I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas. In the past few days, however, I have come under intense criticism for writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational.
This is how I always write, this is how my friends write (and, to a large extent, speak), this is how my teachers write and this is how the newspapers and books I read are written. So what, I may ask, is the problem which some feel to be so pressing?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
In my opinion, the preceding post is perfectly acceptable.
Of course, I don't frequent the threads you frequent, it seems, so I can't make any comment on a more general "how you write is okay" scale.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
*cyber-swirlies* Pel.
You take yourself far, far too seriously and often seem to set out, not to contribute meaningfully to the conversation, but to show off how smart you are. Because of this, it's hard to take you seriously.
---
Of course, I've been criticized for having an overly pendantic way of expressing myself too, so there you go.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I've just recently been criticized ( Squick) for one of my posts, Pel...don't take it too seriously.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You should capitalize the first letter of the first word within a quotation. See your subject line.
Take comments on your grammar in stride. Comments on your grammar merely show that they find nothing really wrong with the ideas your are presenting.
Not every comment on your grammar is valid, just as not every idea expressed in this forum is correct, see KOM's posts for proof of that. <3 KOM just playing.
Don't take yourself so seriously, if somebody says something about your grammar, examine it, and if its useful, take advantage of that. If it is not useful, simply ignore it, and continue discussing the ideas you have presented.
I personally have no problem reading your posts, outside of the slight feeling that your use of words can be alienating and thus less accessable to those with an average grasp of English vocabulary.
If you are addressing those who prefer that style of writing, by all means ignore those such as myself that have to visit dictionary.com when reading your posts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I like your writing style. Of course, I am a somewhat "school-marmy" and rather prim geek. So there ya go.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You know, if someone were asking me to come up with a single word to describe kmbboots, I'm not utterly sure what it would be, but I can say with certainty that it wouldn't be "prim".
[ July 06, 2006, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Big words make me grumpy >=[
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Oy. Try sprinkling some Yiddishisms throughout your posts. People just love that. Nu? Hock mir nisht en chinik! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
How about 'outwardly prim'? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'd say you tend to use overwrought language. Here's how I would have written your post:
I'd always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that communicating in writing, rather than in speech, enables people to express nuanced ideas more effectively. In the past few days, however, I've been soundly criticized for writing in a less-than-conversational style.
This is how I always write. It's how my friends write (and, to a large extent, speak), how my teachers write and how the newspapers and books I read are written. So what's the problem that some feel to be so pressing?
Having said that, I don't think your prose is significantly more pretentious than the prose of plenty of other forum members (myself included), so I don't really know why some people are reacting so strongly to it.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Like FlyingCow said, the first post of this thread is fine.
This, however:
quote:Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is, at best, semi-valid, bears any relevence here, as I have not used any particularly esoteric language here, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex; rather, I have strived for clarity.
is cumbersome, because the mind naturually pauses when it sees a comma. It's a bit repetitive, and reads as if you've run a series of thoughts together to create one long, comma-spliced block of text. That same post would be clearer this way:
quote:Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument, which is at best semi-valid, bears any relevence here. I have not used any particularly esoteric language, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex.
I removed the commas around "at best" because you are parenthesizing a statement which is already contained in another parenthetical statment.
I removed the word "here" after "esoteric language" because you've already used that. If you read it aloud it sounds odd.
I removed the last part ("rather, I have strived for clarity") because it just repeats the last statement.
Personally, I wouldn't write quite so many parentheticals because they aren't really necessary.
Don't take this as an attack; it's just what I've observed.
--j_k
Edit: heck, you could even shorten it more:
quote:Angiomorph, again, I do not see how your argument bears any relevence here. I have not used any particularly esoteric language, nor do I believe my syntax to be particularly complex.
because the statements that his argument is (a) only semi-valid to the discussion and (b) irrelevant are very similar.
[ July 06, 2006, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Another thing that someone told me way back when that might help you: don't use overly complicated words or phrases when simple ones will do. I used to annoy people with that, because it seemed like I was trying to impress them with my vocabulary.
I still do it on occasions when I want to get under someone's epidermis. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Is "have strived" even correct? Wouldn't it be "have striven?" Or am I out to lunch?
By the way, Pelegius, in my rephrase I corrected the "which" in your last sentence -- it ought to be a "that."
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
When you reach the point that every day you post a topic about yourself...
*whistles*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You should capitalize the first letter of the first word within a quotation.
Not always. If a quote is spliced into the syntax of the surrounding sentence, then it starts lowercased.
quote:Take comments on your grammar in stride. Comments on your grammar merely show that they find nothing really wrong with the ideas your are presenting.
Again, not always. It's possible to find problems with both grammar and content.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
--j_k
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I have nothing against you, Pelegius; but if you felt concerned enough about the issue to introduce a new topic about it, you must really want to know what it is about your writing that sounds ... "un-conversational". Well, since you asked:
"... the primary advantage of internet fora ..."
(giggle)
"... writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational."
(This is how you would converse? Really? You'd take the time to put that many $10 words in a conversation?)
"So what, I may ask, is the problem which some feel to be so pressing?"
(What's wrong with just, "So what's the problem?")
Just out of curiosity ... what books do you read?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How about 'outwardly prim'?
I suppose if she were sitting there knitting, not speaking to anyone, it might be possible to mistake her for "prim", but that's the only circumstance I can think of in which a person might think that the term applied.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Probably Kirk, thanks for the quote.
The great thing is, if you use big words often enough in real life, it becomes normal. Stick to your guns, people, and it will pay off!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, I thought "striven", too.
I like that writing allows us the time to "spruce up" our writing. I have no problem with "... writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational."
I try to write the way that I would speak if my brain worked quickly enough to do it correctly. Okay. Maybe not "prim". Old-fashioned?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You should capitalize the first letter of the first word within a quotation.
Not always. If a quote is spliced into the syntax of the surrounding sentence, then it starts lowercased.
Yeah I knew that, but he is not quoting within the middle of a quote.
quote:Take comments on your grammar in stride. Comments on your grammar merely show that they find nothing really wrong with the ideas your are presenting.
quote:Again, not always. It's possible to find problems with both grammar and content.
I meant that if they only point out your grammar and ignore your ideas that that is the case. Or I might conceded that grammatical criticisms are evidence of a lack of motivation to address the others ideas.
As for the, "Stived," "Striven," debate. I would just avoid that obstacle by saying,
"I strive to..."
Strived/striven indicates (at least to me)that you have done it once, but may not be doing so anymore.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
While I find your writing pompous (a pomposity which is belied by your less than perfect grammar) I don't particularly object to that. I can read a wide range of styles comfortably. What I object to is your tendency to belittle those you disagree with, and to condescend to everybody. (Here is your first hint: at your school you may well be considered brilliant, but a whole heck of a lot of people here were/are similarly regarded. Welcome to the big pond.)
Here is where I think we come at the fora from different directions:
quote:I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas.
Communicate . . . why? Seriously. does "expressing nuanced ideas" hold intrinsic value? For you, communication seems to be a one way street; you seek to express your opinions, and that's all. What I like about sites like Hatrack is the give and take. Communicating in an atmosphere of mutual respect with people that are like me in some ways and different from me in others. I don't primarily seek to convince people that I am right, but to understand why they don't already agree with me. In my attempt to do that, I will present my opinions as convincingly as I am able, and expect others to do the same, so that we can then analyze how we can still see things differently. In the end, neither of us may change our minds, but we both understand each other better. I've had instructive disagreements here with people who liked movies I hated, people with significantly different religious outlooks, people with very different political views, and people foolish enough to think that toilet paper should roll from the bottom of the roll. And I have friends I have met here (and gone on to meet in real life) who have worldviews different from my own and different from each others'.
(And in the end, maybe that's what it's about to me. Friends. I consider Hatrackers real people, and many of them to be real friends. Have you given people reason to be your friend? Are there people here you want as friends, or do you see everyone as some sort of an intellectual foil?)
There are people who I feel have hampered my enjoyment of Hatrack. (I know: I don't own Hatrack and don't have the right to expect anything particular from it. I'm just saying how I feel.) These people include Christians, Jews, and Atheists. They include Republicans and Democrats. They include Americans and non-Americans. What I believe they have in common is that they treat other Hatrackers with disrespect. (And so yes, I fall into the moral trap of trying to beam their own disrespect back at them, with less than stellar results.)
