2004:07:01
995 - Props to Language Log
"If you're going to be an annoying precriptive nag, at least don't be a terminologically ignorant annoying prescriptive nag."
I need to figure out who's list I got this link from, I think it was Lott. Anyway, this has been the most fulfilling blog I've found so far. Really good stuff; lots of content right in the sweet spot of my interests. I was embarassed not to see the punchline coming; guess I'm a hopeless case.
I goofed on my initial trackback for this; accidentally setting up a trackback that made it look as if the article were tracking back to itself. I've emailed the writer, I'm sure it'll get fixed, but it sure does show how unclear on the concept I can be. But, in my defense, trackbacks gotta qualify as "bleeding edge." Most folks still don't have their heads around RSS (me, for instance, two weeks ago.)
The idea of making commentators responsible for hosting their comments strikes me as wise. If you aren't willing to have your comments on your own site then perhaps the comments weren't worth making in the first place. The other angle that's interesting about trackbacks is they will potentially take a reader through a conversation with each bit in context of its hosting site.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
996 - No negation here
I'm more than a bit ambivalent about the negation thread I've started on cogling. That's not a list where I want to stir the pot; on the contrary, that's the place I most want to be able to lurk and ask freely. But I've stuck my foot in it. The thread's gone on for 25+ posts, which is "up-there" for that list.
And the feeling of having stepped in it is in no small part of what's driven me to Harris' "The Linguistic Wars." I feel suddenly like I better get a clearer picture of the players and the program before shooting off my mouth too much more. Only I can't seem to leave well enough alone. Some of the responses seem to be inviting further comment from me. Some just seem so, well, wrong, that I can't help asking further about them, and giving my side, my understanding. In the end I fear I will learn that cogling isn't the place for me, that my own views are too set and too at odds with the orthodoxies of that list. And so I really *am* going to try to hang back a bit, get back to lurking asap, work on the Harris book instead.
[]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
997 - plug and pray
First, shout out to Andreas Reigber for his wonderful Tex2im script, which worked seamlessly out of the box on my debian install.
And this is what I wanted it for (any ugliness is the result of my negligble command of LaTeX):
(note)
The example is from Randy Harris' wonderful book, "The Linguistics Wars", and is I think, a good place to start this blog. The formula is an attempt to formalize the meaning shared by a series of examples in the opening pages of the book. One thing that strikes me about this is the idea of abstraction, not really aproppos of Harris' writing but more of general conversations I've had, this idea of abstraction, or formalization, is often identified as "finding a core." There seems to be the idea that there is one true meaning that the various examples share, and yet nothing could be further from the truth if the meaning of meaning includes reference to the sesory world. Ms. Piggy's "Never eat more than you can lift" and the Scottish maxim, "If ye canna see the bottom, dinna wade" share nothing along the lines of sensory referents except for "you." So why should we seek their common meaning?
Because we recognize a parallel between them. Disparate as the sensory experiences are, each includes a relationship, and the relationship in both is not poorly represented with the nice little formula above, which might be paraphrased in English as:
"For all x and all y, if you don't have ability x, and ability x is neccessary for task y, then don't you do task y."
Isn't that tautological? If you really *need* need ability x to do task y and you don't have ability x then you don't need to be told not to do task y; you simply won't be able to do it. Whereas the examples refer to situations where one may or may not succeed, with varying measures of grace.The examples caution a knowledge of ability related to attempted task, calling attention to a possibility of failure, but not actually referring to situations where folks try to do the impossible.
Footnote:
The formula shown is corrected from the version
appearing in the Oxford University Press 1995 printing of Harris' book.
The correct formula appears courtesy of correspondence with the author.
The version from the text omits the third closing parentheses in both
places where the correct form has three successive closing parentheses.
Many thanks to Professor Harris.
(return to formula)
[/ling_wars]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)