From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #118 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, August 13 2002 Volume 04 : Number 118 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: t/narnia etc. [Joseph Zitt ] Re: t/narnia etc. [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: t/narnia etc. [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: t/narnia etc. [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: t/narnia etc. ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: t/narnia etc. ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: t/narnia etc. ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: t/narnia etc. ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: t/narnia etc. [Joseph Zitt ] Re: t/narnia etc. [Joseph Zitt ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:19:06 -0700 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:48:28 -0700 "David S. Bratman" wrote: > At 06:03 PM 8/12/2002 , Joseph wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 04:16:13PM -0700, David S. Bratman wrote: > > > >> A linguist ought to know that the meanings of "where" include "in > >whatever> place, situation, or respect in which [something happens]." > > > >... and that without context, one guesses at the scope of the > >requested answer. > > And one shows a little human intelligence when doing so. (See later > on, where I wrote "Human beings are not robots, and should be capable > of figuring out when one type of answer is not a helpful response to a > question, _especially after they've been told it's not helpful._" See later on, when I mentioned that most human beings are not telepaths. And the suggestion about research skills. > >> In the second place, I _did_ in the first place mean "where" to > >mean a> geographical location -- if a geographical location had been > >an adequate> answer. For instance, Joseph might have said, "For some > >reason they seem> to say that in the Jersey suburbs, the area of > >Jersey dialect. I've never> heard it any place else." > > > >Had I said that, I would have been lying. Surely you aren't recommend > >that people lie in addition to emulating your insults ?! > > Read the next sentence I wrote. "Had that been the case ..." i.e. had > that been factual. And the previous sentence, "_If_ a geographical > location_had been_ an adequate answer" i.e. had it been factual. > Surely you're not incapable of recognizing words like "had been" and > "if" as conditionals?(Am I "insulting" you by writing "surely you're > not?" You just wrote that first.) I recognize the effective use of parallelism in writing... > Oh, and "emulating insults"? Insofar as I may have insulted you, you > emulated me precisely, by repeating my "newsflash" wording, and then > with your incredibly insulting PeeWee Herman tricks. ...though you view it as insulting. Are you also insulted when that structure is used in the Psalms? I did echo your syntactic structure, though not your insults. And a look at the archive will clearly indicate that you, not I, brought up PeeWee Herman in trying to deflect view from your insults. > >It was a clear answer indicating that I didn't know of a geographical > >common factor. But it might indeed have suggested something to a > >linguist who might have known whether that suggested something. And > >it might have indicated something to you about why your experience > >had missed these instances. But I had no way of knowing this. As > >mentioned, I'm not a telepath. > > That would have been fine, had you actually said something of the sort > ("I don't know of a factor"), and had you not tacked on that insulting > "I'm not a telepath." Since you know perfectly well that I was not > under the impression that you were a telepath, to act as if I must > have thought you were - that's an insult. Well, you acted as if I must know what was happening in your mind that you were not stating. A person with the ability to read minds is known as a telepath. Though such a skill might be useful, I must admit to not having it. Since you were not stating your question clearly, I did what I did from my end to clarify the situation, hoping to make it possible for you to restate the question in a way that could be understood. > >I answered the question truthfully and accurately, to the extent that > >I had information. Had you indicated that you knew of a different > >angle to the question and suggested it, I would have answered more > >fully. > > I had and have no knowledge of a different angle to the question. You > did, and eventually offered it. It doesn't take reading of my mind to > know that the word "where" can mean something other than general > geographical location in the sense you used it. And since, as you > acknowledge, a geographical where in that sense was no real answer, > then at the very least WHEN YOU WERE TOLD that it was unhelpful, you > could have offered something else instead of - insults. And note that in the next message I did offer further detail. I see no insults in that message. Since you answered it, may we assume that you read it? What insults did you read into that message? > >One of the pertinent