But I will always be grateful for the friends I have found here. And those friends also include Christians, Jews, Atheists, Republicans, Democrats. Americans, and non-Americans.
Be as pompous as you want, and it won't make me respect you less (or more). Treat other people like they are stupid, and I will despise you.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I question whether the primary objection to Pelagious is, in fact, either his grammar or his pomposity. I suspect it is neither.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Take for example, "The Institutionalized Untermnesch". This is not, to me, a title that was created with communicating clearly as a primary goal.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Pel, I apologize if my responses to you in other topics have been belligerent, I just got somewhat frustrated by the way you were writing and responded more harshly than I would have normally. I do, however, think that my points were at least partly valid. You speak in a very pretentious manner that is a little offensive to be honest. There are many intelligent people on this forum who find much less pedantic ways of expressing their thoughts and opinions. I actually think you should read that Orwell essay. Back in high school when I first started writing academically, I wrote very similar to the way you do, but slowly I learned that if you follow advice like Orwell's (or like my teachers' in high school, and later, my proffs' in university) your writing will become much stronger (in that you will be able to convey and convince to a greater extent). Try using a simple word instead of a more complicated one if you can (and you almost always can), and avoid too many commas or semi-colons. Apart from that you seem to be a very smart person, and for the most part your arguments have been thoughtful and interesting.
But please, you don't expect me to believe that you actually talk like you write. No one from the 20-21th century talks like that conversationally. Unless you are a time traveller...
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
See, I have had friends that speak exactly the way Pelagius writes. I always poked fun at them because it sounded like they were studying for the SATs half the time. Still, that was how they spoke and wrote. One went to law school, the other to med school.
Still, maybe try to take the advice of Abraham Maslowe: Don't use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent. While this is somewhat true, I think that there are people who are even *more* intelligent, who understand those words, and could use them if they wanted, but choose rather to speak in a clear and presentable way, such that their opinions can be more easilly communicated to others. I think that there are alot of these people on hatrack.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Is "have strived" even correct? Wouldn't it be "have striven?" Or am I out to lunch?
Yeah, there is a difference between taking a Thesaurus to every word you write and using a slightly more complicated word to better articulate a single important idea. But I'm in the camp of people who find superfluous Big Words slightly offensive.
edit: wow, lots of people got in there before I did
Also, I type exactly how I talk, so I understand how that can sometimes come off weird on the internet. Though, for me, it makes me come off a little silly instead of pompous.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent.
::blink, blink::
I am?
I just noted that one went to law school and the other to med school. That has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with education.
Those two were highly educated, very well read (though, their favorite books were all written previous to the 20th century and both shunned this century's writing almost entirely), and yet amazingly dim - especially when it came to being wholly ignorant of the world around them, social interaction, and global issues (too much time with noses stuck in books, and not enough time paying attention to anything else).
This is not saying Pelegius is dim, lest you tell me I'm implying that, too. I'm just describing the two friends I had in college who spoke that way.
I also had an 8th grade student who spoke that way, to the point that none of the other students ever understood him. Of course, he had Asperger's Syndrome, which led him to focus more acutely on language.
Again, not implying that Pelegius has Asperger's, either.
Just sayin'.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah I knew that, but he is not quoting within the middle of a quote.
I'm not talking about the middle of a quote. That has no bearing on the capitalization. I'm talking about the difference between "He said, 'I hate it when people do that,'" and "He said that he hates it 'when people do that.'"
I'm only saying that your rule was wrong, not that the beginning of the quote in the thread title shouldn't be capitalized.
quote:Strived/striven indicates (at least to me)that you have done it once, but may not be doing so anymore.
The present perfect form ("have strived" or "have striven") indicates that a past action has relevance to the present. The simple past ("strived" or "strove") would indicate that it was a remote event that is not ongoing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I used to talk like that. I quit when it became more important to me to communicate than to impress.
[ July 06, 2006, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Er, by the way, Angiomorphism: I apologize if I singled you out by using a post directed at you as my example.
--j_k
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Is it more yesvantagial to confabricate wordies or to use wordies that are pre-exisgious?
<--- Eyereading Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and am fullspired to confabricate a lingospeak of mine ownsome.
Heh.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I, personally, have no problems with people using AP words in everyday conversation. It can be quite a bit of fun. Also, I agree with what someone said about writing as you would talk if you had a few minutes to think about everything that you said. I used to take the time to do this, but found I was constantly a few minutes behind in conversations. Meh.
On the other hand, being a big fan of Kerouac, I also enjoy writing exactly as I speak, which frequently includes excessively run-on sentences, sentence fragments, non-sequiturs(sp?), colloquialisms, curse words and just plain nonsense. In fact, I just picked up a copy of Long Dark Teatime of the Soul and Adams is making me chortle endlessly with his extensively long sentences including all of the parentheticals that a word addict would hope for.
In short, whatever way you choose to write, someone will not like it. If you make a mistake, someone will point it out. And everyone at hatrack is smarter than you (except me of course). Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent. While this is somewhat true, I think that there are people who are even *more* intelligent, who understand those words, and could use them if they wanted, but choose rather to speak in a clear and presentable way, such that their opinions can be more easilly communicated to others. I think that there are alot of these people on hatrack.
I love you for this. I really wish more people understood this. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:FlyingCow, you seem to be implying that people who use big words are more intelligent.
::blink, blink::
I am?
I just noted that one went to law school and the other to med school. That has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with education.
Those two were highly educated, very well read (though, their favorite books were all written previous to the 20th century and both shunned this century's writing almost entirely), and yet amazingly dim - especially when it came to being wholly ignorant of the world around them, social interaction, and global issues (too much time with noses stuck in books, and not enough time paying attention to anything else).
This is not saying Pelegius is dim, lest you tell me I'm implying that, too. I'm just describing the two friends I had in college who spoke that way.
I also had an 8th grade student who spoke that way, to the point that none of the other students ever understood him. Of course, he had Asperger's Syndrome, which led him to focus more acutely on language.
Again, not implying that Pelegius has Asperger's, either.
Just sayin'.
My misunderstanding then, because I completely agree with what you just said, and thought you meant something else.
and james, don't worry about it Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I agree with squick's first post in this thread.
You write like a show off, albeit a bright one. But my reaction to 'look at me!' has always been to not look. So anyone who's obviously trying so hard to impress everyone with how smart they are immediately makes me wonder why it's so important to them that they be perceived that way.
I then decide that it's a defense mechanism, covering up for a deep seated fear that they're *not* as smart as they pretend to be, and one day they'll be found out and people will point and laugh.
<------- took psych 101, and occasionally went to class.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Just out of curiosity ... what books do you read?"
Some of my favorites: Life of Pi The Once and Future King A Separate Peace No Exit Bel-Ami Catch-22 anything by Shakespeare or Molière "The Withered Hand" by Tchicaya U Tam'si And, for non-fiction: the Works of Michael Grant.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
You're smart, we get that. You have to understand - OSC's boards don't care. Really, we don't. I care how you post, what you present, and how you present it.
I'm sorry to say, there are issues with each of those three. Just the fact that you created this post is a big indicator. It seems that you didn't learn the lessons that were presented to you on Ornery.
I think that when you do learn, you'll be a great poster. As it is, I honestly skip your threads or read them with the same horrified fascination with which one views a car wreck.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"you didn't learn the lessons that were presented to you on Ornery" Clearly true, as I am still "debating" with starLisa.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas. In the past few days, however, I have come under intense criticism for writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational.
I think its what you choose to SAY that's a little more important than your style. You're entirely too self-conscious for comfort, and that shows pretty clearly in what you talk about, which is often yourself. Even when you aren't talking about yourself, your talking AS yourself, as it were, and projecting your presence into the discussion as an issue all its own. I only know because (as you can observe in this ironic aside), I can see myself doing the same thing sometimes. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How about 'outwardly prim'?
I suppose if she were sitting there knitting, not speaking to anyone, it might be possible to mistake her for "prim", but that's the only circumstance I can think of in which a person might think that the term applied.
Even then, the bright shades of purple, cranberry, etc. would give her away.
