9
   

"There was two Mini Cooper parked in front of my house", or "there WERE two mini coopers"?

 
 
MattDavis
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 07:11 pm
@roger,
Roger wrote:
Don't fall for that Murphy's Law crap. It wasn't even written by Murphy.

Well then fine.... don't call my A2K Laws "Davis's Laws of A2K Dynamics" or "Davis' Laws of A2K Dynamics". Just call them "Laws of A2K Dynamics". Razz Laughing
Berty McJock
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 07:18 pm
@MattDavis,
i must admit i do like how in "Davis's Laws of A2K Dynamics" entropy can only increase Razz
MattDavis
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 07:21 pm
@Berty McJock,
Yes very few systems can create structure in the midst of entropy.
Usually we call these systems "living" or "conscious".
These systems do require energy inputs however, when they starve, they die.
Berty McJock
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 07:30 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
Usually we call these systems "living" or "conscious".
These systems do require energy inputs however, when they starve, they die.


hehehehe i note the lack of "intelligent".
we must harvest a crop of belligerant know-it-alls or A2K is doomed to chaos!

ooh...


i think i've just discovered the A2K paradox!
MattDavis
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 07:30 pm
@Berty McJock,
Berty McJock wrote:
Quote:
There could be three laws.

there certainly should be!

Correct. Wink
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 08:05 pm
@Berty McJock,
There are only three kinds of people in this world, Berty...

...those who can count and those who can't.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 08:15 pm
@MattDavis,
Quote:
I do feel a little bit like I'm talking to a wall with you JTT.
I would like to leave you with just a few thoughts before I move on to things I consider more fruitful and/or more entertaining.


Matt, please be honest. You came to start a discussion that you've quickly discovered was above you. All you brought was preconceived notions that I've heard many times before.

You've ignored the fact that the prescriptions you seem to value are nothing more than "bits of folklore" concocted to help people sell books. You haven't provided any sane reasons for these falsehoods to be preserved, save for those ideas you've been exposed to elsewhere.

Quote:
Pure scientific research regarding linguistics, sociology, education, or any other field is very important.


Indeed it is. Why do you suggest the equal of phrenology as the guiding principles for learning language?

Quote:
Application of research is however is not the same ball of wax.


I haven't ever suggested it is. I understand exactly what is needed to become functional and fluent in a new language. You're the one who wants to saddle folks with grammar and the crazy part, is you want to saddle them with false grammar.

Quote:
Maybe tutor some children?


You still have never addressed the central issue. Why would you want to teach anyone falsehoods about anything?

Quote:
so I can't really make a more specific recommendation.


That's really unbelievably presumptuous of you, Matt.
MattDavis
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 08:19 pm
@Berty McJock,
I love paradoxes. Especially dualistic ones.

Intelligence and creativity are very difficult to define concepts, maybe harder to define than consciousness.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  4  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 08:21 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
You came to start a discussion that you've quickly discovered was above you.
Seriously?
Do you even expect a response at this point?
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 08:32 pm
@MattDavis,
Matt, you've been preparing your escape since you got here.

If you were intellectually honest, if you had a tenable position, you'd be full in.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 08:37 pm
@JTT,
I hope we can remain civil toward each other in the future. Very Happy
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 08:53 pm
@MattDavis,
Not a problem, Matt. I didn't get my knickers in a twist about other things you said.

Come back when you've had a chance to get up to speed.

0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 09:23 pm
@MattDavis,
Thanks for quoting. If you hadn't, I would have had to guess what you were talking about.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Feb, 2013 10:01 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Thanks for quoting. If you hadn't, I would have had to guess what you were talking about.


Are you lying again, Rog. In this very thread on page 4.

@roger,
Re: JTT (Post 5260617)
He invented it.

Post: # 5,260,630
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 06:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
It's oxymoronic to suggest that you could have been a top student in your grammar classes.



Quote:
Why is that?


Because you never learned any grammar. You are completely unable to discuss any. Note how you duck any discussion on grammar, language, even vocabulary.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 07:07 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Actually, I think the whole position of attacking prescriptivism based on one or two examples of usages which have gone out of fashion is a solecism.