skills in research is the asking of effective > >questions, especially when theone being questioned is not known to be > >in on the jargon and details of the questioner's field. It appears > >that a gap in these skills has become apparent, and might benefit > >from a brushing up. > > "The jargon and details of the questioner's field"?? What field am I > supposed to be a representative of? The use of the word "where" to > mean something other than general geographical location is not > "jargon" or"details". I have a dictionary right here which gives, as > one standard definition of "where," "in whatever place, situation, or > respect in which[something happens]." I don't actually know what your field is, other than that you do something at Stanford. Were I to make an assumption about it, you might choose to find that insulting. Or I could look you up on the Web, but you've already stated your disdain for Web-based research. > May I also suggest, since you're being so arch (note the impersonal > tense of the last sentence) that a) this is hardly a research > environment, and none of us, except perhaps Gayle, are professional > linguists, so your criticism is misplaced; b) that the ANSWERING of > questions is also a pertinent skill, especially when the one being > questioned is in possession of facts which the questioner does not > even know the extent of; c) that an even more pertinent skill is the > ability to perceive that the answer didn't satisfy the questioner when > the questioner replies by SAYING SO; d) that a gap in these skills on > the part of a certain question-answerer is most clearly apparent. Yet you so quickly forget that I did answer the question in the next message? > >I followed up on what I could guess that you were thinking from your > >ambiguous statements and questions. To deflect your having insulted > >me by claiming to have been the one insulted is the lamest form of > >blaming the victim. > > "To deflect ... is the lamest form ..." Couldn't have said it better > myself, buster. You START by foisting off an inadequate answer, which > any intelligent person should have figured out is inadequate, you > pretend not to be able to figure out that it's inadequate when I say > so, you pretend that I didn't realize you're not a telepath ... and > you say I'M insulting YOU? Well, yes, you did. The record stands. And here, again, you insult those of us who did not read into your question what you had failed to ask. For you to say that "any intelligent person should have figured out" what you meant directly insults Gayle and Susan as well as me and those others who have chosen to reply privately. I would hope that you would have more respect for the members of this list. > >I see that my perception is confirmed by others on the list. We > >eagerly await your apology. > > I am deeply sorry that someone who considers his behavior to be > adequate, reasonable, full, and accurate, chooses to criticize mine. And I am deeply sorry that Lincoln was assassinated. As before, we eagerly await your relevant apology. - -- | josephzitt@josephzitt.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt/ http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:33:41 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. In a message dated 8/12/02 4:15:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes: << But since from Joseph's actual answer, "Primarily in New Jersey. Also in Texas, and, I believe, in DC," it should have been obvious, even to him, that no geographical concentration was involved. >> Your reasoning is false. It is not true that, simply because no geographical =concentration= is involved, geography necessarily plays NO role in a given pronunciation. This is particularly true in countries, such as the US, which were settled by European immigrants who brought their regional pronunciations to separated areas. There are certain pronunciations common to Cuba and the Pacific coast of Ecuador, for example. There are certain pronunciations common to Jamaica, part of South Carolina, and Nigeria. Their dialects are not the same, but share common geographical origins. And there are other cases of convergent evolution in specific pronunciations. For example, a voiceless l is found among Native Americans of British Columbia, and in Wales. The q sound is found in Arabic-speaking countries and in the Andes. The fact that these populations are geographically separate does not mean that geographical location has no significance -- far from it. And while black US dialects are not geographically defined, geography plays a role to a degree; there is a significant split between North and South. If a dialectician asks in reference to black dialects, "Where is such-and-such pronunciation used?" the answer might be "In northern cities" or "In the Mississippi Delta". The question "where" is usually taken to reference geographical location even with dialects that are not geographically defined. Actually, African-American Vernacular English or AAVE (the term used in linguistics) is considered unique in the field of dialectology, especially dialectology of English, because the dialects of very separated populations