Not to mention the impish gleam in her eyes. Posted by Jacen (Member # 9543) on :
I think that the posting style should fit the topic. If I were discussing politics, religion, science, philosophy or some other scholarly pursuit, then I would want to offer an intelligent, well thought-out post. On the other hand, if I'm just talkin' 'bout the new Superman flick I'll post more relaxed like.
Now, refering to your mention of posting in forums to "more effectively express nuanced ideas", I have to disagree. It seems to me that such ideas are more effectively expressed in person where inflection, tone and body language can be observed. I feel these can be important in discussing difficult or esoteric ideas.
[ July 07, 2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Jacen ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacen: It seems to me that such ideas are more effectively expressed in person where inflection, tone and body language can be observed.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"let us all tell Pelegius how to write."
"let's all tell Pelegius how to write."
Would it kill ya to use a contraction now and then?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: "let us all tell Pelegius how to write."
"let's all tell Pelegius how to write."
Would it kill ya to use a contraction now and then?
I was going to say the same thing. That's one thing that really stands out to me in your posts, Pelegius - you avoid contractions like early Faye of Questionable Content fame.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Or Lieutenant Data.
You aren't quite human, are you, boy?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Would it kill ya to use a contraction now and then?
I'm sometimes a little afraid that I'll use a contraction wrong and the rest of the thread will be dedicated to lofty corrections. Specifically when dealing with your/you'r/you're and its/it's. That's just me being slow thow.
Edit: I have just become aware of my mispelling of 'though', but I like it, so I'm leaving it.
[ July 07, 2006, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You know, if someone were asking me to come up with a single word to describe kmbboots, I'm not utterly sure what it would be, but I can say with certainty that it wouldn't be "prim".
I might use "prmboots," though.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I haven't really been following your posts, Pelegius, so I went looking for an example of this writing that's causing such a fuss, and found this post of yours:
quote:In in fac used the term "personal language," which, although perhaps the same in the German of the Tractus, was not intended to convey the same sense as "private language" does there, but instead to refer to the basic structure of language-dialect-idiolect/vocabulary, which Wittgenstein esentialy excepted as valid.
Now, I'm not sure if "in in fac" is a misspelling of "I've in fact" or just a term I've never seen before, but coupled with the awkward phrasing, the heavyhanded references to highbrow literature, the misspelling of "essentially", and the incorrect use of "excepted", I could definitely see how people could take issue with your writing style. The combination of basic spelling mistakes and arrogant tone makes it extremely difficult to understand the point you're trying to convey.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Since my last post wasn't all that constructive, I offer this piece of advice: eliminating spelling and grammar mistakes from your writing will make you look a lot smarter than writing with a thesaurus in hand, and/or packing every sentence with obscure references.
Also, never use a $20 word when a $1 word conveys the same thing.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
And just to spread around the love a little:
quote:I'm sometimes a little afraid that I'll use a contraction wrong and the rest of the thread will be dedicated to lofty corrections. Specifically when dealing with your/you'r/you're and its/it's.
Wouldn't want to disappoint you, so:
There's no such word as you'r. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
There in lies the problem my friend.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
It is interesting to note how many seem to comment on my supposed love of thesauri, when I have, in fact, recently expressed my distaste for them. This is not to say I have never used one, although I never could be bothered on internet fora, but the times I have used them have ended about being about 50% useless and 50% semi-useful which is hardly a ringing endorsement for Mr. Roget.
As for the "use a $20 word when a $1 word conveys the same thing," I have never found such an instance, although there are certainly times when three or four words might be used instead of one, in which case I almost always prefer one, although there are some rhetorical devices which need more words.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
See that post was much better, apart from the whole fora thing (you really like that word don't you?), but I must now take issue with your point. I think it's nearly impossible that you haven't found instances where you could use "1$ words" instead of big or obscure ones to convey your message. In the time it takes to think of a 20$ word, you could most likely think of 5 smaller ones that are just as effective (though of course there are exeptions, but I think that they are just that, exeptions, and not the norm).
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
So, (this question is to anyone, not necessarily Pelegius) why is it "fora" and not "forums"? Is "forum" Latin or something?
Because I have never seen anyone else use it that way ... outside of this thread, of course.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
We're not impressed that you think of all these words without a Thesaurus. The point with bringing it up is your words are unnecessary because there are more-to-the-point words which would do you better service in the same context, not that you need a Thesaurus to find them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: So, (this question is to anyone, not necessarily Pelegius) why is it "fora" and not "forums"? Is "forum" Latin or something?
Yes.
quote: Because I have never seen anyone else use it that way ... outside of this thread, of course.
I hear it that way much more often than not.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I thought "forum" was the plural of the Latin "fori"?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"more-to-the-point words" or "more relevant words," perhaps "more facile words"?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: See that post was much better, apart from the whole fora thing (you really like that word don't you?).
Huh. I thought it sounded exactly like all his other posts.
In my opinion, "fora" is a silly affectation used by people who want to show that they know something (but not much) about Latin.
Google turns up 2.25 billion hits for "forums," but only 84.6 million for "fora." That means that the regular English plural is 26.6 times more popular.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Puffy Treat, no, forum is a singular neuter word with the plural of fora.
Many, but not all, masculine Latin words end "us" or with an r in the singular and form the plural with an "i," pronounced "EE"
Many, but by no means all, feminine Latin words end in a and form the plural with "æ," pronounced "EYE."
The pronunciations I gave are for Classical Latin, Church Latin/ Mediæval Latin differs quite strongly in matters of pronunciation and some what in grammar.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Doesn't mean it is correct.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
I use "forums" and "fora" pretty equally. Of course, I did coursework in Latin and Roman history, so I'm used to using "fora" in the historic sense (e.g., "Hey, Trajan, they's sum mighty fine fora what yous been buildin'").
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote: "fora" is a silly affectation used by people who want to show that they know something (but not much) about Latin.
And châteaux must then doubtless be a silly affection as well, one used by pretentious francophones, how about café or machismo?
English has always taken words from other languages, and, unlike other languages, we generally preserve their form. Obviously, this can be taken to extremes and no one uses "fori" in the genitive or "cacte" in the vocative, although the latter may be because so few people ever need to address cacti.
"Cacti" is also an affection, doubtless.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" That means that the regular English plural is 26.6 times more popular." There are no regular English plurals, ask any goose or any group of men, sheep or oxen.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Has some necromantic power brought Latin back from the dead? I may have missed the memo.
Forum is a latin word, yes. Fora is the latin plural, yes.
We are not speaking latin.
Forum is an english word, yes. The general english rule for pluralization of a word that ends in "um" is "ums" - i.e. "hums", "bums", "sums", and "happy num-nums".
It is perfectly okay to say "forums" - as we are not speaking latin, and need not hold slavishly to latin grammar rules.
Same is true for dangling participles. "What did you do that for?" is perfectly okay - and far more sensible than "For what did you do that?"
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Has some necromantic power brought Latin back from the dead?" That would be the Pope.
Mind you, an organization to which I proudly belong has as the first part of its creed
quote: We the members of the Junior Classical League, covenant to hand on the torch of classical civilization in the modern world. We believe an acquaintance with the civilization of Greece and Rome will help us understand and appraise this world of today, which is indebted to the ancient civilization in its government and laws, literature, language and arts.
Dangling participles are a different matter, as English grammar is not derivative of Latin grammar in the way English vocabulary is. To be perfectly sure, the same goes for the so-called "split-infinitive" which is no more an offense than the equally nonexistent split nominative.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Doesn't mean it is correct.
Sure it does.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: There are no regular English plurals, ask any goose or any group of men, sheep or oxen.
The overwhelming majority of English nouns are formed by adding an s on the end. The fact that there are a few irregular plurals doesn't mean that there are no regular plurals.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think of fora as a group of related forums (The Hatrack Fora) and forums to mean more than one forum of any kind.
But then I'm special.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I think of fora as a group of related forums (The Hatrack Fora) and forums to mean more than one forum of any kind.
But then I'm special.
I've never thought of it that way, and I think I might now.
Cool. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: And châteaux must then doubtless be a silly affection as well, one used by pretentious francophones, how about café or machismo?
I'd call châteaux silly, yes, but neither café nor machismo is a foreign plural.
quote:English has always taken words from other languages, and, unlike other languages, we generally preserve their form.
You have a lot to learn about the history of English, young padawan.
quote:Obviously, this can be taken to extremes and no one uses "fori" in the genitive or "cacte" in the vocative, although the latter may be because so few people ever need to address cacti.
