October 29th, 2002
|02:13 am - I've got a question|
How is one suppossed to not read a post. when one is told not to at the end of said post?
The English language constantly changes and evolves. Many gradeschools still beat into your head a set certain rules based on variety factors, from the language reforms of Jonathan Swift to the regional dialects the textbook was written it, regardless of the language spoken in the local area. Brunswick is one of these schools.
I, like you, was fed the rule of 'nor' in gradeschool. It was the law. In reality, it's no longer in common usage in speech or text. I know you haven't taken a lot of high level literary courses, but the one thing you hear constantly from the proffessors is "unlearn all that crap they taught you in gradeschool." Most of the rules they teach you in gradeschool are in reality a simple matter of style, not correct grammer. From a linguistic perspective, the notion of 'correct grammer' is even taboo. Some of our greatest written texts and speeches violate these so-called rules. If you were to grade Walt Whitman and many otherwork famous author's works by these rules they would all recieve a grade of "F". Poor punctuation, poor spelling, improper grammer, etc.
The true rule of language, and the most frightening one, is that whatever is used around you is the correct way. You change your language usage all the time depending on your environment.
Now, with that being said...
When encountering (this, these, those)(x) it is generally assumed that x has been mentioned previously in the text. For example: "The dog that is dangereous is around the corner. Do not pet this dog" (meaning do not pet the dog around the corner). This is called 'context'.
In order to talk about the context of a sentence we will need all related sentences. This is what I wrote:
"Now, THIS IS IMPORTANT. I am going to reply to this message with a post detailing what the new characters are going to need to know (probably tomorrow though, it will be long and I have homework to do). DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read this post or ANY replies to it. And I ask that no one who needs this info tell them anything about it."
So when I wrote "DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read this post or ANY replies to it" I was refering to the post mentioned in the previous sentence "I am going to reply to this message with a post detailing what the new characters are going to need to know..." In this context the post being reffered to in "DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read this post or ANY replies to it" is defined as 'the post detailing what the new characters are going to need to know (which comes in the form of a reply to what you are reading)', and Dave, Chris, and Kehner, are not to read the reply (to the post they are reading) or any replies to said reply.
However, if you take the sentence "DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read this post or ANY replies to it" out of the context, that is remove it from the other sentences, the meaning changes because 'this post' is no longer defined in the text as the 'reply'. Since the text is written in the form of a post, it is now reasonable to assume that 'this post' refers to the medium of the text. The meaning now becomes 'Dave, Chris, and Kehner, do not read the post that you are currently reading'.
Here is an example:
Sentence: You will find a vulgur post by Astrax on this board. Ignore this post.
Meaning: Ignore the post by Astrax.
Now take the second sentence outside of the context:
Sentence: Ignore this post.
Meaning: Ignore the post (that is being read).
Notice the meaning change when you take a sentence out of its context?
Now lets take a look at what you wrote:
>Two parts, seperated by an or.
"DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read this post"
>Meaning we are not to read this post.
See my rant on context. '[T]his post' is previously defined as a 'reply (to the post your are reading)'. In context "DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read this post" means 'Dave, Chris, and Kehner are not read the reply (to the message your are reading)'
"DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read ANY replies to it"
>And We are not supposed to read the replies.
'It' is refering to 'this post' and 'this post' is defined as a 'reply (to the post you are reading)'. In context "DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read ANY replies to it" means 'do not read any replies to to the reply'
|Date:||October 30th, 2002 08:20 am (UTC)|| |
Yep. I missed the this in the previous sentence.
Richie pointed that out to me.
Its no big thing.
One thing. English major jokes. Don't take them personal. I do know other english majors.
And people have been joking about english majors forever.
1. I have no standing to saying that english majors won't be able to support themselves. Outside of a joking sense. Why because I have a comp sci degree and i'm unemployed.
2. If english majors weren't able to support themselves with thier work. They would all be dead. Hence english majors are able to support themselves.
3. Whenever I make jokes about grammer or am commenting on rules or aspects of language. I do generaly throw in a line similar to "well I ain't no english major"
In closing a joke.
If a teacher said to me unlearn all that crap they taught you in gradeschool, I would probably make some comment about what's a noun. or how do you add.
Yes i realize its taking it way to literal. But literal interpretations is how i make jokes at times.Oh well have fun.
Hey, I was told in my english course never to use 'this' like you did because it can get confused with what it is talking about.
I had to reread it to understand that you were talking about the replies.
Of course it wasn't a high level class, just english 101, or 102, i forget.
Wouldn't "DAVE, KEHNER, and CHRIS are NOT to read the new post" or next post, or if you really wanted to keep "this". "This next post."
But of course I am an engineer.