The Meddling Of English Article(s) With Meaning
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Xah Lee - 27 Jan 2007 22:11 GMT While working on my website today, i had to write:
“above: This is called smotherbox↗.” — http://xahlee.org/sl/tor.html
and also:
“above: A maid entirely clad in rubber gear↗. The collar she's wearing, with its unusual height, is called posture collar↗. She's also wearing a gas mask↗ and a inflatable ball mitten↗.” — http://xahlee.org/sl/bdsm.html
Note the phrases “... is called smotherbox” and “... is called posture collar”. Normally, one would write it with a article like this: “... is called a smotherbox”. But as you can see, from a logic perspective, the “a” doesn't belong there. The item's NAME is simply “smotherbox”, not “a smotherbox”.
Most grammarians are dumb-a.ses when it comes to logic or mathematics. However, they are forgivable, since vast majority of human animals are dumb-a.ses in one way or another, actually, vast majority of human animals are dumb-a.ses in vast majority of aspects. For example, a mathematician, doesn't necessarily even have a basic understanding of the world's histories, and this can be said to just about any one, of any profession, except professional historians. (World History, as histories from Asia to Europe to Oceania, from individual nations and regions to continents, from the view of a decade to eras to eons, from the specialized aspect of human progress, diversity, to specialized subject of (history of world economics, math...))
In the above, i used the specialized knowledge in the areas of mathematics and history, to illustrate a idea. You can now suppose that _mathematics_ and _history_ are just two fill-in-the-blanks, and fill it with any academic subject, and realize for a fact the vast majority of human animals know sh.t, on the whole.
I've stated how grammarians are dumb-a.ses. But given the above, you now understand it is really not special, because after all just about everyone are dumb-a.ses. But, here's the catch: Those dumb-a.ses, who refuse to accept the fact, are the true, f.cking real dumb-a.s. And is the criminal of humanity. (criminals here is defined as those who do society harm) (I say they are criminals here, in a serious way as the word implies, not as some beak-tweaking. In my opinion, which gradually formed into a thesis over the past half a decade, is that human-animal's woes, such as the perpetual wars, stem in part from this criminality.)
In my life of education of the educated, i have realized the task is not easy. From the education of grammarians and writers, to the education of mathematicians and professional computer programers.
Often, the task is not merely difficult, but easily kindles antagonism and a power struggle, especially if the communities are predominantly males (such as professional computer programers manifesting in various comp.lang.* newsgroups) or if the target throng are young (i.e. students, such as those infesting the various comp.lang.* newsgroups)
They would, find all ways to attack you verbally and calling names (aka troll-crying), without a single word on the subject i raised. And they would (the young males in programing language groups) start persecution by the means they know. (such as starting to announce you IP address or domain info, in part as a way to show to others that they are IN-crowd among the computing geeks by this know-how, and in some serious cases they HARRASS you as defined by US law. (this has happened to me once.))
OK, i digressed a bit. What i was going to say, is that if you are the average grammarian or writer, chances are, you probably never had even the most basic study of mathematical logic or linguistics. Therefore, when i say you are a fool (or when i showed you some fact pertaining this), you should look at it and probably accept it with your tail between your legs. You should do this because it is for your own good.
Live, and learn. For you, and for me.
PS if you were wondering about the forms “a vs an”, please your highness see: To An or Not to An http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/20040717_an.html
Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/
Alan Hope - 27 Jan 2007 23:42 GMT Xah Lee goes:
>While working on my website today, i had to write:
>above: This is called smotherbox?. > http://xahlee.org/sl/tor.html
>and also:
>above: A maid entirely clad in rubber gear?. The collar she's >wearing, with its unusual height, is called posture collar?. She's >also wearing a gas mask? and a inflatable ball mitten?. > http://xahlee.org/sl/bdsm.html
>Note the phrases ... is called smotherbox and ... is called posture >collar. Normally, one would write it with a article like this: ... >is called a smotherbox. But as you can see, from a logic perspective, >the a doesn't belong there. The item's NAME is simply smotherbox, >not a smotherbox. My car is a Bentley and my guitar is a Gibson Les Paul. Although those are names, the article is still required. They are, after all, only examples of the name (indefinite). I'm not speaking of the name itself (definite) as in: The brand of thingy I prefer is Smotherbox.
