Hard News: Compromise
359 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
I didn't ask how you were feeling now Russell, but I was thinking of you, does that count?
-
<Desc = "Comment related to the frequent misconception of linguists as grammarians (see Frank Haden, Max Cryer, etc.)">
Ha! I studied linguistics at university because I thought it would be all about grammar. (I didn't investigate more thoroughly because I was more concerned with leaving Hamilton) I soon discovered that it was essentially maths with words. I could never get my head around it and failed all the papers I did.
I don't know why people get so upset about the verbing of nouns. English is a mongrel; the rules are there are no rules. You can do funny things to words in English and they still make sense.
The one thing that never changes, though, is the syntax behind the sentences. Evn txtng teenz stick 2 da saym syntax dat we use n forml riting. Boring!
-
merc,
Verbing nouns is considered by some (Anglophiles) as an American abomination. I also find that in Software Houses, depending on who you are working for, the Tech Writer must use Engrish or 'Merican, ne'r the twain shall meet (OZ considers itself American in this context, NZ; England, depending on the end market (Localisations, or Localizations).
This is the new bette noir for commercial writers, however in the old days advertising copy was the beastly child.."you simply cannot use all those short sentences, write in the vernacular and start a sentence with "And", my God, the letters that were sent in.
Same old, same old, software houses are the new ad agencies, apparently. -
Heh, noooo, Linguistics is Anthropology. Hells, everything is Anthropology.
I love it when verbs get nouned, because then 'verb' is a noun, and 'noun' is a verb. That gets me all grammar-nerdy excited the way programmer things get my partner all programmer-nerdy excited. We don't grok each other's nerdiness, but we know when to smile and nod.
-
English's willingness to nick and incorporate new forms is what has helped it become so pervasive and useful.
as long as the new form adds something new and generally leads to an increased efficiency, beauty, or identification, or a reduction in uncertainty between communicators, then it's got a chance of surviving in a community. -
all grammar-nerdy excited
i got that with auto-illustrative, as in "word", "English" and "abstruce". a kind of sematic onomatopoeia.
we know when to smile and nod
that's a nice thing.
-
Anybody read A Distant Episode, Paul Bowles's nasty little tale about a professor of linguistics who literally loses his tongue?
-
merc,
That sounds brilliant. I may have to break my, no fiction rule for that one.
-
i got that with auto-illustrative, as in "word", "English" and "abstruce". a kind of sematic onomatopoeia.
There's a word for that! Awesome!
"obfuscatory"
On verbing, I recall John Ralston Saul complaining about how some managment-speak words get bounced back and forth and gain a syllable every time. -
Anybody read A Distant Episode
no but it reminds me of John Barth's Floating Opera, which i was trying to think of before when m was talking about the incompatibility of formal linguistics and writing poetry. (though yes of course each informs the others etc, i mean being in the right wordspace to practice each). but then i also think theres no serious distinction between art and science or words and numbers really. guinea pig logic, go figure.I've always thought losing your tongue would be pretty anoying.
-
I've always thought losing your tongue would be pretty anoying.
It's probably in the last place you left it.
-
merc,
theres no serious distinction between art and science or words and numbers really
No, there is not, none at all, it is all an illusion and without the tension of seeming opposites there can be no one.
Solve et coagulare. -
Deborah:
I don't really want to re-start a thread where my own contribution quite honestly didn't live up to my own standards, but I take allegations of malicious 'belittlement', harassment and intimidation of women in any forum incredibly seriously.
I also react very strongly - and not always temperately - to attacks I think are based on an unreasonable misreading of what I've written. I have no problem with being disagreed with - who knows, I may even be wrong. :) I don't always express myself as clearly as possible.
But I've too often seen opinions attached to my name that aren't only inaccurate, but profoundly offensive. (According to one nutcase on Kiwiblog, I apparently support " the sexual exploitation of children". Who would have thought - and no, I'm not providing a link to that particular sewer. Contact me privately if you really want to know.)
I thought it was perfectly clear from the context that I don't believe the Prime Minister -- or any other woman in public life -- should be subject to the same conventions of address in 2007 as they would have been in 1907 or 1857. Apparently that didn't come across - but the world has changed a lot and much of it for the better.
