 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » correcting my son's grammar?... |
|
Page 6 of 11 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Alan Munn... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <iqe0ejbo.fsf at (no spam) hpl.hp.com>,
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum at (no spam) hpl.hp.com> wrote:
[quote]António Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if someone
doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the non-use
itself, is what irks people.
Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to
adhere to.
[/quote]
Actually what matters is proportion or use/non-use. Very few
sociolinguistic variables are truly on or off. For most of us (native
speakers) here, I would suspect that we use both "me and John" and "John
and I" depending on context of use, and even within those contexts are
use of one or the other is not 100%. It's only when one's percentage
goes above or below the threshold for the situation relative to one's
social class that people start to notice. Of course the common
perception is that it's an either or situation (I'm not attributing this
view to you, Evan.)
Alan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Evan Kirshenbaum... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
António Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
[quote]Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and
variable) as linguistic standards. What did you have in mind?
Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths open
and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough?
They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't see
any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open mouth or
talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very surprised if such
things were universally considered to be bad manners.
Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed food
mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness
issue.
[/quote]
But an exceedingly minor one. Do you have any evidence that this, as
opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the primary
reason for this particular bit of manners? My own guess is that
cleanliness had about as much to do with that particular prohibition
as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews were prohibited from
eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but nothing more.
[quote]Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different
standards in different environments, but the issue here is that they
are the animus behind most 'table manners'.
[/quote]
Do you really want to go with that "most"? Don't eat with your
fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by place and for
everything in certain places)? Elbows off the table? Fork in your
right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you keep it in your
left hand)? Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready?
Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain
things)? Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or
folded next to your plate)? Use the proper fork for the proper
course? Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the
circumstances)? Ask permission before leaving the table? Excuse
yourself after burping (except where you don't)? Etc.
[quote]Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing
behind them but themselves.
[/quote]
They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social
norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others'
expectations, leading to less misunderstanding.
[quote]As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if
someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not the
non-use itself, is what irks people.
Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough to
adhere to.
I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for
some exceptions.
[/quote]
Right. Few people consciously choose to rebel against (or simply
ignore) parental or societal expectations. I'd ask if you had
children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is
whether you've actually *been* a teenager.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
kirshenbaum at (no spam) hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
[quote]António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and
variable) as linguistic standards. What did you have in
mind?
Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths
open and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough?
They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't
see any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open
mouth or talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very
surprised if such things were universally considered to be bad
manners.
Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed
food mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness
issue.
But an exceedingly minor one. Do you have any evidence that this,
as opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the
primary reason for this particular bit of manners?
[/quote]
And why could such disgust be?
[quote]My own guess is that cleanliness had about as much to do with that
particular prohibition as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews
were prohibited from eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but
nothing more.
[/quote]
Yes, it's your own guess and nothing more.
[quote]Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different
standards in different environments, but the issue here is that
they are the animus behind most 'table manners'.
Do you really want to go with that "most"?
[/quote]
I'll stand by it, but no, I'm not particularly interested in
'discussing' anything whatsover with people who'll go blathering on and
on for the sake of it.
[quote]Don't eat with your fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by
place and for everything in certain places)?
[/quote]
??? Keep your fingers clean. If it's too hard or they don't get that
dirty, it's relaxed.
[quote]Elbows off the table?
[/quote]
Of course. We don't know where they've been.
[quote]Fork in your right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you
keep it in your left hand)?
[/quote]
No forks on the right hand here. This one has to do with practicality. I
didn't say 'all'.
[quote]Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
[/quote]
Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's?
[quote]Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready?
[/quote]
Does that need an exaplanation?
[quote]Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain
things)?
[/quote]
I didn't say 'all'.
[quote]Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded
next to your plate)?
[/quote]
Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get
confused?
[quote]Use the proper fork for the proper course?
[/quote]
There's a reason they call it 'proper'.
[quote]Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the
circumstances)?
[/quote]
Ahh, the circumstances. What could those mean?
[quote]Ask permission before leaving the table?
[/quote]
Does that need an exaplanation?
[quote]Excuse yourself after burping (except where you don't)?
[/quote]
Those tricky circumstances again...
[quote]Etc.
[/quote]
This one is hard to beat, but judging by the sample you've offered, the
odds are that they, too, are not arbitrary.
