From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy on
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th'
> barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>As a generality, perhaps. On a personal level, not at all!
> >>
> >>The general tone of your posts over the years correlates well with a
> >>pattern characteristic of someone who wants to say the "right thing,"
> >>either consciously or unconsciously through conditioning.
> >
> >
> > There we go- a classic personal attack.
>
> It might be, if it weren't so far off the mark that all it
> reveals is Mixi's lack of reading comprehension! (How
> about a show of hands - when have I EVER said anything that
> appeared to be an effort to be "politically correct"?)

Indeed- you "standards aren't what they used to be" old-fogey you! :)

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy on
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
> >
> >
> >>As a generality, perhaps. On a personal level, not at all!
> >
> >
> > The general tone of your posts over the years correlates well with a
> > pattern characteristic of someone who wants to say the "right thing,"
> > either consciously or unconsciously through conditioning.
>
> You really ARE an idiot!

Don't go repeating it too much- he'll accuse you of lying.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy on
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

[]
> This reminds me of the old claim that one hears so often in language
> circles: "Oh, I can understand it, I just can't speak it." In
> reality, that never happens: if you can understand it, you can speak
> it. If you can't speak it, you can't understand it. You cannot have
> one without the other. People who say they understand it but cannot
> speak it actually understand almost nothing; they get the vague gist
> of what is being said, but nothing more, and their imagination fills
> in the rest.

Which for people with an imagination, can be more useful than you think.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
From: jeremyrh.geo on
Mxsmanic wrote:
> EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

> > Being unable to translate something into another language
> > does NOT mean one cannot comprehend - and appreciate -
> > the original!
>
> Actually it does. Anything you can understand, you can explain in
> English (that is, you can translate it).
>
> This reminds me of the old claim that one hears so often in language
> circles: "Oh, I can understand it, I just can't speak it." In
> reality, that never happens: if you can understand it, you can speak
> it. If you can't speak it, you can't understand it. You cannot have
> one without the other.

Another laughably false statement.

For example - a Norwegian may understand Swedish perfectly well. That
doesn't imply that they can speak it. They may recognise that a Swedish
word is sufficiently similar to its Norwegian counterpart that they can
understand it. That doesn't imply that they know, or can guess, what
any given Swedish word is.

A person who cannot write grammatically flawless French can still
understand French.

A person may understand a German sentence, but that doesn't mean that
they can write or speak one with the correct word order.

Idiot.

B;

From: David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy on
<jeremyrh.geo(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
>
> > > Being unable to translate something into another language
> > > does NOT mean one cannot comprehend - and appreciate -
> > > the original!
> >
> > Actually it does. Anything you can understand, you can explain in
> > English (that is, you can translate it).
> >
> > This reminds me of the old claim that one hears so often in language
> > circles: "Oh, I can understand it, I just can't speak it." In
> > reality, that never happens: if you can understand it, you can speak
> > it. If you can't speak it, you can't understand it. You cannot have
> > one without the other.
>
> Another laughably false statement.
>
> For example - a Norwegian may understand Swedish perfectly well. That
> doesn't imply that they can speak it.

I fall into that category, as it happens.

> They may recognise that a Swedish
> word is sufficiently similar to its Norwegian counterpart that they can
> understand it. That doesn't imply that they know, or can guess, what
> any given Swedish word is.
>
> A person who cannot write grammatically flawless French can still
> understand French.

I'm thinking that Mixi must be a _wonderful_ teacher. Aren't you?

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org