Conference thebay::joyoflex

    " In this day and age, we must get past the concern about what words
    are used and try to understand the intent behind them."

    Let me examine this statement further.
    
    > In this day and age,
    A hackneyed expression.
    
    > we
    This use of "we" attempts to include the reader before the
    argument has been given.  Very presumptious.
        
    > must get past the concern about what words are used
    Very wordy and unclear.  Is the writer suggesting it is the
    concern about words or the words themselves that cause a problem?
    
    > and try to understand the intent behind them.
    Hmm, somehow I don't understand this at all!

Bob [add a pinch of salt and a :-)]

    
    Seems to me it's talking about body language .
    
    John J

  A related phenomenon might be described as the Humpty Dumpty school
  of lexicography, from a line in "Through The Looking Glass":

    "When _I_ use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
    "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

  JP

    It's all a matter of getting the right balance ....  If we all used
    the right words to express what we meant and felt then over half
    the fun of literature would be blown away!
    
    But, none the less, on the other hand, it must be plainly stated,
    that if we were to make more accurate use of words to express that
    which we want to state and feel, apart from the fact that the
    English vocabulary, as large as it is, is inadequate, then by all
    accounts, it could be stated, without doubt or question, that we
    might better convey and understand each others utterances...
    
    That's a definite maybe.
    
    stuart

I think the belief that if we all concentrated on perfect use of words, 
there would be perfect understanding is no less flawed.  It's the sort 
of fiction that arrises from a rule-based society.  

I think the quote in .0 is saying what many of us say when we hear 
"funtionality" used.  Instead of carping "that's not a word!" or "I've 
never heard that used -- it's not in my dictionary!"  We should relax 
our anal-retentive, rule-following selves and ask, "Do I understand the 
point this person is trying to make?"  If  the answer is yes, then it's 
better for yourself and the people around you if you accept the 
information, and not quibble about the expression.

If people only expressed themselves according to rule-books and
dictionaries, where would the first set have come from?  How would the 
language change to encompass new concepts?  Could we even have new 
concepts if there was no provision for it in the language?  

It's comforting to have rules and be able to say what's right and what's 
wrong.  But there are times they have to be ignored.  Someday 
"functionality" will be in the dictionary.  Will it be OK then?

					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .5
    
    While I do agree with your sentiments, I shudder when non-words,
    poor structure, and poor grammar are used in serious attempts to
    convey information and I have to fight my way through all the
    words to find the meaning.  (Which was the point I comedically
    tried to make in my previous reply)
    
    What annoys me more is when poor language is used to hide the
    real meaning, or to confuse the reader or listener, such as
    blinding with science.  A TV commercial a few years ago for
    Canadian Tire Service provides an illustration of my point ...
    
    In servicing a car, they "promised" to tell the customer what was
    actually wrong and when it would be ready, compared with other
    garages who might say "Well, it's your bindle rotor, or it might
    be your smudge pump ... and it might take 2 or 3 or 4 ..."
    

    re: .5
    
    I agree with your initial paragraph. I'm afraid that your reply
    results from my poor statement of the initial incident. By removing
    all context from the quote (as it is not germane to this conference)
    I, inadvertently, made the statement ambiguous.
    
    Your reply presents the other side of the coin, that words can be
    improperly used yet still disseminate information accurately. The
    context of the original quote was the inverse, the use of words
    "properly" which did NOT convey information accurately. The specific
    case dealt with a word that was used in a way that was grammatically
    correct and appears in the dictionary. However, the word did not mean 
    what the user wanted to say. When a reader took issue with the 
    statement, the user replied with the quote in .0.
    
    While "a foolish consistency" may be "the hobgoblin of small minds.",
    it is none the less true that making up definitions on the fly is
    not a good way to communicate. If a word has a specific meaning,
    or set of meanings, one shouldn't use it to mean something else.
    
    Alan 

re: .6

I understand.  What I think the quote says, and what I tried to say in 
my previous reply is that if you understand what's being said, there's 
no benefit in pretending you don't just so form will be followed.  When 
you don't understand what is said, it's a different story.  Obviously, 
for an ideal mix of progress and understanding, a line has to be drawn 
between following rules like and automaton, and making up new words and 
syntax as you go along.  I don't think anyone could defend using only 
one extreme or the other.

						>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .8
    
    That's fine as far as it goes .... but looking at it a different
    way, if the originator of poor language form isn't informed of his
    errors then he isn't going to learn and the next thing he says may
    not be understood.  Obviously, there is a difference between
    picking nits and advising of major flaws ... and there is a
    difference between doing it politely and doing it impolitely.
    
    Each case must therefore rest on its own merits, and the judgements
    of those involved.  I have no problem with people picking apart
    my use of English if that's what they want to do .....  If it
    makes sense then I'll heed the advice; if it doesn't I'll carry
    on in my own sweet way, especially if the meaning is still conveyed.

    stuart

    Here are some apothegms that might aid in focusing on the issues:
    
    1. Don't cause the reader/listener to struggle with understanding
       an idea by using the incorrect words or phrases.
    