have developed from their original roots in a parallel fashion and have maintained unity. The point is, while "where" can in indeed some contexts mean "in what situation," you were asking a linguistics question, and in the field of linguistics, and ESPECIALLY in the field of dialectology, "where" almost always means geography first, because geography IS the first reference for "dialect." And in this context, "where" meaning geography makes perfect sense. So, if, in a given context, the most common, primary meaning of a word makes sense, why expect people to look for extended, secondary meanings? << A linguist ought to know that the meanings of "where" include "in whatever place, situation, or respect in which [something happens]." >> So you were actually asking "in what SITUATION do people use this pronunciation?" Do you mean you were assuming that individuals vary their pronunciation of "Tolkien" according to the SITUATION? That would truly be remarkable. (Other than the situation of someone correcting one's mispronunciation.) And you really figured that someone is supposed to know that THAT was what you meant, instead of the obvious, primary meaning of "where"? And you actually find it =insulting= that people might not know that that is what you meant? ... Wow. (Or else did you mean "in what RESPECT do they use this pronunciation?" which I just can't make any sense of.) I just heard the weatherman say it is going to be "very hot," and, since the primary meaning of "hot" makes complete sense in this context, I am not looking for ways to reinterpret his statement with secondary meanings of "hot." Why should I? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:33:44 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. In a message dated 8/12/02 4:55:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@stanford.edu writes: << >I note that the terms "idiot" >and "clueless" were used in messages that you wrote to me, not the >reverse. This is a reply on the level of PeeWee Herman: "I know you are, but what am I?" >> Wow, you really do have a problem with reading implications that aren't there, don't you, David? Joseph said absolutely nothing to suggest that you are an "idiot" or "clueless." He merely pointed out the simple fact that all (as in 100%) of the insults in this exchange have come from you. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:55:15 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. Joseph, just drop it -- there is nothing to be gained by posting back and forth picking apart posts line by line. It will only annoy the rest of the list members. And forget about demanding apologies. After all, you are not the only person he insulted; he insulted me and without doubt a significant number of other idiots on this list, but in the grand scheme of things -- so what? BTW, I'm leaving for linguistic fieldwork in Ecuador in a little over a week, so posts to me should start bouncing around the end of this month, when my aol account will probably breathe its last. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:01:58 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. At 06:33 PM 8/12/2002 , Gayle wrote: >In a message dated 8/12/02 4:15:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >dbratman@stanford.edu writes: > ><< > But since from Joseph's actual answer, "Primarily in New Jersey. Also in > Texas, and, I believe, in DC," it should have been obvious, even to him, > that no geographical concentration was involved. >> > > Your reasoning is false. It is not true that, simply because no >geographical =concentration= is involved, geography necessarily plays NO role >in a given pronunciation. I didn't say geography played no role. (For one thing, they're all in the U.S.) I said that no geographical concentration was involved. You also just said that no geographical concentration is involved. If the geographical element was other than simple concentration, and Joseph knew what it was, he should have said so. If he didn't know, he could have said that. > The point is, while "where" can in indeed some contexts mean "in what >situation," you were asking a linguistics question, and in the field of >linguistics, and ESPECIALLY in the field of dialectology, "where" almost >always means geography first, because geography IS the first reference for >"dialect." If it means geography _first_, then it must mean something else second. In other words, not geography only. > And in this context, "where" meaning geography makes perfect sense. So, >if, in a given context, the most common, primary meaning of a word makes >sense, why expect people to look for extended, secondary meanings? Only because the primary meaning didn't yield any useful information, and I then said so. ><< >A linguist ought to know that the meanings of "where" include "in whatever >place, situation, or respect in which [something happens]." > >> > > So you were actually asking "in what SITUATION do people use this >pronunciation?" Do you mean you were assuming that individuals vary their >pronunciation of "Tolkien" according to the SITUATION? That would truly be >remarkable. (Other than the situation of someone