Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The Meddling Of English Article(s) With Meaning

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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

 
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.