    2. There is not an exactly correct expression for each idea.
       Not allowing for style or personal choice is just pedantic.

       Many people remember the struggles of their English classes
       where an unbending teacher gleefully "corrects" their essays.
       Spelling and grammar rules for the language are confusing and
       often contradictory.  But there are continual repairs occurring: 
       confused about the spelling of "chief" and "cheif" (as I always
       was)?  Just wait a few years and "cheif" becomes "chef".
    
    3. However, there are many bad or incorrect ways of expressing
       an idea, ya know?
    
    4. A person may have an idea to express but "can't put in words".
       At such times, the initial description sucks while the
       speaker/writer attempts several times to describe the idea.

    5. Words can easily deceive.
        
    6. The final catch-all case is that the idea is malformed.  No
       wording -- exact or flowery -- can serve to give structure
       to a blob (unless you are a politician!).

    
  The quotation in .0 might be composed of points (2), (4), and (5).

    Just this morning, I was at the optometrist's for an examination.
    One of the tests involves the doctor moving two lines horizontally
    and my calling out when one line appears directly above the other.
    The doctor instructs me with the phrase, "Tell me when the two lines
    are directly above each other." Now, this doesn't make the least
    bit of sense the way he said it, but I *do* know what he meant.
    I didn't feel an overwhelming need to correct him.
    
    On the other hand, Stuart brings up a valid point. So many people
    get extremely defensive when one points out errors in spelling
    or grammar. And it's considered a real breach of etiquette here
    in Notes to correct someone's spelling/grammar. My reaction is:
    So how will they *learn* if others don't tell them?  I don't
    get worked up by things that are obviously typoes, or homophones
    (like their/there/they're), because it's quite likely that the
    person *does* know the difference and was spazzing at the
    keyboard. But when I see "choise" instead of "choice" (which I
    came across recently), well, to quote Captain Wallace Binghamton,
    "I could just scream."
    
    --- jerry

    I recently read that Goethe (Johann Wolfgang) said:
    "When I see a typing error, I think somthing new has been invented."
    
    Now, when I see that Name, it reminds me of Bernhard Shaw asking
    how would you pronounce "GHOTI" ? the answer is "FISH" of course!
    
    Here is why:   rough, laugh etc. pronounced "F" at the end
                   women  "O" is pronaunced "i"
                   nation, ration etc. serves for "SH"
    
    For a foreigner, who can speak very accurately may not be able to
    conveigh his meaning at all in writing.
    Rudi.
       

    re: .11

    
    Uh, Jerry, its "typos", not "typoes".  
    
    In any case, I think it is a dangerous assumption to make that anyone
    *wants* to learn; especially at the hands of another.
    
    
    I.H.T.H.B.O.S.H.
    
    Thx,
        Rgdz,
             Scott
    

    re .13
    
    That is why it all depends on the situation and people involved.
    In this file it is quite normal to nit picked to death and if you
    aren't interested in learning then this is not the place to be!!!
    -)
    
    Speaking of picking nits ... "typos" is a colloquial contraction
    for typographical errors and there is as a result no formal
    plural form.   Following the rule for tomato and potato, which
    goodness knows how many don't, would imply that typos is preferable.
    How often have you seen potatoe or tomatoe ?  Much too often for
    my liking, so why not provide a correction ?
    
    stuart

   Re: .13
   
   Hi Scott,
   
   What does I.H.T.H.B.O.S.H. stand for?
   
   Thanks.
   
   				Terza
   
   

    re:.13
    
    It was, well, er, um, a typo... Yeah! That's the ticket!
    
    --- jerry

    No one has mentioned people who deliberatly misuse the language
    to mislead someone else.  When the misuse is pointed out, they
    indignantly accuse the pointer of 'nit-picking', if the misuse
    is not pointed out, they use the ambiguity of meaning to gain
    some advantage.  I encountered this while doing contracting
    work involving house repair.  I would not do business with
    people who misused language unless they signed a formal
    agreement complete with drawings and a statement of work.
    It is also common for managers to use vague and ambiguous
    language for the same purpose, to get more than they are
    funding.  The time spent writing project specifications
    is a useful defense against this practice.....MWR
    

    The reason that I don't like to see nit-picking is two-fold. First, it
    leads to typo-battles, like the one we just saw. Notes going back and
    forth pointing out whose fingers slipped where. Second, it tends to
    stifle the discussion. We all make typos, even in the midst of hissing
    fits (or maybe especially in the midst of hissing fits). I'd rather
    enjoy the discussion than have it degenerate into a series of cheap
    shots about typos. Notes is impersonal enough without adding in yet
    another way to stifle the shy.
    