>Most grammarians are dumb-a.ses when it comes to logic or mathematics. >However, they are forgivable, since vast majority of human animals are *the* vast majority
>dumb-a.ses in one way or another, actually, vast majority of human *the* vast majority
>animals are dumb-a.ses in vast majority of aspects. For example, a *the* vast majority fucksake
Bored now. Way too long. Not like you. Home alone tonight?
 Signature AH http://this-thing-of-ours.blogspot.com
John Ashby - 29 Jan 2007 10:32 GMT > While working on my website today, i had to write: > > “above: This is called smotherbox↗.” Why? What would have happened to you if you hadn't?
john
Xah Lee - 29 Jan 2007 21:45 GMT Xah Lee wrote: «While working on my website today, i had to write:»
«Why? What would have happened to you if you hadn't?»
My sense of well-being, and the pleasure of living, would not have been served.
Thanks to Alan Hope, and few other commentators in other threads. Usually i don't bother with short replies, but the appreciation, of your time and thoughts, is not lessened.
Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/
mb - 29 Jan 2007 22:51 GMT ...
> Thanks to Alan Hope, and few other commentators in other threads. > Usually i don't bother with short replies, but the appreciation, of > your time and thoughts, is not lessened. Did you mean "a few" or just "few"? Not obvious considering your other messages.
Xah Lee - 30 Jan 2007 00:37 GMT Xah Lee wrote: «Thanks to Alan Hope, and few other commentators in other threads. Usually i don't bother with short replies, but the appreciation, of your time and thoughts, is not lessened.»
«Did you mean "a few" or just "few"? Not obvious considering your other messages.»
This, is another problem with English the language, with respect to the logicality and efficiency of a human communication language.
As you should be able to infer in the question «what's the diff between “few” and “a few”?». It is, indeed, a stupid and complicated f.ck up that engenders endless confusion and fodder for the numberless morons, who got wallowed up and delight in its complexity. This complexity, is not some intrinsic mathematical complexity inherent in communication. It is, a naturally developed artificial one, formed in part, as a side-effect of human animals forming cliques and identifies. (not very much different, than say, beasts and insects of bewildering species developed their various silly and complicated behavior patterns)
Live, and learn. For you, and for me.
Xah xah@xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/
Mike Lyle - 30 Jan 2007 17:46 GMT > Xah Lee wrote: > «Thanks to Alan Hope, and few other commentators in other threads. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > f.ck up that engenders endless confusion and fodder for the numberless > morons, who got wallowed up and delight in its complexity. [...] No, it engenders confusion only for the morons who can't understand it. You know, the kind of people who just can't learn how commas are used. It really is very difficult to tell when you're making a typing error and when you don't know how to say something in English.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Alan Hope - 30 Jan 2007 00:49 GMT Xah Lee goes:
>Xah Lee wrote: >«While working on my website today, i had to write:»
>«Why? What would have happened to you if you hadn't?»
>My sense of well-being, and the pleasure of living, would not have >been served. Of course. I'm sure Mr. Ashby knows the feeling.
>Thanks to Alan Hope, and few other commentators in other threads. >Usually i don't bother with short replies, but the appreciation, of >your time and thoughts, is not lessened. You're welcome.
 Signature AH http://this-thing-of-ours.blogspot.com
Echosyn - 31 Jan 2007 01:14 GMT > Xah Lee goes: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > AH > http://this-thing-of-ours.blogspot.com It was apriori against aposteriori and apriori, Rope A Dope, got roped. Who is Xah Lee?
-Echosyn
Alan Hope - 31 Jan 2007 10:13 GMT Echosyn goes:
>It was apriori against aposteriori and apriori, Rope A Dope, got >roped. Typical brain-f.cked nonsense. Have a lobotomy.
>Who is Xah Lee? An occasional poster. Who the f.ck are you?
 Signature AH http://this-thing-of-ours.blogspot.com
|
|
|