correcting one's >mispronunciation.) Not that the individual varies, though I do know individuals who sometimes vary their pronunciation of certain words according to context: I've been known to do that. But Joseph's eventual explanation is an example of what I'd mean by situation, varying _between_ individuals. The situation that varied was the individuals' background. > And you really figured that someone is supposed to know that THAT was what >you meant, instead of the obvious, primary meaning of "where"? Once again, that is _not_ what I meant. I meant, primarily, the usual meaning of "where". But the usual meaning yielding no useful answer, I expect a non-robot to figure out that an extended explanation would be useful. Which Joseph did indeed eventually figure out. > And you actually find it =insulting= that people might not know that that >is what you meant? ... Wow. What I find insulting is Joseph pretending that his initial answer was full and satisfactory and covered any possible meaning of "where". > Wow, you really do have a problem with reading implications that aren't >there, don't you, David? Joseph said absolutely nothing to suggest that you >are an "idiot" or "clueless." He merely pointed out the simple fact that all >(as in 100%) of the insults in this exchange have come from you. No, he _acted_ in that manner. There are more forms of insults than using insulting words. And I've already explained more than once what I found insulting about his behavior. His comment, to which I was replying, implied that only the open words could be insults, that his behavior could not have been insulting because he did not use those words. But as I said early on, "Don't treat me like an idiot, and I won't call you one." Not so incidentally, Joseph has shed his virginity by calling me an idiot in private e-mail, which, given his sanctimonious objection to such words, makes him a hypocrite as well as cowardly. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:46:30 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. At 06:19 PM 8/12/2002 , Joseph wrote: >"David S. Bratman" wrote: > > > And one shows a little human intelligence when doing so. (See later > > on, where I wrote "Human beings are not robots, and should be capable > > of figuring out when one type of answer is not a helpful response to a > > question, _especially after they've been told it's not helpful._" > >See later on, when I mentioned that most human beings are not telepaths. But they are robots, then, apparently. >And the suggestion about research skills. See mine about research skills. >I recognize the effective use of parallelism in writing... > > > Oh, and "emulating insults"? Insofar as I may have insulted you, you > > emulated me precisely, by repeating my "newsflash" wording, and then > > with your incredibly insulting PeeWee Herman tricks. > >...though you view it as insulting. Are you also insulted when that >structure is used in the Psalms? > >I did echo your syntactic structure, though not your insults. So you didn't find my use of the "newsflash" wording to be insulting? >And a look at the archive will clearly indicate that you, not I, >brought up PeeWee Herman in trying to deflect view from your insults. I mentioned him. You behaved like him - by trying to deflect attention from _your_ insults by pretending that I was the only person being insulting. The distinctive quality of PeeWee Herman is his claim that calling somebody out on their misbehavior only reflects on the caller, not the misbehaver. That's what you did that I objected to. And you continue to do it by behaving as if there's something wrong with bringing up PeeWee, but nothing wrong in acting like him. >Well, you acted as if I must know what was happening in your mind that >you were not stating. A person with the ability to read minds is known >as a telepath. If you think you know what my intent was, then you are the one who is, by your definition, a telepath. If, however, you are only responding to the impression you received, then I must point out that I was only responding to the impression of you that I received. > > geographical location in the sense you used it. And since, as you > > acknowledge, a geographical where in that sense was no real answer, > > then at the very least WHEN YOU WERE TOLD that it was unhelpful, you > > could have offered something else instead of - insults. > >And note that in the next message I did offer further detail. I see no >insults in that message. Since you answered it, may we assume that you >read it? What insults did you read into that message? You did not offer further detail in your next message. I count 3 messages of yours (your "newsflash" message, your "good faith" message, and your "social agreements" message) between my first message saying you were not helpful, and the message in which you did offer further detail. That's the order I got them, and the order in which they're in the archives. If you didn't send them in that order, I apologize. The further detail message was indeed not insulting, and I offered what I intended as a polite response (my message beginning "I have talked with many such people"). The