Why pick one Latin rule to follow if you're only going to break that rule by extending it to all cases? How is that any more correct than using the English plural?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor does it mean that adding s is the correct way to pluralize all nouns. Think of it like media. You don't say "mediums", do you?
Or "datums" instead of "data"?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:That would be the Pope.
So Latin is no longer a dead language? I guess I did miss a memo.
And as for English vocabulary being derivative of Latin, that's not really the case. English vocabulary is derivative of everything.
You will find words based in dozens of different languages, and words that have entered into language through corruption/slang of previously accepted words. Latin rules for plurals, conjugation, grammar, etc. have as much hold on English as do Germanic rules for plurals, conjugation, grammar, etc.
More and more, common usage will trump classical usage. Datum is nearly gone completely. Fora will follow quickly after. Very, very few people are taught Latin at present, and Latin usage will disappear more and more rapidly.
At one point contractions were considered in bad form and only used by the uneducated, and scholarly papers still frown on their use. However, they are as much a part of the english language as anything else.
You might as well start putting the "U" back in "honour", "colour", "flavour", and the like - as that is more close to original usage. Truth is, American english has done away with the extra "U" simply through common usage trumping an older form of the words. The same will happen to fora, I'm sure.
If you really want to hold onto the past, why not start using the "eth" character to start words like "the", "them", and "that". Surely, our use of "th" in place of the eth isn't proper.
I think what gives people pause is that your writing feels unnatural and contrived, wholly removed from common usage and vernacular english. While what you write may be entirely proper according to some set of rules you adhere to, your tone suggests a disconnectedness with the world around you at best and a pompous disdain for that world at worst.
I understand Twain's comment that the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug, but the idea of the "right word" depends greatly on your audience. If the audience gets hung up on word choice to the point where it affects their willingness to listen to your meaning, then no matter how precise your language may have been, you didn't use the "right" words.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
kmbboots,
"So how many drinks do you want?" "Three smalls, two mediums, and a large."
"Bob draws and paints, and he is equally competent in both mediums."
"I talked to two different mediums, and neither can contact my dead aunt."
"Looking at both mediums, we can see that print news and television news both show some bias."
Of course, "media" now has a new english meaning, and can have its own plural.
"The media in America is different than the media in England, but both medias tend to reflect more liberal viewpoints."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Datum" is certainly used where I work. In any case "datum" is the singular. We use "data" (the plural form) all the time.
The fact that English changes is no reason to make it change faster or to be critical of language that is correct, just not as "everyday" as you would like it to be.
I also happen to like the "extra" U.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
*giggle*
That's it, next time I go to McDonald's, it'll be:
"So how many drinks do you want?" "Three smalls, two media, and a large."
(I like the extra U too. And I still spell theatre ... that way.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Except for the first and third examples, those all sound wrong to me.
edit to add: our style manual (and just about every theatre person I've ever known) uses "theater" to refer to the building and "theatre" to refer to the art form.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The fact that English changes is no reason to make it change faster or to be critical of language that is correct, just not as "everyday" as you would like it to be.
Not sure what you're saying here.
I'm not trying to make it change faster, nor am I being critical of language. At least I don't mean to be.
Language changes. To resist the flow and clutch dearly to older usage only serves to make your word choice more noticable to your audience, which then in turn takes their focus off of what it is you're trying to say.
The same goes for exceptionally poor grammar and usage - say, if someone were to post using no punctuation, capitalization or paragraph breaks, and did not use any form of accepted spelling. The words steal focus from the meaning, and it becomes harder to see the forest because of all those dang trees standing in the way.
If your goal is to convey a message, you want to use language that is as unobtrusive as possible - language that doesn't get in the way of your meaning. On this forum, the standard is higher than most other forums (ahem), but Pelagius' words threw up flags because they didn't fit in with the forum norm.
The examples I used about adding the "u" or using the "eth" were to show how out of place that would look on this forum - which is predominatly American english. Adding the "u" would not look so out of place on a predominantly British or Canadian forum - but using an eth would look out of place almost anywhere.
Either way, the farther you stray from the norms of those speaking/writing around you, the more your words will attract the audience's focus - and the less your message will.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Except for the first and third examples, those all sound wrong to me.
Heh. You're also comfortable with "datum".
It's an individual thing. Medium is one of those words in flux. Sometimes it works with "media" and other times it doesn't. It depends on your audience.
Obviously, a group of art majors would use "media" more often as the plural. And actually, thinking about it more, students I have taught in the past would probably gravitate more towards "types of media" than "mediums" anyway.
So, it would be:
"Looking at both types of media, we can see that print news and television news both show some bias."
rather than,
"Looking at both media, we can see that print news and television news both show some bias."
Still, it depends on your audience.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:our style manual (and just about every theatre person I've ever known) uses "theater" to refer to the building and "theatre" to refer to the art form.
Good point. And I would do it similarly - I mean when I go to the movies, it's in a movie theater, not a theatre. I just never realized I was making the distinction before.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "Datum" is certainly used where I work. In any case "datum" is the singular. We use "data" (the plural form) all the time.
You may well be the only people in the world who use the word datum.
quote:The fact that English changes is no reason to make it change faster or to be critical of language that is correct, just not as "everyday" as you would like it to be.
In the Oxford English Dictionary I found an example of forums that dates back to the mid-seventeenth century. Is 350 years slow enough?
I'm critical of language that is stilted and pedantic and bears little or no resemblance to everyday usage. Language rules don't come down from some magical source on high.
quote:edit to add: our style manual (and just about every theatre person I've ever known) uses "theater" to refer to the building and "theatre" to refer to the art form.
What the heck? That is the most nonsensical style rule I've ever seen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And châteaux must then doubtless be a silly affection as well, one used by pretentious francophones, how about café or machismo?
I would argue that all of those words -- although only cafe if you use the accent -- are symptomatic of a certain amount of pretention. Someone who would say, for example, "It is more appropriate, do you not think, for one as healthily possessed of copious machismo as I to sup in one's own chateaux, and not in some common cafe," is deserving of death by pop music.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Good point. And I would do it similarly - I mean when I go to the movies, it's in a movie theater, not a theatre. I just never realized I was making the distinction before.
What the heck? People are actually agreeing with such a ridiculous notion?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
"It is more appropriate, do you not think, for one as healthily possessed of copious machismo as I to sup in one's own chateaux, and not in some common cafe"
I challenge everyone to use this phrase at least once in the next week.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"So Latin is no longer a dead language?" Correct. I, for one, am able to read a fair degree of Latin as are about 1 200 Wikipedians. It is also the official language of the Vatican City and taught at many secondary schools.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I use theater and theatre in exactly the same way, and I used datum as the singular of data when I used to be a researcher. I suspect most people with science backgrounds would report the same.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I think of fora as a group of related forums (The Hatrack Fora) and forums to mean more than one forum of any kind.
But then I'm special.
::nods::
That's how it is in my idiolect as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I, for one, am able to read a fair degree of Latin as are about 1 200 Wikipedians.
It's worth noting, by the way, that Klingon recently passed Esperanto in popularity and was catching up to Latin -- although I'm sure that the current Star Trek-less television environment will depress its growth slightly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're all wrong!
Fora is simply the plural of forum, whether related or otherwise.
Theatres show live performances; theaters show films.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "So Latin is no longer a dead language?" Correct. I, for one, am able to read a fair degree of Latin as are about 1 200 Wikipedians. It is also the official language of the Vatican City and taught at many secondary schools.
Well if 1200 wikipedians speak it... No, I'm sorry, but Latin is definetly a dead language. It might be the "official" language of the Vatican City (the smallest city in the world mind you) but if you went to a cafe (haha thought it inject that in there) in the Vatican, what language do you think people would be speaking?
I went to a high school where latin was thaught, and classics conferences were held each year province wide, but even the people who took latin all throughout highschool agknowledged that it was just an intellectual curiosity, and that it helped them in learning new languages and understanding new words. They all agreed that for all intents and purposes, it is a dead language.
EDIT: you're right, it's not the smallest city, but "It is the smallest independent nation in the world" (wiki)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
erm, VC is neither the smaller city in the world nor the smallest nation.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"sup in one's own chateaux." Even if one owned more than one châteaux, I think one would be obliged to sup in only one château at a time.
