile. If you have ever actually SEEN a horse pissing, you will recall it consists of a pretty impressive quantity of urine. The intent is a more descriptive way of quantifying how over-full the speaker's bladder is precisely.


In your very description you provide the logic that the original description fails to deliver. It could potentially refer to position or geography (a field or barn). Why not pick a clydesdale if you are going for a stretch of the truth? Once again, you are implying a description based on your previous knowledge. You could interpet that phrase in a myriad of ways. The fact that you chose to interpret it by the common usage only lends itself to the triviality of the statement in the first place. Fight like a lion, swim like a fish, or tough as a bull are more obvious similes, the meaning is inferred by the very statement itself.

Joanadark wrote:The nature of the rain is surprising and amazing, or out of the expected norm for rain.


Thanks for your explination. I will repeat this again. Only because you know what something means, does not make it logical. Once again, you have not captured the logic of the statement, only the definition. I think everyone knows what it means, but there is no rational explination as to why it the two animals are selected. Providing the logic behind the statement is proof, not a simple description.

Joanadark wrote:Air at high elevation is described as "thin". The intent of the figure of speech is to imply that the subject disappeared so imperceptibly it is as if they flew up into the sky without a trace of their departure.


A figure of speech separates itself from the normal meaning of the word. A figure of speech is a very common part of language and expression. If someone really meant "let me give you a piece of my mind" we would all be mortified. We would be waiting for them to take a small piece of brain and hand it to us. I am most certain that this phrase had to be explained to you the first time you heard it, as logic wouldn't explain the usage.

Joanadark wrote:The literary convention is to constantly have the object singular. Bootbrush. Toenail clipper. Weedwhacker. Eyeglasses.


Once again logic did not decide these descriptions, literary convention did. I guess that is just another way of saying culture determined it. I do remember reading this somewhere.

Korola wrote:The point was to illustrate that logic does not always dictate language. Logic takes a back seat and most certainly can do so when culture has accepted the meaning. Communication whether in print, verbal, or physical becomes accepted on its commonality.


Arcand wrote:That my inexpert self was able to suggest logical underpinnings for every item on your
list except the profane ones (for which I would more readily agree with you) makes me
think you undervalue the role of logic and structure.


Descriptions of things with determined definitions provided by our culture, do not provide logic. Logic is the reason. Logic is not a description, logic is. A = B and B = C does mean that A = C. There is no description required in between the equals signs. They are. A does equal B and B does equal C, which logically means that A does equal C. The description of why they equal each other is irrelevant. Logic tells you that they are equal. Let's use cats and dogs as our example.

The implecation is that it is raining cats and dogs outside.

Cat = A small carnivorous mammal (Felis catus or F. domesticus) domesticated since early times as a catcher of rats and mice and as a pet and existing in several distinctive breeds and varieties.

Dog = A domesticated carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris) related to the foxes and wolves and raised in a wide variety of breeds

Rain = water condensed from atmospheric vapor and falling in drops

A dog does not equal a cat, a cat does not equal rain, and a dog does not equal rain. Further, rain does not consist of cats or dogs, it consists of water. Because it is a commonly accepted expression does not change the three elements involved, nor the action required of those elements.

log·ic (ljk)
n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science
a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.


It is this deductive reasoning that allows us to make logical comparisons. The arguments provided as to the usage of the words and phrases as illustrated as illogical, are not formed in this deductive reasoning. Culture shapes language, it is not always guided in logic. Logic is also not a necessary part of language. Language is meant to convey messages, and logic does not need to be a part of it. I am content with this and I do appreciate logic.

Arcand wrote: "Making no effort at all to see logic in these expressions, I see no logic in them. Therefore
logic is not an important part of language and can be dispensed with whenever culture
(defined as 'any detectable group of people'?)'s whim so dictates."


You have provided what an internet search could reveal about these statements. I choose not to force them into logic. They do not fit. My point is that through culture and language they aren't required to.
Image
User avatar
Korola
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:57 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Passionario » Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:37 pm

Epimer wrote:so as an expression of apathy it still doesn't work :(

Apathy means that one's Care-O-Meter is sitting at zero, so it works for both expressions.

The only difference is that "I couldn't care less" means that 0 is the absolute minimum, while "I could care less" means that it can potentially go into negative numbers.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Epimer » Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:26 am

Passionario wrote:Apathy means that one's Care-O-Meter is sitting at zero, so it works for both expressions.

The only difference is that "I couldn't care less" means that 0 is the absolute minimum, while "I could care less" means that it can potentially go into negative numbers.


In which case you could care less (going into your negative number scenario), meaning "I could care less" would be literally true but wouldn't mean "I couldn't care less". Because there is a lower amount of caring which you would be able to drop to.

Honestly, if the expression is so ridiculous that it requires a negatively scaling care-o-meter to justify, could we not just agree that "I couldn't care less" is a decidedly clearer way to express apathy? You might get the same meaning out of "I could care less" if you know the idiom (side note: if I didn't spend so much time on forums which are frequented by Americans, the expression "I could care less" would have absolutely no meaning, or at least not the intended meaning, to me), but it passes the burden of understanding to the listener and hence isn't a very clear expression.
User avatar
Epimer
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:54 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Passionario » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:06 am

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Lightbeard » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:53 am

I'm scared this will become the new relationship thread
Image
User avatar
Lightbeard
 
Posts: 6615
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:03 pm

Re: Nika's Guide to Spelling - Volume 1

Postby Barathorn » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:24 am

Lightbeard wrote:I'm scared this will become the new relationship thread


Emotions are more powerful than words.

Don't be scared.
Sabindeus wrote:I feel like I should get a t-shirt made for me that says "Not Socially Awkward, Just Fat".

Brekkie wrote:The world will always need people to dig ditches.
User avatar
Barathorn
Moderator
 
Posts: 7101
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:08 am
Location: Hitting Panda's over the head with a cricket bat shouting Get Orf My Lawn!

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
?php } else { ?