Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad?

I'm sad to say that your remarks are not helpful and are usually incorrect.

You should refrain from commenting on threads about language. You are probably doing more harm than good, to anyone who thinks you are credible.

Okay, JTT, lets talk a little bit just for the sake of talking about language.

Originally, the OP stated:


Then


At God? It is not even close to the original quote!

This is obviously crazy religiousity and a persecution feeling so prevalent on many religious nuts.

That's why I warned Oristar about such biased opinions on language.

Then,



Do you really believe this guy knows about language, let alone syntax and grammar?

He probably meant lack of beliefs and biased.


Now, did he attain the goal of language which is communication?

He certainly did, as we are aware and autocorrect the deficiency of his semiotics.



If I may monopolize this thread a little further (Ori will forgive me), let's continue about accurateness of communication:

Take, for example, the field of painting.

If you paint a sunset, everybody is going to see you painted a sunset. The goal of semiotics is attained.

But if you paint a beautiful, magnificent sunset, you generate a feeling of contentment that goes beyond communication.

A similar process takes place with a beautiful text.

Like painters, writers are emotion creators.

People who watch paintings or book readers can like or not like the works but few can soundly analyze and ponder their value.

They usually don't have the keys to do so.

Let's take an example:

This painting is known as "The rape of the Sabine women":



If you look attentively, it doesn't look like a rape, and if you peruse history, you'll find out that the episode is known as "The abduction of the Sabine women" and it's not at all about rape.

I believe that someone, as biased as Spade, just translated "Raptio", from Latin, into rape, instead of the real meaning which was abduction.

However, googling both titles will show you that the erroneous version is much more common.

It just shows that at least a little accuracy is necessary.

I doubt it, I did think about the insane part when giving my opinions, but Set beat me too it. This was not an easy topic to translate. Most of the ESL threads I post in. The information/translation comes straight from other website links that are more informative than anyone here, or are self-explanatory, or I use other websites to get the best notion possible...

... what you actually do is post a lot of bullshit, and your command of English is so poor that you make yourself ridiculous.

What about Alexander Pope's The Rape Of The Lock? Rape can have a variety of meanings. I doubt most people would think it meant cutting someone's hair off.

It certainly can and I'm sure you know a wide variety of them.

However, I doubt you would ever mistake repeatedly "Lack of beliefs" for "Lack of believers".

= ... what you actually do is post a lot of bullshit, and your command of English is so poor that you make yourself look ridiculous?

Do "lack of believers" have "lack of beliefs"? What would be your way of saying that ones who do not have beliefs can be bias? Since you wish to continue to drag this through the mud, or are you bias that this is even true? So we can prove my point, and show the real reason why about 6 people came out of the woodwork to post in this thread....that we all already know...

The word 'look' is not obligatory.

You are correct! One may look at that, in the same ways you have, if they are in the 5th grade...

Notice in the context I have given. That "lack of believers" could mean people who believe that are not there, or people who are there, that "do not believe".

How would you grammatically say "that people who do not believe, can be bias"?

I really haven't had any exposure to XXSMXX's posts, McTag, but your advice could be easily pointed at many more.

Setanta is clearly one of those. Why do you give him a pass? Contrex posted a great deal of nonsense in the past, and he is actually in the field of ESL. He has been much better of late.

The peeves threads were full of people who should never have offered any advice on language. Clary, another one in the field of ESL, and yet she and the rest all got a pass. Roberta, almost certainly a fine editor, regularly passed on, to be generous, misinformation about language - she was also given a pass.

We can't know, though, because, as usual, were are given damned little context.

Perhaps you took the above as my comment, Timur - and your reply, "Yes, we can, JTT.

It was actually a reply that pointed up the hypocrisy of Setanta, chastizing another for his writing skills.

The danger to ESLs like Ori doesn't come from folks like XXSMXX. It comes from pseudo-experts like Setanta, whose bluster leads some to believe he actually knows of what he speaks. He constantly makes errors in his analyses of language.