I know it must be very hard on you, but sometimes things just don't work
the way you expect. Sometimes you go to bed thinking you'd like to have
risotto the next day, and the next day you don't feel like having
anything. Logic will be of no avail to you when dealing with your
appetite, and likewise the fact that you'd like and think it logical
that certain behaviours are expected over others always for the same
reasons, reasons which you derive - again - using your logic, because
it's all you care to have, doesn't command reality.
You're like a marxist trying to explain everything in terms of class
struggle. However it makes you look, it tells the world more about you
than it tells you [correctly] about the world.
[quote]Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing
behind them but themselves.
They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social
norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others'
expectations, leading to less misunderstanding.
[/quote]
Nonsense:
- 'conformity to social norms' is circular (unobservantly so)
- this discussion is about *one* standard everyone is supposed to follow
- not one of the above is without something behind it, that's what makes
them reasonable to follow, and it's not anyone else's fault that you
lack the sensibility and have to resort to your inexpensive "they're
just-so stories" attitude
- it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications for
said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it, can't admit
that and resort to armchair psychology
[quote]As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if
someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not
the non-use itself, is what irks people.
Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough
to adhere to.
I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for
some exceptions.
Right. Few people consciously choose to rebel against (or simply
ignore) parental or societal expectations. I'd ask if you had
children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is
whether you've actually *been* a teenager.
[/quote]
It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are punks. If
you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what does
that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of pointless
sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robin Bignall... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:28:06 +0000, Don Aitken <don-aitken at (no spam) freeuk.com>
wrote:
[quote]On 27 Oct 2009 00:41:11 -0000, "Martha N." <martha at (no spam) NOSPAM.invalid
wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:33:42 , "Martha N."
martha at (no spam) NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
(Thanks to those who answered my question about a toddler's
accent last summer.)
He has now picked up the local accent from his peers. But
unfortunately he's also picked up their bad grammar and says
things like "Me and Billy did this" -- how can I get him to
say "Billy and I did this" instead?
My husband and I both set a good example, and I've tried
"recasting" his sentences, but his peers' bad example seems
to keep overriding ours.
Any advice?
What is your son's age?
4 & 1/2
If he's a pre-teen, then it's far too early - in my opinion - to worry
about this. What you are trying to convey is unimportant to him
compared to fitting in with his playmates.
I agree that you should continue to correct him and guide him, but not
in a way that makes him feel that you think his friends are
unacceptably ignorant. Your criticisms of your son's friend's English
may be construed as criticism of the friends. Your son will just
become defensive of his friends.
If your son is still a "toddler", I think you are *really* premature
in your concern. Excessive criticism in areas where the child is not
yet old enough to have a concept of the rules involved can lead to
insecurities that will stay with him for years.
Thanks. I guess what concerns me is that I know children
make mistakes (like irregular verbs) and "grow out of" them
from exposure to correct language, but in this case he seems
to be regularly exposed to what we think is incorrect, what
we don't want him to learn.
He will learn it whether you want him to or not. The best you can hope
for, if it bothers you, is that he will confine his use of it to the
circles in which it is accepted, and use the "correct" versions around
you and other adults. The linguists' term for this is "code shifting";
everybody does it to some extent, and all children learn to do it
quite early in life, though not quite as early as this; it is a
routine part of language learning except for those who encounter the
language only in a formal academic setting. You don't really know a
lanuage until you acquire this ability to match your speech to your
audience.
[/quote]
I grew up in a very working class area and quickly learned, once I had
started school, to speak like those around me or get picked on by the
bullies (and there are five-year-old bullies). This horrified my
parents, who were not educated people, but who had had the "Three Rs"
firmly established in their schools in the early years of last
century. Code shifting between school and home quickly became
automatic.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 7:26 pm, Alan Munn <am... at (no spam) msu.edu> wrote:
[quote]In article
d365987f-8612-4c5d-acae-dea930df8... at (no spam) y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:43 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
I still don't understand how from
"When did your brother spot you?"
"When did your brother hit you?"
one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
five cents.-
Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
It's from Catch 22. As with almost everything, "there's a link for
that".
http://everything2.com/title/Milo%2520Minderbinder
[/quote]
I read it in high school (anyway, before the movie was made) and
remember things like Major Major and the original catch-22. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alan Munn... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<d365987f-8612-4c5d-acae-dea930df8924 at (no spam) y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 3:43 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
I still don't understand how from
"When did your brother spot you?"