"You may well be the only people in the world who use the word datum." You weren't taught in secondary school to use data as a plural by your science teacher? Regardless, it is a quite common usage.
"Very, very few people are taught Latin at present, and Latin usage will disappear more and more rapidly. " The levels of Latin taught in schools has increased dramatically since the 1970s. At least ten high schools at about the same number of middle schools offer it here in San Antonio.
I am not sure what the "eth" character is, is it the thorn: ??
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "So Latin is no longer a dead language?" Correct. I, for one, am able to read a fair degree of Latin as are about 1 200 Wikipedians. It is also the official language of the Vatican City and taught at many secondary schools.
Learning how to read a dead language doesn't bring that language back to life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even if one owned more than one châteaux, I think one would be obliged to sup in only one château at a time.
As I wrote that, I would have gladly wagered $10 on the possibility that this would be your reply. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "You may well be the only people in the world who use the word datum." You weren't taught in secondary school to use data as a plural by your science teacher? Regardless, it is a quite common usage.
Of course I was taught that. Not everything they teach you in school is true, though. Realistically speaking, it's actually a mass noun that takes a plural verb.
quote:I am not sure what the "eth" character is, is it the thorn: ??
Edh or eth: ð Thorn: þ
[ July 07, 2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You're all wrong!
Fora is simply the plural of forum, whether related or otherwise.
Theatres show live performances; theaters show films.
*TWITCH*
Seriously, are you doing this to get back at me for writing "alright"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Edh or eth: ð
I didn't know Bigwig had his own letter! Cool. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You're all wrong!
Fora is simply the plural of forum, whether related or otherwise.
Theatres show live performances; theaters show films.
*TWITCH*
Seriously, are you doing this to get back at me for writing "alright"?
Nope. That possibility had not even occurred to me.
It's an amusing bonus, though.
[edit: Top of page. >_< ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Pelegius, since the Church no longer requires Latin mass, the number of people familliar with it will dwindle as that generation dies off.
Those who study it now do so, as was said, as an intellectual curiosity and as a means of understanding other languages and etymology better - most often with regards to professions that still use greek and latin words such as law or medicine.
It is a dead language no matter how many people learn to speak it in schools. Maybe you're not clear on what the term "dead language" means.
quote:You weren't taught in secondary school to use data as a plural by your science teacher?
I'm fairly certain we were all taught metric, too.
quote:I am not sure what the "eth" character is, is it the thorn: ??
quote:þ Thorn. Borrowed by Old English scribes from the runic alphabet for a non-Roman, Germanic sound, now written "th." The "th" combination was introduced by Norman scribes in the Middle English period. The þ later became similar to a Y in handwriting (though not phonetically) and in this form it continued to be used by printers as an abbreviation for "th" in early printed books.
ð Eth. Another way of representing the Germanic "th" sound, invented by Old English scribes. The eth and thorn were used interchangeably in Old English manuscripts. The eth fell out of use by the Middle English period, while the thorn survived to the end of the fourteenth century.
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
The population of Vatican City, according to the CIA World Factbook, is 932. It is the world's smallest state. The languages are listed as "Italian, Latin, French, various other languages". Latin, I think, is like Hebrew was in the nineteenth century. And it may be a little silly to try to apply Latin pluralizations to English borrowings from Latin, but I still say "criteria are" and "media are" if I can; it's slightly more common than "fora" but it's not really that big of a deal. It's a little bit distracting, but I don't think it really merits comment, let alone all the complaints about thesauruses/thesaurii some people keep making.
I really don't find Pelegius's writing to be all that difficult to read. I try to write, grammatically speaking, how I talk (no problem starting sentences with a conjunction, sorry), and focus more on making my thoughts clearer. Then again, I've had complaints that my writing is needlessly parenthetical (not here, mainly in English class, but still...), so maybe I'm too close to Pelegius's writing style to tell. I also try to keep my "who"s and "whom"s straight, and I avoid split infinitives, but that's as much to satisfy the pedants as it is for myself.
Side note: Pelegius, if you ever find yourself trying to use the plural form of the word "cactus" in the vocative sense, you've got problems. Seriously. Like that guy who wrote a freaking ode to a freaking Grecian urn.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: You may well be the only people in the world who use the word datum.
I work at a university. The people that use the word are people who use data.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- edit to add: our style manual (and just about every theatre person I've ever known) uses "theater" to refer to the building and "theatre" to refer to the art form. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the heck? That is the most nonsensical style rule I've ever seen.
The people who have occasion to use both words on a regular basis don't seem to think so.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jon Boy, people who are familiar with the Old English/Old Norse alphabet should not be claiming that Latin is obscure. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
"Like that guy who wrote a freaking ode to a freaking Grecian urn."
I don't know why (well I guess I do, it's because of the freakings) but that Keats reference made me think of Snakes on a Plane, and then I started to think how funny it would be if Samuel L. Jackson did his own interpretation of Keats.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Maybe you aren't clear on the definition of "dead language". No matter how many people learn to speak Latin, it's still dead.
As for the eth, here's what Wiki has to say about it: Linky
As for your statement:
quote:You weren't taught in secondary school to use data as a plural by your science teacher?
I'm fairly certain we were all taught the metric system, too.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
kmboots, I was not familiar with the theatre/theater distinction, but it makes sense to me. All actors, playwrites and directors I know use theatre for the art form but I have not noticed the use of theater for the building. Most say I went to a. " see a film," b. "see a movie" or c. "to the cinema," when refering to films/movies/the cinema.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
kmbboots: So you reject forums even though it's preferred 26.6:1, but you make a distinction between the British and American spellings of theater because stage actors tell you to?
Pelegius: I never claimed that Latin was obscure, just that it's dead. There's a difference.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I'm fairly certain we were all taught the metric system, too." Case rested, if not entirely proven. You have doubtless had cause to use the S.I. almost every day since having learned it, e.g. when reading a book or magazine published outside of the U.S.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"I never claimed that Latin was obscure, just that it's dead." Yes "dead," in this context anyway, is much stronger than obscure. Basque is obscure, but no one would venture so far as to say it is dead.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You have doubtless had cause to use the S.I. almost every day since having learned it, e.g. when reading a book or magazine published outside of the U.S.
*laugh* I'm trying to guesstimate how many Americans actually have to use the metric system every day. I believe the number to be lower than you think. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You don't seem to understand.
We all learned metric in school, yet I'm 6'3" tall, weigh 190 lbs, drive 9 miles to work, and need to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home.
If I were to say I was 191 cm, weigh 86 kg, drive 14.5 km to work, and need to pick up 3.78 liters of milk on the way home, most Americans would look at me weird and have a hard time understanding my meaning (without looking up conversions).
It is not common usage in this country (and more specifically on this message board), just as Latin isn't common usage.
You need to fit what you're saying to your audience. Telling someone from Europe how many miles you need to travel and how many gallons of gas you need is just as out of place.
It's about time and place, and I think most people are saying that on this forum your style is not jiving with either - or, to put it in a way you might understand, temporally and spacially aberrant.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I use it whenever I read The Economist, once a week, or any book published in Canada or the U.K., every day. And I am primarily studying the humanities.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Pelegius, on what grounds do you claim that Latin is not dead? Find me the community of native speakers that justify it as a living language.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "I never claimed that Latin was obscure, just that it's dead." Yes "dead," in this context anyway, is much stronger than obscure. Basque is obscure, but no one would venture so far as to say it is dead.
I think you're conflating the senses of those words. They do not simply mean different degrees of the same thing. The deadness of a language and the obscurity of a language have nothing to do with one another.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I use it all the time! But I am a canadian in biochemistry...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, you may be surprised at how few Americans read The Economist regularly, much less any book published in Canada or Britain that has not been Americanized. Then again, based on your tone, you may not. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:I use it all the time! But I am a canadian in biochemistry...
Good lord. Get out while you still can!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't "reject" forums; I do prefer "fora". And I certainly wouldn't criticize someone for using "fora" as it is at least as correct.
"Theatre" and "theater" are both American spellings.
