Re: unnatural languages
- From: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:50:07 -0400
On 15 Mar 2007 04:39:06 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1173958746.321994.126800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:
On Mar 15, 12:10 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 20:28:44 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1173929324.317738.63840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:
On Mar 14, 5:25 pm, hru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <1173823970.981242.310...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:53 pm, hru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin) wrote:
Few American college students speak reasonably grammatical
English, and their writing is not much better.
By now, you are either deliberately lying, or you are utterly
uneducable.
Possibly college students in language departments
students, and have read letters of application
by them.
Now you're growing simply incoherent. I have no idea what you just
tried to say.
I think that he lost a line or two after the first one. I
suspect that he was (1) granting the possibility that
college students in language departments speak and write
reasonably grammatical English, but (2) claiming that he
knew this not to be the case with students in mathematics
departments, on the basis of personal interaction and having
read letters of application by them.
So he's claiming that math majors are subhuman.
You know perfectly well that he's doing nothing of the kind;
he just has a very narrow and very prescriptive definition
of 'reasonably grammatical English'.
When it comes to government, how many have a clear
idea of what even they would consider a good form?
Was that supposed to be interpretable?
Yes.
Well, it isn't.
My interpretation: 'How many people have a clear idea of
what they themselves mean by "a good form of
government"?'
Anyone who bothers with the notion of "a good form of
government" -- again, a vanishingly small portion of
humanity -- has a clear idea of it.
Actually, I rather doubt that this is the case. But
(possibly) unlike Herman, I'm inclined to think that it's a
good thing: people who have a clear and detailed idea of
what constitutes a good form of government tend in my
experience to be ideologues.
[...]
Brian
.
- References:
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: unnatural languages
- Prev by Date: Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- Next by Date: Re: does Spanish have a "going-to" future?
- Previous by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Next by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|