"When did your brother hit you?"
one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
five cents.-
Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
[/quote]
It's from Catch 22. As with almost everything, "there's a link for
that".
http://everything2.com/title/Milo%2520Minderbinder
Alan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roland Hutchinson... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:25:44 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
[quote]"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
On Oct 27, 3:43 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
I still don't understand how from
"When did your brother spot you?"
"When did your brother hit you?"
one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
five cents.-
Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
You could probably figure out how to find out. It's been a while since
I read the book, but Googling refreshed my memory on the particulars.
There are two answers. The first answer is that he bought the eggs from
himself, and eggs cost sellers in Malta 4.25 cents, so he made three
quarters of a cent per egg. The second answer is that he actually
bought the eggs for one cent apiece in Sicily and transported them to
Malta, where he sold them to himself for seven cents, so he mad four
cents an egg (less transport costs).
[/quote]
Of course he didn't make the profit. The syndicate made the profit. And
everybody had a share.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
.... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jerry Friedman... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 7:12 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb... at (no spam) hpl.hp.com> wrote:
[quote]António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
[reasons for table manners][/quote]
[quote]Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's?
The mandatory ones are typically far more precariously balanced than
the prohibited ones (including hoods).
....[/quote]
[quote]Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded
next to your plate)?
Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get
confused?
....[/quote]
Reminds me of a seder presided over by my maternal grandfather. He
couldn't find a yarmulka, so he put a napkin on his head. It kept
sliding off--but not into anyone else's food, as far as I remember.
--
Jerry Friedman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-27, António Marques wrote:
[quote]Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-10-27, Nick wrote:
Adam Funk<a24061 at (no spam) ducksburg.com> writes:
On 2009-10-26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Children _understand_ "irregular" inflections before they can
_produce_ them.
ISTR reading that children understand lots of linguistic phenomena
before they can produce them, including phonemes that they can't
articulate yet. I came across examples (in a book by David Crystal, I
think, but I'm not certain) in which a small child mispronounces a
word, then gets annoyed when the parent repeats the mispronunciation
and says "No, I said ____!" with the same mispronunciation.
"My fiss".
Yes, that's a good example (which I couldn't recall).
And what word would that be?
[/quote]
"fist" --- ISTR that /s/ for /st/ at the end of a word is a common
child's error in English.
--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-27, tony cooper wrote:
[quote]The OP wasn't criticized. Most responses suggested that she be less
concerned about her son's poor grammar at this point in the child's
life, and that she should not be overly-critical of the boy.
I'm still hung up on this "toddler" thing. Allowances should be made
for the table manners of a toddler if we are using my definition of
"toddler" as being at the just-walking stage. "Allowances" doesn't
mean anything goes, but the child who is constantly corrected will
start to constantly rebel.
[/quote]
I agree. I was just opposing that bit of linguistic dogma ---
especially from someone who does claims to hate prescription but does
correct other people for misusing "beg the question".
--
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it! [Prof. Wagstaff] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Evan Kirshenbaum... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
António Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
[quote]Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
António Marques<m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt> writes:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
I would think that table manners are about as arbitrary (and
variable) as linguistic standards. What did you have in
mind?
Isn't '[c]leanliness' in response to 'chewed with their mouths
open and talked with food in their mouths' explicit enough?
They appeared to be connected, but it wasn't clear why. I don't
see any cleanliness issues involved with chewing with an open
mouth or talking with food in your mouth, and I would be very
surprised if such things were universally considered to be bad
manners.
Anything that heightens the chances of spitting bits of chewed
food mixed with your own saliva into other people is a cleanliness
issue.
But an exceedingly minor one. Do you have any evidence that this,
as opposed to, say, disgust at the sight of chewed food, is the
primary reason for this particular bit of manners?
And why could such disgust be?
[/quote]
Probably due to its visual similarity to decomposing meat. Either
that or (or possibly and) because you are most likely to see chewed
food when it caused the person chewing it to gag or vomit, where
triggering a similar response in you is likely to be beneficial when
you are eating from the same source. See William Miller's _The
Anatomy of Disgust_ for a much better treatment about what factors
apparently led to the formation of disgust reactions.
[quote]My own guess is that cleanliness had about as much to do with that
particular prohibition as trichinosis did with the reason that Jews
were prohibited from eating pork. It's a nice just so story, but
nothing more.
Yes, it's your own guess and nothing more.