other three messages were extremely insulting, and were replied to in kind. >I don't actually know what your field is, other than that you do >something at Stanford. Were I to make an assumption about it, you might >choose to find that insulting. Or I could look you up on the Web, but >you've already stated your disdain for Web-based research. Now you're being utterly insulting, in two ways. First, your sarcastic comment about assumptions. Second, your grotesque distortion of my position on Web-based research. If you really think that a) I disdain it, and b) that that should affect what you choose to do (if my opinion has any effect on your actions, that's a first in this exchange) then either you cannot read, or else you are a telepath - a completely incompetent one. > > May I also suggest, since you're being so arch (note the impersonal > > tense of the last sentence) that a) this is hardly a research > > environment, and none of us, except perhaps Gayle, are professional > > linguists, so your criticism is misplaced; b) that the ANSWERING of > > questions is also a pertinent skill, especially when the one being > > questioned is in possession of facts which the questioner does not > > even know the extent of; c) that an even more pertinent skill is the > > ability to perceive that the answer didn't satisfy the questioner when > > the questioner replies by SAYING SO; d) that a gap in these skills on > > the part of a certain question-answerer is most clearly apparent. > >Yet you so quickly forget that I did answer the question in the next >message? It wasn't the next message, but four messages later. You so quickly forget ...? >And here, again, you insult those of us who did not read into your >question what you had failed to ask. For you to say that "any >intelligent person should have figured out" what you meant directly >insults Gayle and Susan as well as me and those others who have >chosen to reply privately. Actually, Gayle figured it out. > > I am deeply sorry that someone who considers his behavior to be > > adequate, reasonable, full, and accurate, chooses to criticize mine. > >And I am deeply sorry that Lincoln was assassinated. You didn't insult Lincoln. Or Booth. Not a relevant analogy. >As before, we eagerly await your relevant apology. I continue to be sorry that you at first considered your reply to be satisfactory; and that, feeling grieved by what you considered my insults, you have continued to respond in an insulting, belittling, and condescending manner. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:04:25 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. I have never read Narnia. I really wish everyone would drop it. This is supposed to be a Buffy list. Thank you, Marty ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:06:40 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. >Not so incidentally, Joseph has shed his virginity by calling me an idiot >in private e-mail, which, given his sanctimonious objection to such words, >makes him a hypocrite as well as cowardly. Oops, I find Joseph's naked insult in the archives. Funny, it was set up so that replies went just to him privately. I withdraw "cowardly". He is, instead, brash. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:41:04 -0500 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:06:40PM -0700, David S. Bratman wrote: > >Not so incidentally, Joseph has shed his virginity by calling me an idiot > >in private e-mail, which, given his sanctimonious objection to such words, > >makes him a hypocrite as well as cowardly. > > Oops, I find Joseph's naked insult in the archives. Funny, it was set up > so that replies went just to him privately. I withdraw "cowardly". He is, > instead, brash. I am curious as to what you are imagining here. I have done nothing to set the replies of any message in this chain differently than any other. - -- | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt/ http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:46:17 -0500 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: t/narnia etc. On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 02:41:04AM -0500, Joseph Zitt wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:06:40PM -0700, David S. Bratman wrote: > > >Not so incidentally, Joseph has shed his virginity by calling me an idiot > > >in private e-mail, which, given his sanctimonious objection to such words, > > >makes him a hypocrite as well as cowardly. > > > > Oops, I find Joseph's naked insult in the archives. Funny, it was set up > > so that replies went just to him privately. I withdraw "cowardly". He is, > > instead, brash. > > I am curious as to what you are imagining here. I have done nothing to > set the replies of any message in this chain differently than any > other. Come to think of it, I'm not all that interested. PeeWee Bratman's messages have clearly gone over the edge, and response to his ongoing insults has become pointless. One gets worn out dealing with nemesisisisisises. - -- | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt/ http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #118 *****************************