Ori is more than capable of asking questions of those he feels aren't accurately portraying language.



Fair enough. But my comment was only pointed at the fact that it could make sense given context. There have been many occasions where people offering advice about language freeze on one meaning to the exclusion of others which were valid.

Your English is excellent, JTT.
Setanta and Contrex, however, with their good English skills have helped me a lot in this forum. They should be praised rather than be blamed.

If someone has to cut other people down, while bolstering themselves in some way. It points to them having a superiority issue, and that is not necessarily a good thing, and is frowned upon in most of the world.

Even if they help you out, you can recognize or measure how much they are actually helping you out by what they have to say to others who have different views than their own understandings.

I think it is best to always hear as many different understandings as you can, on any topic of discussion.

If one is so convinced they are not incorrect, by evidence of insulting others to make their points. It is best to listen to another with a more objective view. Or many different objective people. This will help you understand the English language better than listening to someone who may sound correct, but has an ill-mannered way of expressing their views. The US is intolerable to people who generally act this way. And are typically never praised for these actions or attitude. JTT is closer to the truth, rather than farther as to how Americans are.

Well, this thread has turned into a monster with an ugly life of its own.

Most Language threads turn out that way, it seems. Which is not a good thing.

I think it is possible to comment, even critically, without being personally abusive.
I hope so anyway. Group hug?

I was going to pass by in silence, but there is a problem here, which is also a problem in many threads other than language threads. Spade is giving bad answers to such questions, and as i said earlier, that was what moved me to respond. Spade takes that as a personal affront, and so alleges that he is hated and he is being attacked. But the people who have asked such questions have a right to reliable information, and they're not getting it. So, i suppose, Spade will have his opportunity to allege abuse--but the student still needs to get a reliable answer.

Totally agree. My motivation is to give the student the best (most accessible*) answer I can. If I see he's getting what I think is bad advice, I protest.

I don't mind heated debate on other threads, but when a foreigner is asking for help with English, I think we should concentrate on that.


*and with that in mind, over-complication should be avoided, I think. The temptation to indulge in a pissing competition is not always resisted in some quarters.

Yeah, OK, your motivation was to give the student the most reliable answer...right!

You said what your motivation was in your first post, and repeated it in your last post...

You bitch and complain in every thread you post in...It is some sort of need for superiority that clouds you from being able to see this...And it isn't just me you do this to. Probably more like 80 - 90% of the posters on this entire website.

Just your last post alone implies you do not think it is possible that you could be incorrect, after you had said that there is no way to be sure because of damned little context. Let alone the English language is the most complex, so whether one is a master of the language or not. There could be hundreds of translations to one specific sentence. I am sorry for giving my views, and thinking that hearing as many opinions as possible is a flaw.

But I stand by the notion that if one is more interested in posting to cut another, or insult them in the case of Contrex, then their information should not be trusted anyways. Who would want to take translation advice from someone who came here to spite me? As they claim, twice now, that their interest was for "the student" anyways?

Even if you both understand the language better than I do your views do not represent how most English speaking people think....Which is a joke as well, cause Contrex lives in Spain...

If you really cared about the student, a simple, I disagree with Spade's interpretation because...would have been sufficient...And an I think it means this would have done the job...

But like I have said, correct translation, incorrect translation make no difference...People learning about our language, and the way we talk, should take what spiteful people have to say with a pinch of salt, just as much as they should with someone giving their interpretations who appears to have inferior language skills.

I'd rather listen to someone who could be more objective, because their skills are not as reformed, and would look information up, and link it. Then someone who does not think they could be incorrect. Though they make it appear they are here for the student, and also claim they are not sure because of little context. And also put down others interpretations on the most complex language. And make it appear that they can't be wrong, but say that they are not positive in their own translations.

You didn't come here for the student, and neither did about 4 others. Most came here to voice their displeasure after I had posted my remarks about people who do not have beliefs being bias.