[/quote]
Whereas your copious support is where exactly?
[quote]Of course, you might object that cleanliness obeys different
standards in different environments, but the issue here is that
they are the animus behind most 'table manners'.
Do you really want to go with that "most"?
I'll stand by it, but no, I'm not particularly interested in
'discussing' anything whatsover with people who'll go blathering on
and on for the sake of it.
Don't eat with your fingers (except for certain foods, which vary by
place and for everything in certain places)?
??? Keep your fingers clean. If it's too hard or they don't get that
dirty, it's relaxed.
[/quote]
It would be interesting to watch you try to apply that across cultures
(including those that eat almost everything with their hands or,
often, with only one hand) and across foods within American (or some
other) culture. Probably the quintessential finger-food in the US is
fried chicken, which is not hard to eat with utensils and is so likely
to make the fingers greasy that when good it's described as
"finger-lickin' good".
[quote]Elbows off the table?
Of course. We don't know where they've been.
[/quote]
Forearms and wrists, of course, are never dirty. And places where
nobody would think of criticizing elbows on the table are simply
unconcerned about cleanliness? Face it, this one is purely an
arbitrary convention, mostly there to back up the goal of having
people sit up straight in their seats rather than slouching or
leaning. (Of course, in many cultures, if you were wealthy enough,
proper table manners were to eat lying on your side. Sitting up was
for the poor.)
[quote]Fork in your right hand, switching to left to cut (except where you
keep it in your left hand)?
No forks on the right hand here. This one has to do with
practicality. I didn't say 'all'.
[/quote]
It actually has to do with table manners at the time forks were
introduced into the various cultures (see Petroski, _The Evolution of
Useful Things_). In Europe, it replaced a knife; in America, a
spoon. It's about as arbitrary a bit of cultural transmission as
you're going to find.
[quote]Head uncovered (except when/where it must be covered)?
Lest the covering falls on your plate or someone else's?
[/quote]
The mandatory ones are typically far more precariously balanced than
the prohibited ones (including hoods).
[quote]Don't start eating until everybody (or certain people) is ready?
Does that need an exaplanation?
[/quote]
Can you really not see that it does? It's far from universal. But my
question was whether this fell under your "most table manners" that
are the way they are because of concerns with cleanliness.
[quote]Don't mush your food together on the plate (except for certain
things)?
I didn't say 'all'.
[/quote]
But you also didn't say which. Hence my questions.
[quote]Keep your napkin in your lap (or tucked into your collar or folded
next to your plate)?
Where else, on the floor? Next to your neighbour's, so that they get
confused?
[/quote]
Why does there have to be a rule? The right way in some places
constitutes bad manners in others.
[quote]Use the proper fork for the proper course?
There's a reason they call it 'proper'.
[/quote]
Is there a reason why it would be bad manners to not follow along?
[quote]Don't just tear off a hunk of bread (or do, depending on the
circumstances)?
Ahh, the circumstances. What could those mean?
[/quote]
There's a reason they call it "breaking bread". In Jewish households
for Shabbat and holiday dinners, at least, when serving challah, the
proper thing to do is to rip off a piece for each person and hand it
to them. Slicing it would be bad manners.
[quote]Ask permission before leaving the table?
Does that need an exaplanation?
[/quote]
Of course. Any rule needs explanation. Especially when it's not
invariant.
[quote]Excuse yourself after burping (except where you don't)?
Those tricky circumstances again...
[/quote]
I was thinking more in terms of those places in which burping is
considered to be good manners and is interpreted as a compliment to
the one who prepared the food.
[quote]Etc.
This one is hard to beat, but judging by the sample you've offered, the
odds are that they, too, are not arbitrary.
I know it must be very hard on you, but sometimes things just don't
work the way you expect. Sometimes you go to bed thinking you'd like
to have risotto the next day, and the next day you don't feel like
having anything. Logic will be of no avail to you when dealing with
your appetite, and likewise the fact that you'd like and think it
logical that certain behaviours are expected over others always for
the same reasons, reasons which you derive - again - using your
logic, because it's all you care to have, doesn't command reality.
You're like a marxist trying to explain everything in terms of class
struggle. However it makes you look, it tells the world more about you
than it tells you [correctly] about the world.
