Re: The language of the KRS

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:37:44 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:l7ptr19sgh015avf9d3bjdk1v61gpdblpl@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:00:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:3llrr1hhq41fa53uc3nogd5tgrjb3muki6@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>I have been sent a video of an address given by Scott Wolter and ***
>>>> Nielsen at a book-signing on Dec 10-05.
>>>>
>>>> *** Nielsen made an interesting comment. I didn't note the exact
>>>> words but I can loosley paraphrase him as saying that according to
>>>> Henrik Williams 'it is now more difficult to categorise the language
>>>> of the KRS as being from the 19th century than it is to categorise it
>>>> as being from the 14th century'.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why don't you watch the video again (and again and again, if that's what
>>>it
>>>takes) and reproduce the exact words, rather than loosely paraphrasing the
>>>source.
>>
>> What is the point of exactly quoting someone else's paraphrase?
>
>Better question: What is the point of asking you a simply question.

With you Steve, there are no simple questions.

>Try to follow along, Eric:
>
>1. You report that you were sent a video of a book signing address at which
>Nielsen made a comment.
>
>2. You further report that you didn't note Nielsen's "exact words", but
>that you can "loosely paraphrase what Nielsen said.
>
>3. I asked you why you don't watch the video sufficiently to note Nielsen's
>exact words, and reproduce *those words* here, rather than loosely
>paraphrasing the source (which in this case would be Nielsen).
>
>Is there some part of my question that you now do not understand (not that
>it could by any stretch of anyone's imagination that I ever requested you to
>quote someone else's paraphrase)?
>
>>>
>>>Even better, perhaps you can report the "why" behind Nielsen's statement.
>>
>> It wasn't stated, although it might be possible for you to deduce it
>> after you have read the book.
>
>Were *you* able to deduce it after *you* read the book?

Possibly.



Eric Stevens

.