Scientists use the metric system, doctors use the metric system, pharmacists, manufacturers, anyone who buys a two liter bottle of Coke - I need to use it for knitting if I use a pattern from anywhere but the US.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
FlyingCow, were I to claim that Michael Grant, or his publisher rather, needed to change his measurments all to metric, I would be laughed at, even though I bought and read the book in the U.S. It is just assumed, not without reason, that S.I. is understood by all educated readers (hence the name Système International d'Unités) which cannot be said for the old British Imperial system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is just assumed, not without reason, that S.I. is understood by all educated readers (hence the name Système International d'Unités)...
Actually, most American editors do not assume that all American readers are "educated" in French measurements. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Haha, actually I worked in a law firm 3 summers ago between highschool and university, and by the end of it, I was ready to kill myself. Although it was corporate law, so that might have contributed to the dullness. Compare that to my current and last summers where I work in a cancer lab, get to learn about science all day, dress how I want, browse the internet (and hatrack) while my assays are in progress (god I love incubation periods), and leave at 3:30 almost everyday (but be paid until 5:00), and I think I'll stay right where I am thank you. Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Most importantly, this is not the "U.S. Citizens sit around and talk about the U.S." Forum, we have posters here from Israel, the U.K. and Brasil.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
kmbboots: I just wanted to apologize if I've come off a little rude in this thread. Threads like this tend to get me a little riled up.
I do have a serious question for you, though: what makes something correct or incorrect? From whence do language rules draw their authority?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*sigh*
Wrong issue. You guys are allowing Pelegius to convince himself that all anybody wants is for him to dumb his language down, when what he really needs is to sneer at his readers less. Of course, convincing himself that you all need a simpler vocabulary to understand him will lead to more sneering, not less.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
They're hardly "French" measurements, Tom. The US is one of the only nations still using the so-called Standard System. (And don't get me started on the idiocy of that!)
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Actually, I've never had anything to do with law. I moonlight as a biochemist when people aren't looking, but I hope to never touch the degree again. Your profile says you're in Toronto, which cancer lab are you working in?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Icarus, excellent point. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Again, Pelegius, you're not getting the point.
Time. And. Place.
In science? Metric.
In medicine? Metric.
Distance in Europe? Metric.
A journal read by "educated" readers? Metric.
Distance in America? Customary System.
On American television? Customary.
Talking with most Americans? Customary.
Heights, weights, and lengths in America? Customary.
Time and place.
Do you understand?
I'm not talking about universal usage here, but localized usage. Speaking with a high level of erudition has its place, as does speaking with a high level of jargon or slang.
Using a tone that doesn't match well with the environment brings undue attention to the words themselves at the meaning's expense.
Does that make sense to you at all?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Most importantly, this is not the "U.S. Citizens sit around and talk about the U.S." Forum, we have posters here from Israel, the U.K. and Brasil.
Yes. True. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
The point being made with the mention of the metric system is that, as widely accepted and known as it is, it is not the primary mode of measurement in this country. It simply isn't used; most American scientists I know who think perfectly well in centiliters and centigrade will still say "I'm six feet tall" or "It's seventy degrees outside."
Latin's the same way. Most of us know a little bit of it, but it's certainly not used in common practice -- and walking around speaking Latin, while it might actually be understood in some circles, is going to earn you a reputation for weirdness.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Actually, most American editors...." New York is only one of two major publishing cities in the English Speaking World, and most editors in London do assume a knowledge of S.I. In terms of scholarly presses, the distinction is much clearer, with the Oxford Press being much larger and more prestigious than it nearest rival in the U.S., Harvard.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I also second Icarus' point. Beyond word choice, your tone smacks of condescension at times. Such as: "that S.I. is understood by all educated readers" - there is a value judgement there, damning all those that aren't familiar with metric.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Last summer I worked at Sunnybrook, under Bob Kerbel. We mostly did research into antiangiogenic drugs and a new form of chemo called low-dose metronomic chemotherapy. This summer I am working at Princess Margaret (well it's a little complicated, I actually work in the MaRS center across the street, in the Toronto Medical Development Tower, but for a lab that is primarilly based at PMH, just don't know how well you know toronto), for the Cambell Family Institute for Breast Cancer Research, headed up by Tak Mak. I'm in the therapeutics section, so it's mostly drug development (the validation process) based on oncogene targets.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*sigh* Yes. But we're speaking here about the use of the metric system within America. Ergo, we're exclusively discussing American editors.
Whether Oxford publishes more useless, dull, and didactic drivel than Harvard does is not germane to the conversation. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
But it's an impressive point, is it not? And in the end, isn't that the real truth?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Icarus, I think your point is well taken.
Pelegius, do you get what he is saying? That your point could get lost if your readers get too bogged down in your language. I remember reading the second of the Thomas Covenant trilogies (anybody remember those?). By the middle of the second book, it was hard to become immersed in the story becasue I had to look up every other word. (I'm still not sure what "roynish" means. Anybody?) He failed to communicate. Won the battle, but lost the war.
I don't think that you are trying to "sneer" at anybody, and we already think you're bright. So relax a little.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I know one of my friends from Waterloo worked at Sunnybrook for a while, but for the life of me I can't remember which one it was.
As far as validation goes, *groan*, if you can love validation you're a special person. I spent about a year doing preclinical work which was dull enough, but validation would have killed me. Although, ironically, maybe that would have been better because I'd have wasted fewer years in biochem
Don't let me dissuade you, though, I like new and better drugs and I'm glad someone is working on them. I just find it telling that the vast majority of people I talk to that have degrees in biochem no longer work in the field Posted by Jacen (Member # 9543) on :
I've gotta say I think everyone's being a little unfair here. To be honest, I see a lot of posts by other people that are just as pretentious as you claim Pelegius' to be. So he likes to use big words and proper grammar? Big deal. Unless you have trouble reading what he writes, leave him alone for it.
And before I hear anything about it, yes, I realize he started this topic about himself. That doesn't mean that we all have to be mean to him. A lot of people are damning him for being condescending. I don't see why. Maybe it's just me but I don't really feel talked down to when I read his posts. Then again, I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt (a habit that I'm sure I'll grow out of as I become older and more cynical ).
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Pelegius, you don't understand. We know every word you're using. It's just that in order to get to the meaning of what you say, we have to wade through all of the sentences that are just there to show off all the big words you know.
So if the only reason you're posting here is to make sure everyone knows you're pretentious, then you're getting across your point. But if you're posting here because you're interested in exchanging ideas, then you need to stop trying to prove how smart you are in every post, and instead let your ideas stand on their own merit.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
quote:From whence
<shudder>
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Jacen, I think you're interpreting our being critical with our being mean. We are certainly doing the former, which is the purpose of this thread as I understood it, but I don't feel as though we are doing the latter.
And I totally agree with what blackwolve just said.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Loren, the correct response is "*wince*"
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Loren:
quote:From whence
<shudder>
I like to do that every now and then to draw the pedants out.
I suppose you would have also winced when Shakespeare, Defoe, Smollett, Dickens, Dryden, Gibbon, Twain, and the translators of the King James Bible used that construction, right?
Posted by Jacen (Member # 9543) on :
No, I'm trying to point out that there's a difference between mildly criticizing someone’s posting style and repeatedly calling them a pretentious jerk, especially when many of the people saying such are just as bad. Anywho, I actually think jatraqueros are some of the nicest people I've ever met online, I think we all just need to lay off of Pelegius a bit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jon Boy: only when its funny.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
quote:I suppose you would have also winced when Shakespeare, Defoe, Smollett, Dickens, Dryden, Gibbon, Twain, and the translators of the King James Bible used that construction, right?
Yes, that's right. Only the truly great ones make me wince: Shakespeare, Defoe, Smollett, Dickets, Dryden, Gibbon, Twain, the translators of the King James Bible, and Jon Boy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You missed my point. I wasn't putting myself in the same league as them.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
quote:You missed my point. I wasn't putting myself in the same league as them.
You missed my point. I was kidding.
Seriously, though, why use "from whence," anyway? Why the extra word?
Of course, I'm still fighting a losing battle with "societal"...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacen: No, I'm trying to point out that there's a difference between mildly criticizing someone’s posting style and repeatedly calling them a pretentious jerk, especially when many of the people saying such are just as bad. Anywho, I actually think jatraqueros are some of the nicest people I've ever met online, I think we all just need to lay off of Pelegius a bit.
