Re: Marge -- new cartoon

On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:40:19 +0100, Veronica Karlsson <dre...@on.spammer>
wrote:

>James Mitchelhill wrote:
>> It's not logical precisely because the people never stopped to think
>> about what they were saying. Generally, in conversational speech, people
>> don't, mainly because they simply don't have time to. The average gap
>> between speaking 'turns' in conversation is a lot less than a second. So
>> people are either speaking or listening for almost all the time.
>> 
>
>The word "not" has a very precise meaning. If you take "X", then you
>take "not X", and look at them, you'll find that they are opposites
>(whatever that means for that particular "X").
>
>For example, take "I do like ice-cream" and add "not" to it, so that it
>becomes "I do not like ice-cream". Those two are opposites. They will
>never be the same, no matter how much you keep arguing that they will.
>
>Then just change a few words and say "I could care less", and add "not"
>to it, so that it becomes "I could not care less". Same thing here, they
>are opposites. They will never be the same, no matter how much you keep
>arguing that they will.

It depends on how you define the word 'not'. If you use the dictionary
definition, then it would be a logical opposite. However, words mean
whatever people think they do. So, if 'not' is used and understood when
it is a reinforcer, rather than a negator, then that is what it is.

>> However, the conversation doesn't have to be logical in order to be
>> successful; the purpose of conversation is generally to open and
>> maintain relationships, and to express feelings and opinions. The words
>> are just the mechanism used to do this. Getting it 'wrong' isn't
>> detrimental to the conversation generally.
>> 
>
>It corrupts and undermines _communication_ when people use the wrong
>meaning of words, especially words like "not" which can change the
>meaning of a sentence drastically.

Yes, I agree, which is why people talk formally when clarity of meaning
matters, and informally when it does not. An equivalent case would be
the use of puns. Puns would almost never be used in formal speech, but
are comparatively common in informal speech.

>(The fact that languages evolve and that there are different dialects is
>a different thing and has nothing to do with this discussion. Digital
>analysis or computer programming might be closer, since they are more
>dependent on logic. Yes, this is the same logic as the logic which says
>that "I like chocolate" and "I do not like chocolate" are opposites.)
>
>For example, in some historic situation, the words "I am Scottish" as
>opposed to "I am not Scottish", could very well have meant the
>difference between life and death to somebody.

This would be the place for formal speech.

>> If you understand what it means, why does it matter? Anybody speaking is
>> attempting to communicate an idea, and if the idea is understood, then
>> the communication has, by definition, been successful.
>> 
>
>This time...
>
>In the long run it can only lead to confusion, which in turn can lead to
>more tragic consequences (like, for example, fights, divorce, maybe even
>war...). Maybe not for you, or for your children, but maybe for your
>grandchildren, who have grown up thinking that the wrong way is the
>right way... And yes, I am talking about every guy out there, in his
>everyday conversation. (I am not saying "talk like a school-book", or
>"everybody should be exactly the same". I am saying that _illogical_
>sentences will never _improve_ communication).

The sentences are not illogical. On the surface, taken out of context
and situation, the words look illogical, but in context the underlying
meaning behind the words is communicated. 

>Communication can only work if everybody involved in the communication
>means the same thing when they use the same word, or combination of
>words. In this context some words are more critical than others. Some
>are not flexible in their meaning and cannot be redefined whenever you
>feel like it. "Not" is such a word.
>
>> The choice between using the formal or informal version of a saying
>
>Not "formal or informal version of a saying", RIGHT or WRONG way to
>communicate a certain message.

No: formal and informal. The situation dictates which is the right way.
Although I'd say that with 'not' the formal way is always right, wheras
the informal way is only right some of the time.

>> communicates more information about the person (ie. the level of
>> formality in their relationship to their intended audience) than if they
>> limited themself to the formal version.
>> 
>
>Yeah, it communicates the information that he's stupid and that one
>should not listen to him because he might not mean what he says (or
>"appears to be saying").

So it's valuable, time-saving information for you. 

--
#######################################################################.
####' : '####    James Mitchelhill  azi...@tcp.co.unitedkingdom   #|
##' '.:.' '##                                                         #|
#:----+----:#  "He tapped the Solar God on the shoulder.              #|
##. .':'. .##                               `Hey, sunshine?'"         #|
####. : .####                                                         #|
######################Terry Pratchett#########Small Gods###############|

Related ASCII art in the Gallery

Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:

|\/\/\/|
|      |
|      |
| (o)(o)
C      _)
 | ,___|
 |   /
/____\

Make your own ASCII art

Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.