[/quote]
Did we just switch roles here? You're the one who said that most
table manners can be explained by a single concern. I was the one
arguing that different bits arose in different places at different
times for different reasons, but that the main reason different rules
apply in different cultures is today that those rules (or similar
ones) applied in those cultures a generation ago. And many of them
have been rationalized after the fact, but the rationalizations often
have little to do with the reason that they arose or are worthwhile.
[quote]Whereas the 'linguistic standards' being discussed have nothing
behind them but themselves.
They have exactly the same things behind them. Conformity to social
norms, indicating in-group status. And conformity to others'
expectations, leading to less misunderstanding.
Nonsense:
- 'conformity to social norms' is circular (unobservantly so)
[/quote]
Feel free to note that it's just because I'm an uneducated dolt, but
I can't find any reasonable reading of that statement.
[quote]- this discussion is about *one* standard everyone is supposed to
follow
[/quote]
I haven't been participating in any such discussion.
[quote]- not one of the above is without something behind it, that's what
makes them reasonable to follow, and it's not anyone else's fault
that you lack the sensibility and have to resort to your inexpensive
"they're just-so stories" attitude
[/quote]
You would prefer "rationalizations"? Or perhaps you'd like to provide
a shred of evidence.
[quote]- it should be easy to point out convincing "just-so" justifications
for said 'linguistic standards', but you're at a loss to do it,
can't admit that and resort to armchair psychology
[/quote]
Huh? There are tons of just-so justifications for linguistic
standards, they get trotted out here in AUE all the time (typically by
newcomers), and they have just as much validity. Mostly they boil
down to "people would have trouble communicating if we didn't do it
the way we did it when (and where) I was growing up".
[quote]As for really arbitrary standards, the assumption is that if
someone doesn't use them it's because of ignorance. That, not
the non-use itself, is what irks people.
Either non-use or not considering the standard important enough
to adhere to.
I suppose the latter is inconceivable to most people, except for
some exceptions.
Right. Few people consciously choose to rebel against (or simply
ignore) parental or societal expectations. I'd ask if you had
children (especially teenagers), but a more pertinent question is
whether you've actually *been* a teenager.
It may come as a surprise to you, but not all teenagers are
punks.
[/quote]
Not at all. It also doesn't come as a surprise to me that very few
teenagers are little angels for whom it is "inconceivable" to not
follow every single standard they learn from their parents or their
society. Perhaps there's a middle ground. One in which nearly all
push against some rules at some point. I don't think that makes them
"punks". I think it makes them human.
[quote]If you observe hard, maybe the difference will come to you. But what
does that matter to someone for whom life is an endless string of
pointless sophistry? Heck, life at HP must be dry.
[/quote]
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirshenbaum at (no spam) hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Evan Kirshenbaum... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
[quote]On Oct 27, 3:43 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
I still don't understand how from
"When did your brother spot you?"
"When did your brother hit you?"
one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not
'*hitted'.
But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa
for five cents.-
Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
[/quote]
You could probably figure out how to find out. It's been a while
since I read the book, but Googling refreshed my memory on the
particulars. There are two answers. The first answer is that he
bought the eggs from himself, and eggs cost sellers in Malta 4.25
cents, so he made three quarters of a cent per egg. The second answer
is that he actually bought the eggs for one cent apiece in Sicily and
transported them to Malta, where he sold them to himself for seven
cents, so he mad four cents an egg (less transport costs).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer
|industry, let me just say it was
kirshenbaum at (no spam) hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. 
(650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tony cooper... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:35 +0000, António Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt>
wrote:
[quote]But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
five cents.
[/quote]
There must be a Catch to it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tony cooper... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 3:43 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
I still don't understand how from
"When did your brother spot you?"
"When did your brother hit you?"
one is supposed to get that the preterite of 'hit' is not '*hitted'.
But then I still don't understand either how Milo could buy eggs in
Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa for
five cents.-
Currency manipulation? (No idea what you're talking about.)
[/quote]
Lt Milo Minderbinder, of course.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tony cooper... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry_friedman at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]
Reminds me of a seder presided over by my maternal grandfather. He
couldn't find a yarmulka, so he put a napkin on his head. It kept
sliding off--but not into anyone else's food, as far as I remember.
[/quote]
There was a time when Catholic women were expected to cover their
heads when attending Mass. It was not uncommon to see a woman who had
forgotten her hat or scarf with a Kleenex atop her head. It was a
particularly amusing sight when beehive hairdos were popular.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:17 am
|
|