Why do you go to such lengths to illustrate your ignorance, Spendius? One or two examples - you truly are an idiot.

You still don't even have a firm enough grasp of the concepts to discuss it.

Quote:
I don't make up excuses for any mistakes I make after they have been pointed out


Quote:
Spendius: I use language having been influenced by others who use language. I have vague notions about old fashioned subjunctives and none at all about gerunds, dangling participles and what not. Nor do I care. I am neither competent nor incompetent regarding describing language issues or using language. What you see is what you get. Like it or lump it.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 07:09 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Because you never learned any grammar. You are completely unable to discuss any. Note how you duck any discussion on grammar, language, even vocabulary.


But I am willing to discuss other things.

Did you watch the Oscars show?
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 07:17 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Why do you go to such lengths to illustrate your ignorance, Spendius?


Unsupported assertion.

Quote:
you truly are an idiot.


Unsupported assertion.

Quote:
You still don't even have a firm enough grasp of the concepts to discuss it.


Unsupported assertion.

It's a pity solecisms are not nutritious. If they were you wouldn't need to do any shopping.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 07:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I appreciate the points you are making about how some of the prescriptive grammar rules help us in discussions of a more rigorous nature than just casual conversation. In my opinion, you are absolutely correct.


That's laughable, Frank, because those prescriptive grammar rules have never helped you. You can't point to any post of yours that would illustrate a rigorous discussion on your part. Your "discussions" on language and grammar are highly illustrative of just how badly your "prescriptive grammar rules" have failed you.

We know full well that you hold this opinion, but it's just that, an opinion, and a terribly uniformed one at that.

You avoid any discussions of a more rigorous nature. You brag about your standing in grammar and language and yet you cannot even discuss the same.

Quote:
JTT uses prescriptive devises[sic] in his posts (the positioning of nouns and verbs…order of subjects and predicates)…so despite his protestations…well, you can finish that sentence yourself.


And you pretended to understand the concepts of prescriptivism and descriptivism, Frank. You swore up and down you understood them well enough to discuss the issues, which, of course, you never did.

Quote:
My guess is that most people would never refer to those kinds of things as “falsehoods.” That designation is merely there so that JTT can call any use of prescriptive grammar (by others) “lying”…which, of course, is on done so he can call the person using the language liars.


Your "guess"??!! Of course it's your guess or your dismally informed opinion. The guy who was at the top of his class in language and grammar can't even discuss either.

Quote:
For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html


Quote:
Archive for Prescriptivist poppycock

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5


Quote:
and all the tirades of all the grammarians since the Renaissance sound like the prattlings of landscape gardeners who hope by frantic efforts to keep Alaska from bumping into Asia.

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/decline/


Quote:
As we go about our lives, we move in and out of many social groups, each associated with specific places and characteristic activities — school, work, family, shopping, worship, soccer and more. For each of us, this dense network of associations forms our society. Every detail of our selves and our lives — our appearance, speech, activities and associations — is perceived by others as an emblem of who we were, what we have become and where we fit in. The social profile of each person is recognizable and unique, like a fingerprint.

The ways we speak also reflect this combination of social similarity and diversity in fine detail. Our speech reflects national, regional, occupational and educational differences (among others)

Our language is both a tool for communication and a part of our personal image, like our physical appearance, behavior and belongings.

http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/gatekeeping/





But you already knew all this, Frank.You've been given this type of material more than once. Just as you avoid discussing these issues, you've likely avoided reading them or not which would illustrate just how much of a liar, a bald faced one, you really are. Which is it, Frank?
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2013 07:55 am
@JTT,
Quote:

But you already knew all this, Frank.You've been given this type of material more than once. Just as you avoid discussing these issues, you've likely avoided reading them or not which would illustrate just how much of a liar, a bald faced one, you really are. Which is it, Frank?


Does that mean,"Yes, I watched the Oscars"...or "NO, I did not"...in JTT speak?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:51:47