 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Did I say what I meant to say, part deux
Hi, all A few weeks ago I came here and presented a question - I'd given a woman some instructions via email, she misunderstood what I wanted and went totally ballistic on me... I asked you if I'd said what I'd meant to say, or if she'd had a real reason to get angry... Now, I'm back. Someone back then suggested a fairer way to do such a test would be to not tell people what I "thought" I had said, just to show you what I *did* say, and let you deduce from there. So, here's a post I made in a group a few days ago. The response I received from one person surprised me. Background on context: Female science fiction up until the 1960s existed, but it was thought they always had to publish under a man's name so that people would think they were men. Someone started a thread about a female sci fi writer of the 1930s who published under her own, feminine name. Below is my contribution to that thread: MY POST: Just looked her up. She had only 11 stories published before she "retired" to raise her children. END Does anyone see anything offensive in that post, and if so, why? On 21 Jan 2007, TimeTraveller wrote > Hi, all > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Does anyone see anything offensive in that post, and if so, why? It could be read as a sort of sneer at her work -- that she dabbled a bit in the field before deciding to breed, and therefore doesn't deserve any serious consideration. And putting "retired" in quotes might be taken to suggest that having a family was a cop-out from the real world of real work and real writing.  SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 21 Jan 2007, TimeTraveller wrote [...] >> MY POST: >> Just looked her up. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > having a family was a cop-out from the real world of real work and > real writing. I would take putting "retired" in quotes to mean the direct opposite: that having a family is a serious undertaking and has nothing in common with retirement in the accepted sense. SignatureLes On 21 Jan 2007, Leslie Danks wrote >> On 21 Jan 2007, TimeTraveller wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > opposite: that having a family is a serious undertaking and has > nothing in common with retirement in the accepted sense. Oh, I agree; but I was trying to imagine what *might* have offended someone who wanted to take offence (rather than what might have offended me in it -- which was nothing, really). SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > Oh, I agree; but I was trying to imagine what *might* have > offended someone who wanted to take offence (rather than what might > have offended me in it -- which was nothing, really). You were right, Harvey! The individual in question did take offense at the word "only", thinking I was dismissing the woman as having only done 11 stories. without considering that what I'd meant was that her promising career had been cut short because she'd probably had to stop writing once she'd gotten married and started a family... (which is why I had put the word "retired" in quotation marks.) Thanks all for your comments. Very enlightening! By the way....does anyone else here have this problem? Have you ever posted something you thought was totally innocent on a message board, or said something to a friend, that they totally misinterpeted, and took exception to? (Or, to which they took exception?) It seems to happen to me quite a bit, and not always at comments that are as apparently ambiguous as the one I made above... > By the way....does anyone else here have this problem? Have you ever > posted something you thought was totally innocent on a message board, > or said something to a friend, that they totally misinterpeted, and > took exception to? (Or, to which they took exception?) All the time. It's a minefield out there. Best to say you didn't mean it but you're sorry anyway. If the other person is reasonable, that is. Most people here and on AUE (The Other English Usage Group -- don't ask) are reasonable, so extended flame wars of mutual misunderstanding are infrequent. Most of the really long flame wars on the two groups result from things clearly understood on which the participants disagree strenuously. Without intending to start a new one, I offer the example of the situation of the people who call themselves Palestinians. Recipe for flame war: Get one person who takes the Palestinians' side and one who takes that of the Israelis, stir gently, warm yourself on the flames. > It seems to happen to me quite a bit, and not always at comments that > are as apparently ambiguous as the one I made above... You can say something you think is clear beyond any possibly misunderstanding and get misunderstood anyway. Indeed, saying something that is perfectly clear to you is an excellent way of stirring resentment. Its the mushmouths who escape opprobrium -- no one can figure out what they're saying. I, of course, am always perfectly clear. That's why everyone hates me. SignatureBob Lieblich Open mouth, observe position of tongue >> By the way....does anyone else here have this problem? Have you ever >> posted something you thought was totally innocent on a message board, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Bob Lieblich >Open mouth, observe position of tongue Ah yes -- tongue to one side of mouth, leaving room for foot to be inserted. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > By the way....does anyone else here have this problem? Have you ever > posted something you thought was totally innocent on a message board, > or said something to a friend, that they totally misinterpeted, and > took exception to? (Or, to which they took exception?) I know what TimeTraveller is insinuating, and I find it very offensive. :) > > By the way....does anyone else here have this problem? Have you ever > > posted something you thought was totally innocent on a message board, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know what TimeTraveller is insinuating, and I find it very > offensive. :) This town ain't big enough for both of us, Stranger. > > By the way....does anyone else here have this problem? Have you ever > > posted something you thought was totally innocent on a message board, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know what TimeTraveller is insinuating, and I find it very > offensive. :) Ah, but if only you were aware of his ulterior motives for posting such insinuations, your righteous fury would know no bounds. SignatureOdysseus >By the way....does anyone else here have this problem? Have you ever >posted something you thought was totally innocent on a message board, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It seems to happen to me quite a bit, and not always at comments that >are as apparently ambiguous as the one I made above... ==================================================== It's part of the disadvantage of written communications that they lack the intonations and gestures that normally go with speech. I find this applies particularly to messages on the net where, for example. a polite request can be mistakenly interpreted as sarcasm. SignatureFrancis Cameron >Hi, all > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Does anyone see anything offensive in that post, and if so, why? I don't, but I would never bet against someone taking offense at anything, no matter how innocuous. Your meaning is that she retired from her career as a writer and took up her career of raising children full-time. That's very clear to me. However...and didn't you know that there would be a "however"?...if I was the *author* in question I might be offended at "had only 11 stories published". What's so "only" about getting 11 stories published? Where's the success bar? Twenty? Fifty? There are thousands of would-be writers who would be ecstatic to have *one* story published. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > MY POST: > Just looked her up. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does anyone see anything offensive in that post, and if so, why? People can take offense to anything you write, pretty sad state of affairs. I took "retired" to mean that you acknowledged that raising a family is not easy, but that she, in fact, retired from the first job of writing. I try to read my emails before sending them and sometimes ask a co-worker to proof for ambiguity, but still English fails at times. JOE >Hi, all > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Does anyone see anything offensive in that post, and if so, why? ================================================ There's just one word which could be considered offensive and that is the 'only' in front of the 11. This might be read as belittling her abilities as an author. SignatureFrancis Cameron |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.