Honestly, Pelegius wasn't getting harassed any more than the average Hatracker with expressed opinions right up until he created a feel-sorry-for-myself thread to...yeah, you guessed it, feel sorry for himself.
It was pointed out to him, repeatedly, that the very act of creating that thread highlighted part of what people find so hard to swallow. His reaction was to create a second thread, practically identical to the first. I'm not sure what reaction he or you expect.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Loren: Seriously, though, why use "from whence," anyway? Why the extra word?
Because the shortest way to say something isn't always the best. And anyway, if whence really carried the notion of "fromness" as well as everyone claims, then we wouldn't feel the need to add a "from." I think the fact that it's been preceded by an allegedly redundant "from" for most of its existence is a big clue that maybe it's not as redundant as people like to think.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
quote:Because the shortest way to say something isn't always the best. And anyway, if whence really carried the notion of "fromness" as well as everyone claims, then we wouldn't feel the need to add a "from."
Or if everyone knew their language, they would know that "whence" means "from where," and they wouldn't feel the need to add a "from." I'm actually not arguing from a position of strict correctness; I'm arguing from a position of pure utility and strict correctness.
Okay, and partially because I've always enjoyed yanking Jon Boy's chain about grammar and usage.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Which brings me back to my previous point: do you believe that Shakespeare didn't know his English?
Also, "to yank someone's chain" means "to tell someone a lie," so I'm really not sure what you mean regarding yanking my chain about grammar and usage. How's that for strict correctness?
(I don't even know who you are, either, so I don't know why you would say that you've "always enjoyed" yanking my chain.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
(Look at the interests in Loren's profile.)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks, but I already did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've got a question: when engaging in a pissing contest, is it more correct to ask "you getting up in all's," or "you gonna get up in all's," if the getting up has not yet occurred but seems imminent?
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
quote:Also, "to yank someone's chain" means "to tell someone a lie," so I'm really not sure what you mean regarding yanking my chain about grammar and usage. How's that for strict correctness?
On a related note: dude, relax.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So you intentionally try to upset me, and then you tell me to relax? Huh.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I was about to say, I thought "yanking your chain" was roughly equivalent to "pushing your buttons" or "just trying to get a rise out of you". I was worried.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I thought "yanking your chain" was equivalent to "pulling your leg?"
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That's how I've always heard it, twinky, but apparently there are a few different opinions on what it means:
The Oxford English Dictionary says "to tease or trick a person, usually by telling a lie; to antagonize or annoy a person."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness to Dante, Jon Boy, you DO have a big-ass red key stuck in your back labeled "To wind up, challenge my knowledge of English usage."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
What exactly are you trying to accomplish, Tom?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'd like to point out that until Jon Boy entered the fray, there was nary an instance of 'fricative' or 'vocative' to be found in this thread. It was just a good ole-fashioned pissing contest.
I personally love a good grammar rodeo.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I personally love a good grammar rodeo.
Do not DARE to remonstrance contumelious euphuism; in lieu we should rightly be of your censorious, obloquious vitiate, apropos to my cantish nonce vernacular.
SCURRILITY
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'd like to point out that until Jon Boy entered the fray, there was nary an instance of 'fricative' or 'vocative' to be found in this thread. It was just a good ole-fashioned pissing contest.
I personally love a good grammar rodeo.
Thanks, JT. That raises the question, though: am I a rider or a bull? If the latter, perhaps it's neither a chain nor a wind-up key, but an uncomfortably tight leather strap.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: Thanks, JT. That raises the question, though: am I a rider or a bull? If the latter, perhaps it's neither a chain nor a wind-up key, but an uncomfortably tight leather strap.
I'm so thankful that I don't know what you look like, thus sparing myself the visuals. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: erm, VC is neither the smaller city in the world nor the smallest nation.
I believe that honor belongs to another country located in Rome- The republic of Malta. Unless there is some smaller one, like the "country" on the quad of the Berkley Campus.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: erm, VC is neither the smaller city in the world nor the smallest nation.
I believe that honor belongs to another country located in Rome- The republic of Malta. Unless there is some smaller one, like the "country" on the quad of the Berkley Campus.
Vatican City is the smallest country in the world.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I believe that honor belongs to another country located in Rome- The republic of Malta.
Malta's population is in the hundreds of thousands.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I may be getting confused- But I thought there were TWO maltas. What is the "country" which consists of only one street, in Rome; essentially one set of buildings and a courtyard? I thought it was something like the Maltese Dominion, or the independent republic of Malta... Any bells?
I am not just imagining this, I saw something about it years ago on the discovery channel! Common folks, help me out here?
Edit: Ok I did a little googling and some wikiing...
The "Sovereign Military Order of Malta" is a complicated issue. It might be considered a country if you called its territory an embassy. It is located in Rome and is a subject of international law, it is also considered "extra-territorial" to Italy, whatever that means.
Also one search turned up a -possible- country which is a sort of independent territory in India. However, it has no population at all... so how can it be a country?
Anyway, I see that most sources site Vatican city as the smallest country in the world. The truthiness of this claim is also in question for me, because a number of the "smallest countries" in alot of the lists I saw are only -sorta- countries, or countries not recognized by everyone, or which have no embassies, or populations, or governments of their own.
[ July 08, 2006, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm sure it's already been mentioned, but I find it amusing that this is the opposite problem of Blayne's.
Posted by Ereneth (Member # 9532) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I had always assumed that the primary advantage of internet fora was that one could communicate in writing, rather than in speech and thus be able to more effectively express nuanced ideas. In the past few days, however, I have come under intense criticism for writing in a manner which was not felt to be sufficiently conversational.
This is how I always write, this is how my friends write (and, to a large extent, speak), this is how my teachers write and this is how the newspapers and books I read are written. So what, I may ask, is the problem which some feel to be so pressing?
(sorry if this has already been said) It's perfectly acceptable to me. I'm 16, and whenever I'm talking online with my friends it's always 'lol' 'rofl' 'how r u' and whenever they start conversations they say: 'sup'and I reply and aske them back and they say: 'not much' and that's the whole dialogue. I wish I were an adult, then people would try and have intelligent interactions with me, because, most of the time, that's how the real life conversations are, too.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Ereneth. You'll fit in just fine.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::seconds JennaDean:: You strike me as someone who will fit in beautifully here, Ereneth.
I know that it's a bit late to be throwing my hat into the ring on this one, but on the subject of Pelegius's posting style, I suspect that if I'd been here when I was 17 I'd have adopted something very similar. I used intellect as armor for a long time, and radiating erudite distain was a defensive tool I used so frequently and reflexively I didn't even realize I was using it. If someone back then had suggested to me that that was what I was doing I would have been kind of bewildered by the assertion, but in retrospect it's fairly obvious.
Some applications of the technique are more grating than others; I don't find Pelegius' so bad, and I definitely prefer it to the kind of barely literate approach that some of our younger members occasionally take.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I don't mind "how r u?" from my teenaged kids, but when my mom types in chatspeak, I grit my teeth and want to cover my eyes to stop the hurting.
This doesn't add anything to the conversation, but I feel better having said it. So thanks!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I had to read Pelegius's post twice to realize what the actual complaints against him were. While the register was academic, it read rather naturally. Or I'm just a geek. I've been told not to use large words in the past, but with "how r u" and "ur", I find it refreshing to see the other extreme. In some ways, it's being rebellious.
I also remember this kid I worked with at the high school writing center a couple years back. He tried to write his papers by making waaaay too much of an effort to sound smart. He wasn't smart, was trying to be, but didn't know that what he needed to do was write what he wanted to say, not think of a fancy way to phrase it.
People who write like they swallowed the encylopedia do it naturally. I've also found that I write very much in the style of the authors I've recently read. I remember a very interesting angsty post I made on a Harry Potter forum about book 5 not being out yet. It was in the style of John Steinbeck- I'd just finished the Grapes of Wrath and couldn't help but oak up the rythmn that book had.
So long as Pelegius is as articulate as he is wordy, there is no harm done. :-)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If someone's writing reads like they swallowed an encycopedia, then they are NOT writing naturally. Its perfectly natural to use whatever words best describe whatever you're talking about, but usually, if you notice the "5-dollar words" lying a little too thickly, the person really can't use them correctly or judiciously. If a writer sounds like he suffers from thesaurus syndrome, its quite likely that he or she has a poor concept of the audience involved.