Now, Deborah, I'm not going to insult your intelligence or mine with one of those not-very-apologetic 'so sorry you've got the problem' no n-apologies. I stand my the substance of my original comment -- that there are really much more important issues in the media than playing honorific cop on anyone, and 'Bishop' Brian Tamiki's an arse no matter what title he plonks in front of his name.
However, I would appreciate it if you'd accept that the above comment is a sincere and honest statement of my opinion, and consider the matter closed.
-
Now, Deborah, I'm not going to insult your intelligence or mine with one of those not-very-apologetic 'so sorry you've got the problem' no n-apologies.
Me either, Craig. Ever heard the line, "Everything before 'but' is bullshit." People use it in non-apologies all the time - "I'm sorry but yadda yadda yadda." They aren't sorry at all.
So I appreciate what you have said, and I appreciate your sincerity in saying it, and I certainly agree that we judge people by what they say and especially what they do, not by their titles, self-chosen or not.
Thanks, Craig. Time to move on?
-
.. talking about the incompatibility of formal linguistics and writing poetry. (though yes of course each informs the others etc, i mean being in the right wordspace to practice each)
on the contrary, I'd wager that a disproportionately high number of linguists are also poets. See, e.g. this book
There's no incompatibility here, because - contrary to appearance - linguists don't actually spend much of their time worrying about whether words are nouns or verbs!
-
but are they any good at it Jen?
-
Well, how interesting Public Address is. Must come here more often. Although as a newbie, I couldn’t understand Craig’s response. I’m sorry if he has some reading disability, but why can’t he try to do people the courtesy of not ripping what they say so far out of context – or just making shit up – it verges on psychosis. He might care to consider the level of respect and civility he is displaying.
And if you don’t get it, that says much more about you than me.
-
I've always thought losing your tongue would be pretty anoying.
It's probably in the last place you left it.
well... the last place i saw it was in my mouth, so if i wake up and it's not there... then it had better not be in someones soup.
-
I could be missing something here. So if someone calls Theatre, that mean’s we must reboot our computers. I’m I right?
I thought it meant we had to re-format them
-
Sue,
i thought i meant we needed to run around in circles and sing hey nonny nonny
-
Could someone give the magic word that transforms stock-tip spammers into frogs or anything else in the same evolutionary niche that makes a satisfying noise when stood on?
Never thought it would happen, but I'm feeling nostalgic for Nigerian lottery scams, Viagra knock-offs from Canada and old school NSFW forwards.
Theatre? It's the bleeding Coliseum with a fresh shipment of Christians...
-
Sure. The magic word is hypocrite.
Althougth I think double standard or second class citizen also work pretty well.
-
malcolm, if that's a stab at craig, lay off, aeh?
if not, forget i said theatre.
-
Che, it’s not a stab at Craig, but rather at the behaviour I’ve seen here over the last few days. In the spirit of calling things when you see them, I’m telling the regular posters on this thread (and Russell) that they’ve dropped the ball.
Now I think Craig is great. But on this, he behaved like a bully. Unfortunately, other commentators have enabled him to get away with it. We’ve even got the spectacle where the people he attacks are prepared to apologise and seek some ongoing consensus, and he responds with the most grudging self-justifying minimal ‘apology’. And gets away with it. That’s pretty disgusting in my book. In fact, I call that as an extension of the bullying behaviour. When it is the victim who apologies most, you know you have a power structure that feeds bullying.
To make the point, I cobble together a bunch of quotes involved in this issue and post them as a ‘criticism’. Ironically I get called theatre, when the original poster did not. So what am I to make of this? Is it okay to bully people if you are part of the ‘in’ crowd?
There has been a lot of criticism of kiwiblog on this system. There have been long discussions about respect for people and the need to call bad behaviour for what it is. And then the regular bloggers here have failed at the first hurdle – some even seemed more concerned for the bully than the victim.
That’s fine if that’s the nature of this place. But cut out the moral superiority act.
-
i wasn't part of this thread (ie not reading) early in the piece. did craig and deb sort this one out already?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.