    	Jon 

    OK, if something is rather apparantly a typo (and you can often
    tell by the likelihood of making the same typo yourself, or by a
    relatively accurate body of text around the offense) that's one
    thing.  If it's a spelling error (and that can sometimes be determined
    by the commonness of the mistake or repetition) that's another thing.
    But the mistakes that make me crazy are blatant grammar errors.
     (Not the subtle ones that reflect spoken conversation -- I may grimace
    a bit, but they aren't too unsettling.)  No, I'm talking about a
    certain supervisor I know (who is an intelligent person) who "seen
    Bob in the hall"!  (I guess "saw" isn't in their vocabulary!)  Things
    like that HURT!
    
    Oh, well...
    
    Sherry
    
    

    When someone reacts to a perceived misuse of "proper" or "correct"
    wrod choice or grammar, it is probably an emotional reaction to
    the individual and may have little to do with the subject matter
    being presented.
    
    The depth of that emotional reaction probably depends on what is
    belived to be the reason for the misuse: ignorance, arrogance, the
    desire to (or lack thereof) to imitate the 'in-crowd', etc.  In
    effect, judgment is being made of the individual and may even go
    so far as to cause the speaker's (or writer's) credentials to be
    at question.  The subconsious reaction is, "I'm _better_ than he
    is because I know that he hasn't learned how to talk right!"
    
    I belive the intent of the quotation in .0 was to suggest that we
    try to avoid any emotional analysis of the speaker, but rather
    try to concentrate on that which he is attempting to convey.

    Of course, sometimes the opposite is true...people often deliberately
    use slang, in-words, jive-talk, etc. to elicit an emotional response.
    In that case, the message may be more in the deliverance than in
    the words.
    

    Before I get nit-picked for my typo, I'll apologize for the hand
    being quicker than the eye.
    
                        -< Try not to ge emotionally involved. >-

    should have been:
    
                        -< Try not to get emotionally involved. >-

re: .21

Does that mean we CAN pick on you for "wrod" at the beginning of the 
second line?

I thought typos were off-limits by international agreement in this 
topic.
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Apolgies?

    Not forgetting of course...
    
.20�    I belive the intent of the quotation in .0 was to suggest that we
          ^^^^^^
    
    Dear dear. If only you hadn't apologised in the first place.
    
    Ian ;^}
    

    If we can digress from  "Typo Wars" for a moment, what makes the
    quote in .0 interesting is the fact that the speaker's original
    statement was apparently NOT a grammatical error. The speaker used
    a word that, while correct, did not convey his meaning at all. The
    statement quoted in .0 can then be translated:
    
    	"Take care.  I use the English language in a highly imprecise
    manner.  Any attempt to interpret what I say based on the exact
    meaning of my words is doomed to failure."

    regarding .25
    >>>>>Any attempt to interpret what I say based on the exact
    >>>>>meaning of my words is doomed to failure.
    
    Is this just another way of saying "Don't believe
    me because I am a liar"?
    
    No wonder I was confused...

    Re: .26
    
    I think Mr. Friday is being a bit too harsh. He seems to be inferring
    intentional deceit whereas mere verbal inadequacy is an entirely
    sufficient explanation for .25. Until something points strongly to
    deceit, I'll assume the simpler explanation. 

    Re: .27
    
    I did not mean intentional deceit, although I can easily
    see how you could arrive at that conclusion.  Perhaps
    a more wordy way of rephrasing it would be something along
    the lines of
    
    "Because of the very nature of language anything I say
    is imprecise enough that it is impossible to determine
    whether I am intentionally or accidentally giving the
    wrong impression.  The effect is the same, and therefore
    in the end it makes no difference whether I am accidentally
    or intentionally misleading you.  You might care to
    label this misleading as a lie.
    
    If one accepts this argument and takes the original
    statement to its extreme then I think .26 follows
    quite logically.
    
    (Perhaps I should have been a politician)
    
    Rich

    carrying .28 further, you can easily find for it a function in Klein's
    "Zahlentheorie" or better read up on Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher,
    Bach" which might occupy you for all of the holidays.
    Happy holidays and a good start into the 1989,
    Rudi                                             
    

I'm moved to reply to .0 who is missing an important point:
    
    >===================================================================
    >" In this day and age, we must get past the concern about what words
    >are used and try to understand the intent behind them."
    >=====================================================================
    >
    >I guess I may be mistaken, but, isn't the purpose of "words" to
    >convey one's intent?
    
    We must realize that there are many levels of intent, especially
    emotional ones, that a computer cannot (yet) deduce from the meanings
    of the words themselves, yet which people associate with particular
    confluences of nuance and implication. (The fact that I couldn't resist
    putting that in shows that I'm 'having fun.') 
    
    Even simple sentences may convey strong emotional content:
    "I BEG your pardon?!" Or a single expletive, "Oh?" can impart much
    more than a request for information.
    
    Then there are the deliberate attempts to drive your perceptions:
    
    "Heavens! Fully 50% of employees earn less than the median wage!!!!"
    
    	RMM