This, by the way, is a debate that's been going on for thousands of years (literary criticism summer session student here ). Aristotle's "Rhetoric" has some pretty insightful things to say about public speaking, including identification of the relevant parts of a speach: the speaker, the subject and the audience. It may seem like common sense, but I very often find myself wondering if a person I am listening to has a concept of who they are adressing, what they are talking about and who they are to be talking about whatever it is. Having all that in mind, I find it changes the way I think about speaking in general; as well as tone, pacing, vocabulary, everything.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I've also found that I write very much in the style of the authors I've recently read. I remember a very interesting angsty post I made on a Harry Potter forum about book 5 not being out yet. It was in the style of John Steinbeck- I'd just finished the Grapes of Wrath and couldn't help but oak up the rythmn that book had.
I do this too. I've found it's especially bad after reading Jane Austin, for some reason.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
[Heheheh.
As have said before, have just finished "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" so am writing and thinking in clipped half-English like Manuel.]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I've also found that I write very much in the style of the authors I've recently read. I remember a very interesting angsty post I made on a Harry Potter forum about book 5 not being out yet. It was in the style of John Steinbeck- I'd just finished the Grapes of Wrath and couldn't help but oak up the rythmn that book had.
I do this too. I've found it's especially bad after reading Jane Austin, for some reason.
I do this too. I think that my two favorite examples are my writing immediately after finishing Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, and the time 5 or 6 years ago when I was going through books that had been rescued from my parents' house after it had been struck by lightning, and took a little while to read all of the Dr. Seuss books. I had to exert conscious effort to avoid speaking in Seussian patterns for the better part of a day.
It's fascinating, isn't it, what highly imitative creatures we are?
Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
I don't write very often, but sometimes I find that when I read certain authors I end up thinking in their writing styles. It can be kinda irritating, but the world always looks cleaner somehow after reading Ray Bradbury.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't consciously (or subconsciously, far as I can tell) mimic anyone's writing style.
Speech patterns are a completely different story.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I think everyone mimics writing styles to a certain degree, my own doubtlessly owes much to Michael Grant and Kenneth Clark. When writing poetry, I have noticed the fact that my rhythms are influenced by music I heard recently, particularly certain songs like "Suzanne" by Leonard Cohen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
heh. I tend to mimic as well, especially if I enjoy the usage. And I have been indulging in marathon sessions of watching Deadwood. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This, by the way, is a debate that's been going on for thousands of years (literary criticism summer session student here ). Aristotle's "Rhetoric" has some pretty insightful things to say about public speaking, including identification of the relevant parts of a speach: the speaker, the subject and the audience. It may seem like common sense, but I very often find myself wondering if a person I am listening to has a concept of who they are adressing, what they are talking about and who they are to be talking about whatever it is. Having all that in mind, I find it changes the way I think about speaking in general; as well as tone, pacing, vocabulary, everything.
Or read Plato's "The apology of Socrates". I think Pel is definetly a sophist (well at least in the way Plato thought of them).
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I would disagree, I am like Socrates, not a gifted orator but one who has the advantage of speaking the truth.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I'm afraid not Pel. Socrates never claimed to know the truth (well beyond the truth that he didn't know the truth... I'm dizzy).
More than anything, he was humble, and didn't like to decorate his oration with "flowery" language, like the sophists were taught and practiced. You are undoubtably a sophist, you have flowery language coming straight out of your .... mouth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When Socrates said he was not a gifted orator, he was engaging in false modesty. Are you?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Perhaps, remember that Socrates's speech was cleaned up after the fact by Plato. Socrates was, in fact, something of a Sophist, he certainly used their techniques, but he did so in order to challange assumptions, rather than to make money. Like Socrates, I charge no money, but then neither do I "make the worse appear better and the better worse" the crime of bothe Socrates and the Sophists.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The sophists get a bad rap.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
So you of course know what socrates's speak actually was? I'm sorry, were you there? Or is there another source I'm not aware of? Enlighten me Pel.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
No, I don't know how Socrates spoke, but I can presume that it was cleaned up by Plato, given that Plato wrote several years later. I would say the same for any such text, particularly an ancient one and particularly one writen by a man with a philosophical agenda.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Socrates was, in fact, something of a Sophist, he certainly used their techniques,
No, no, no. Sophists were merely rhetoriticians who didn't care particularly what they argued about, but promoted argument as a path to knowledge/wisdom,
To "use their techniques," means to argue well, and use effective rhetorical strategy. Its only sophistry if you're mercenary about what you argue for, or if you believe that winning an argument is the same as proving your point. You can't say he did believe that.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Thus said Socrates and I am inclined to agree; however, I cannot be a Sophist as it is alleged I am.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: When Socrates said he was not a gifted orator, he was engaging in false modesty. Are you?
Good point. Saying, "I am like Socrates," in the same breath as "I am not gifted," draws the reader's attention to the inherent implied contradiction, and the flamboyant display of modesty. False modesty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As Socrates is most famous for tying his opponents in fairly dishonest rhetorical knots, it would be a stretch to say that he wasn't a good speaker. At worst, he was not a flowery or charismatic speaker.
The jury's still out on whether he actually intended to sway, well, the jury at his trial; I personally suspect he'd already decided to go out with a bang.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote: They're hardly "French" measurements, Tom. The US is one of the only nations still using the so-called Standard System. (And don't get me started on the idiocy of that!)
The British still use it. I was really surprised to see signs for miles when I went there in 2005. I had grown up with that rhetroic. Also, inches are used to measure wand lenghts in the British original Harry Potters as well as the American ones.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The British only sort of still use it (and still refer to it as the "imperial system" -- a name which should encourage Americans to discard it forthwith! ).
It's common for kids who are picked on for being smart (and socially awkward) to believe that their intelligence is both their most important attribute and something that makes them superior to other people. To me, Pel, that's how you come across.
There's nothing wrong with being smart. I don't think there is anything wrong with writing smart, either (although, as I've mentioned, people have taken excaption to what they've seen as pedantry in my writing as well). But it's good to realize that being - or more importantly, sounding - smart is not equivilent to saying interesting or important things. It also generally doesn't help convince people hwne used overtly, like a club. "You should listen to me because I can use big words and make references to a bunch of books." doesn't work anywhere near as well as giving a clear, coherent explanation of the arguments contained in these books.
Also, a really important life lession that many people (often especially the smart ones) miss is that going through life with feeling superior to other people as a central concern is a recipe for a pretty crappy life.
Pel, you do make me want to beat you with a wedgie stick, but I've mostly got your best interests at heart. If you tone down the self-importance, self-centeredness, need to sound smart, and focus on how superior you are, I think you're going to be much better off.
---
So often on Hatrack, we get people - kids mostly - who have many of these same problems. I so want to take you out with a bunch of my friends from different walks of life, get you drunk, get you laid, and then see how things look in the morning. The world is a more varied and friendly place than it often looks, especially to smart teenagers and you lot need to stop taking yourselves so seriously or you miss it.
Unfortunately, with this medium, the best I can do is alternate between being mean and giving advice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The Brits also use stone weight measurements, which is just wierd.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, but just for people. Produce gets measured in kg.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I like you're advice MrSquicky, I sure took it when I was in high school...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Yes, but just for people. Produce gets measured in kg.
Of well in that case... Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I like you're advice MrSquicky, I sure took it when I was in high school...
If the recent Socrates comparison is any indication, it's gone totally unheeded.
Which is a shame.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Rivka, they use stone measurements on horses, too.
Ni!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And 'hands', right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kwsni, I didn't know that. But it makes sense. (Well, in the kind of twisted logic that uses stone for people and kilograms for apples.)
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I only brought up socrates to make fun of pel bringing up aristotle. Maybe I was too sublte, my bad.
But I was refering more to his advice on experiencing life, in order to get perspective anyway...
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
JT, Everybody uses hands, not just the english. A hand is four inches.
Ni!
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
news to me, here in canada we use metric mostly, but then sometimes say miles (like when my parents tell me how much they have run for their marathon training) or feet/inches, when we are refering to height. never heard of hands though..
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Probably because you don't work with horses.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"pel bringing up aristotle" I didn't, actualy. It was Orincoro who brough up "Rhetoric."
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
alright well then I was making fun of both of you.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Squick) for one of my posts, Pel...don't take it too seriously.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)