air conditioning may be making us fat
in [Europe]
|
From: Mxsmanic on 15 Jul 2006 12:35 Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > Some people deliberately bypass the rules of grammar, yet communicate. Not really. They "bypass" rules of one grammar in exchange for equally strict rules of another grammar. The only way for two parties to communicate is for them to adopt and adhere to a common set of rules, i.e., a grammar. Anything outside the rules will be misunderstood. There are no exceptions. This is one of the unavoidable things imposed by information theory. > Teens and their "SMS" language are a good example. First, it's not "their language," it's just an abbreviated form of text made necessary by the technical failings of current cellphones. Second, it has plenty of rules; it isn't bypassing anything. It's also a bit of a passing fad, since future technology will make such shortcuts moot. > Some writers and poets also bypass the grammar rules to reach true > genius. They can only trade one set of rules for another, and they cannot adopt rules that have not already been adopted by the reader. > Have you ever read Ren? Char's poetry ? I don't read poetry at all--mainly because it is so ambiguous. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 15 Jul 2006 12:37 Le 15/07/2006, Mxsmanic a ?crit : > Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: >> Do you have any advice on how to figure whether a word common >> to French and English has a mute initial H ? > > Check a dictionary. There is no general rule then ? -- remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on 15 Jul 2006 12:45 Le 15/07/2006, Mxsmanic a ?crit : > Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > >> Some people deliberately bypass the rules of grammar, yet communicate. > > Not really. They "bypass" rules of one grammar in exchange for > equally strict rules of another grammar. The only way for two parties > to communicate is for them to adopt and adhere to a common set of > rules, i.e., a grammar. Anything outside the rules will be > misunderstood. There are no exceptions. This is one of the > unavoidable things imposed by information theory. "to communicate" and "to understand" are not synonyms. Besides, people have communicated for centuries before information theory was set up. The French grammar, spelling and syntax have been very fluctuant until the XIXth century, yet I can understand XVIIIth century French although it's not the common set of rules I use everyday. And I'm not a French teacher, so I don't know the technicities and subtleties of ancient French. >> Teens and their "SMS" language are a good example. > > First, it's not "their language," it's just an abbreviated form of > text made necessary by the technical failings of current cellphones. > Second, it has plenty of rules; it isn't bypassing anything. They don't use it only for GSM-phones textos, but also on the Internet, on their handwritten flyouts, and sometimes even in their school papers. And it has no enforced rules. The imagination of kids is far beyond you seem to think. > It's also a bit of a passing fad, since future technology will make > such shortcuts moot. I fear that you have not enough first-hand experience with teens when I read this ! >> Some writers and poets also bypass the grammar rules to reach true >> genius. > > They can only trade one set of rules for another, and they cannot > adopt rules that have not already been adopted by the reader. No, they can also blow up every given set of rules. And there is absolutely no demand that the reader tunes himself onto the new set of rules (if any). Were that true, nobody could read poetry ! >> Have you ever read Ren? Char's poetry ? > > I don't read poetry at all--mainly because it is so ambiguous. But you seem to think that the only purpose of a language is disambiguation ! -- remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me
From: Mxsmanic on 15 Jul 2006 12:45 Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > The last sentence of this poem has a very twisted grammar and syntax. > It is obviously incorrect by French rules. It uses odd vocabulary and has an odd structure. I'm not sure I see anything incorrect, however. > Yet it sends thrills through my eyes when I read it. Isn't that > _communication_ ? To an extent. But it only works for you because you closely share a common culture with the author that establishes _rules_ to which you both adhere, whether you realize this or not. What you read thus evokes something presumably very close to what the author had in mind. But the sentence does not so operate for someone who does not share acquired knowledge and assumptions to the extent that the two of you do. To me, for example, the text means nothing, like most poetry. A characteristic of poetry is that it adumbrates a great deal, but means virtually nothing. Any communication that occurs is out of band with respect to the text proper, and people who enjoy poetry enjoy it because of the out-of-band communication and the scope it encompasses. Unfortunately, OOB communication requires a great deal of common thinking between author and reader, which is why poetry is of little practical value in normal communication. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 15 Jul 2006 12:46
Stanislas de Kertanguy writes: > There is no general rule then ? I'm not aware of a rule that is useful enough to predict whether or not an 'h' will be pronounced in English. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |