1238: "Enlightenment"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Klear » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:45 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:That might be why inflammable means what it means.


I thought in UK it still means what it's supposed to mean, though to be safe, it might be better to use only flammable and uninflammable...

tomintx
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:15 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby tomintx » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:47 pm UTC

ND NW WE HV THE TYRNY F TWTR WHR WE MST MSH EVRTNG TGTHR N DNT HV NUF SPC 2 MK CMPLT THGTS R CLR CMMS @ ALL N NO RM FR PNCT NEWHR

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2934
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:08 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Barstro wrote:That might be why inflammable means what it means.


I thought in UK it still means what it's supposed to mean, though to be safe, it might be better to use only flammable and uninflammable...

That depends what it's supposed to mean, but what it does mean is that the thing is capable of catching fire, i.e. capable of being inflamed.
What we have here is a prefix with two meanings: 1. not 2. in, on, into, towards, within [OED].
In fact it looks as though flammable is the more recent word, coined specifically to avoid the ambiguity of inflammable.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby goofy » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:14 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:It bothers me that irregardless is a word now just because the public kept using it until better minds gave up. That might be why inflammable means what it means.


inflammable means "capable of being set on fire" and I don't see what that has to do with anyone giving up.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:51 pm UTC

nixiebunny wrote:Yabut... I lived in Mexico for a year, and learned enough Spanish to get me through it. I noticed that Spanish is utterly unlike English, in that there is only one way to spell a word with a certain sound, so homonyms are ultra-rare. Yet, Americans elect stupid people to high public office at least as often as people in Mexico do. So it ultimately serves no purpose, because the shibboleth is undetected by the masses. All it does is aggravate readers!


Dutch is similar to Spanish in that way, though it seems to have a side-effect: most homonyms use identical spelling in Dutch, thereby forcing people to use the context in writing too. Although this is not usually a problem as homonyms are rare and generally easy to distinguish by context.

I think the problem in English is mostly caused by people giving up on an almost phonetic orthography after adopting half the French language (I will admit, this really bugs me about English).



Oh, and I'm bugged by the assumption that everyone lives in an English speaking country (as in the linked blogpost).

User avatar
TheMinim
Posts: 932
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Location: In The Present
Contact:

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby TheMinim » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:57 pm UTC

I heard your ideas and they're definitely good.

I think my inner grammar, spelling, and punctuation sensor is going to get in the way of this task. I like Oxford commas.

I heard you're idea's and their definately good.

Although I'm glad I managed to teach myself the correct spelling of definitely. It's defiantly awesome!
Titled TheMinimastic as of NP 1610.
Hi Blitzers! And non-blitzers!
Seeking Rainbows
Official owner of NewPage 1572, and official co-owner of NewPage 2087 along with NoMouse.

xSmiles
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:45 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby xSmiles » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:03 pm UTC

Let me preface this post by saying that I am not wheelchair bound (or physically impaired in anyway) and I was a grammar nazi before it was cool.

obfpen wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:Do you actually believe these are parallel situations?

Yes. Not caring about how well you express yourself and expecting everyone else to deal with it has the same type of rudeness as expecting everyone to just use the stairs. In each case, the root of the problem is not necessarily a conscious choice to harm, but a lack of basic consideration for the needs of others.


That is an incredibly entitled idea and I'm shocked at YOUR lack of empathy. Someone's poor grammar at WORST causes others to not understand what they're saying, which is rarely an issue (especially on the internet), even if it's rude that your "need"(really? it's a physical necessity of your existence?) was not considered. Ultimately this effects only THE OFFENDER'S ability to interact with society, as the offended can chose to ignore the problem with little impact to their own life.

The lack wheelchair accessibility is not rudeness, it's actually criminal and this is because it prevents THE OFFENDED from interacting with society. This is not something they can ignore and it has a tremendous impact on their ability to be self sufficient. The idea that these two situations are related, even remotely, is offensive to me and shows that you have very little ability to place yourself in another's shoes.

mongul13
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:16 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby mongul13 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:20 pm UTC

The last line should read: It's a difficult road.

Just sayin'.

User avatar
NetWeasel
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:08 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby NetWeasel » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:04 pm UTC

Trickster wrote: If I see someone with a poster that says, "In America English is are language!"

...you just walk up, put a comma after America and white out the "re" of "are."

Alternate: put parentheses around the "is are" and circle the "is."
Remember waiting a half hour for one darkening pixel? Pepperidge Farms remembers...
Note To Blitzers:It is advisable NOT to go past page 1130 until you've seen up to frame 2900 (Geekwagon Numbering). A lot is happening, and really, you do not want to skip ahead at that point.

MAD JEDDAI
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:06 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby MAD JEDDAI » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:18 pm UTC

The Yoda paraphrase in the second panel the best part of this is. Endeared awkward English to us long ago he did.

ramen
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:17 am UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby ramen » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:23 am UTC

There is so much wrong with this comic:
-Nobody in these comments has caught that judgement is spelled "judgment"
-you're/your
-their/they're
-idea's/ideas
-definately/definitely
-wasnt/wasn't
-its/it's

I am sure I missed some of the grammar too.

User avatar
Wildcard
Candlestick!
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:42 am UTC
Location: Outside of the box

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Wildcard » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:48 am UTC

JustDoug wrote:I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

@JustDoug: Wanna go do something stupid?

(This is bad, right?)
There's no such thing as a funny sig.

User avatar
Eshru
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:51 am UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Eshru » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:38 am UTC

I am dissapoint at the lack of a missing paren.

(

Their.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:39 am UTC

I have one thing to say in response to this comic:

eye herd yar eyedeer an thar dfinatly god.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby jc » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:40 am UTC

nixiebunny wrote:... I lived in Mexico for a year, and learned enough Spanish to get me through it. I noticed that Spanish is utterly unlike English, in that there is only one way to spell a word with a certain sound, so homonyms are ultra-rare.


Hmmm ... You obviously didn't get far enough into Spanish to run across "si" and "sí". ;-) In my experience, those are among the most-common words.

(I think that's the most common such word pair in Spanish, by a good margin. But I could be wrong.)

User avatar
candybrie4zo
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:00 pm UTC
Location: Maryland

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby candybrie4zo » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:14 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
nixiebunny wrote:Yabut... I lived in Mexico for a year, and learned enough Spanish to get me through it. I noticed that Spanish is utterly unlike English, in that there is only one way to spell a word with a certain sound, so homonyms are ultra-rare. Yet, Americans elect stupid people to high public office at least as often as people in Mexico do. So it ultimately serves no purpose, because the shibboleth is undetected by the masses. All it does is aggravate readers!


Dutch is similar to Spanish in that way, though it seems to have a side-effect: most homonyms use identical spelling in Dutch, thereby forcing people to use the context in writing too. Although this is not usually a problem as homonyms are rare and generally easy to distinguish by context.



It's not like it's weird for a word in English to have multiple definitions. In fact, it's not unheard of for a word to have hundreds of documented definitions.

"Set" has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Run" runs a distant second, with 396. Rounding out the top ten are "go" with 368, "take" with 343, "stand" with 334, "get" with 289, "turn" with 288, "put" with 268, "fall" with 264, and "strike" with 250.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/t47.html

And it's not like they're all the same...

I'll set this down.
I have a set of cups.
I watched a beautiful sun set.

...but understanding the sentence isn't difficult.

So homophones do seem like a rather unnecessary feature.

broken_chaos
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:19 am UTC
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby broken_chaos » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:13 am UTC

I spotted "definitely" right away when reading, and completely missed all the others until seeing others point them out... I wonder what that says about me.

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:17 am UTC

Sprocket wrote:But there is more than one kind of insecurity, and certain people are led to be assholes by it, the defense mechanism of if you think you're not good enough, decide you're actually better than everyone else. And then there are the people who just let it make them nervous all the time. Similarly, some really smart awesome competent people decide to be assholes because they decide they're better than everyone else, and some decide not to be.

How about those of us who ARE better than everyone else and refuse to dumb themselves down to the lowest common denominator?

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Kit. » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:03 am UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:
Sprocket wrote:But there is more than one kind of insecurity, and certain people are led to be assholes by it, the defense mechanism of if you think you're not good enough, decide you're actually better than everyone else. And then there are the people who just let it make them nervous all the time. Similarly, some really smart awesome competent people decide to be assholes because they decide they're better than everyone else, and some decide not to be.

How about those of us who ARE better than everyone else and refuse to dumb themselves down to the lowest common denominator?

There is an empty set of you, so no one cares.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby goofy » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:33 am UTC

ramen wrote:There is so much wrong with this comic:
-Nobody in these comments has caught that judgement is spelled "judgment"


Both judgement and judgment are standard spellings.

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby arthurd006_5 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:51 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
brenok wrote:But it begs the question: is there anyway it could get worse?

The thing is, "begging the question" was either a terrible translation into English, or a terrible translation into Latin, or a terrible way of saying it in Greek in the first place...

I think I've worked out how it could comfortably mean what it's meant to. If I started with the conclusion that I wanted, and then went searching for a question that would fit it, I would probably *get* a circular argument.

Ilze123
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:15 am UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Ilze123 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:58 am UTC

I don't mind small spelling errors. Everyone makes them and we should be a little lenient. Punctuation on the other hand is a different matter.

I get the twitch when "!"and "?" are overused and I think I am not the only one. Still, it feels like I am fighting windmills when I point this out to other people. They just don't understand (or dont want to).

User avatar
zombie_monkey
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby zombie_monkey » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:29 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose: I'm pretty sure those kinds of mistakes are almost exclusively made by native English speakers. They are the ones that are most likely to know what these words sound like in the first place. People whose native language is not English make different kinds of mistakes. In fact, I usually take mistakes of that sort as indicative that the poster is a native English speaker.

gsilverfish
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:21 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby gsilverfish » Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:26 pm UTC

I thought the joke here was that the spammers (they are spammers?) who put meaningless, context-free replies on random blog posts like "This post is full of good ideas, I recommend it," or the strip's own delightfully-spelled example, were the true "Internet Enlightened." They always approve, and never judge!

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby mathmannix » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:59 pm UTC

nixiebunny wrote:Yabut... I lived in Mexico for a year, and learned enough Spanish to get me through it. I noticed that Spanish is utterly unlike English, in that there is only one way to spell a word with a certain sound, so homonyms are ultra-rare. Yet, Americans elect stupid people to high public office at least as often as people in Mexico do. So it ultimately serves no purpose, because the shibboleth is undetected by the masses. All it does is aggravate readers!


Maybe homophones which are heteronyms (aka fair/fare) are rare in Spanish, but there are some, especially if you consider adding/removing accent marks to be different spellings (papa, si, etc.). I myself was confused when learning Spanish between "pero" and "perro", but apparently they do not sound the same to a native. But I'm sure there are other pairs of words that do.

However, homonyms are much more common - as they are in English as well (same spelling and pronunciation but different meanings, like the multiple meanings of run or green, or the less common ones with completely different roots, such as bay, log, or... troll.)

Or maybe you never tried to confuse someone who is just learning Spanish with the sentences "¿Cómo se llama?" (What is your name?), "¿Cómo es su llama?" (How is your llama?), and "¿Como llamas?" (I eat llamas?)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby neremanth » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:04 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:The thing is, "begging the question" was either a terrible translation into English, or a terrible translation into Latin, or a terrible way of saying it in Greek in the first place. (I don't know enough about either language to tell where it went wrong.) Of the three words, we are asked to accept that "begging" means something like "assuming", and "question" means "premise", neither of which fit comfortably with my understanding of the words. That only leaves "the", with which I don't have any immediate issue, but then again there are apparently no articles in Latin anyway. And even if you substitute the alleged meanings, you have "assuming the premise", which if I'm not mistaken is what you always do.

Personally I have no problem with this phrase taking on its literal English meaning; the supposedly correct meaning can be more clearly and evocatively expressed by phrases such as "circular argument".


I've heard your ideas, and I definitely agree. About the problem, anyway, although I have a different solution to propose. I'm so far from being able to match up what 'begging the question' is supposed to mean from any of the senses of the words in the phrase with which I'm familiar that I struggle to understand whenever people try to explain what the 'correct' meaning is, and forget it again very soon afterwards. (I think your 'circular reasoning' definition might actually break the pattern there though - that's simple enough). So I certainly am never in a position where the correct use would be appropriate and I am actually able to apply it, only ever in positions where it's on the tip of my tongue to use in the 'wrong' sense and I have to hold myself back remembering that it is 'wrong' although not why.

What I suggest comes from a misspelling I saw somewhere which had it as 'bake the question'. If we adopt 'bake the question' to mean what we all feel that 'beg the question' intuitively ought to mean, then we can sidestep the fight with the few people who insist on the 'correct' meaning for it, while at the same time it's phonetically not so far from 'beg the question' that if we slip up we can't then claim 'No, I said "bake the question", honest!' (Perhaps it's even not so far orthographically that we couldn't claim it was a spell check autocorrect and we meant to write 'bake'). And if we remember a little earlier, while we're still on the 'b', we can even recover in time to say the correct thing in the first place. From an etymological point of view it makes sense: 'bake' is being used as a metaphor to suggest that the argument has produced a further question, piping hot in its oven.

---

PinkShinyRose wrote:Most of the common mistakes may be caused from people root learning the words phonetically which causes mix-up between words and contractions that sound similar or identical but use a different spelling

I love how you inadvertantly(?) included an illustrative example in there ;)

---

PinkShinyRose wrote:I think the problem in English is mostly caused by people giving up on an almost phonetic orthography after adopting half the French language (I will admit, this really bugs me about English)

I have to admit, I actually see the non-phoneticness of English as a plus point. I feel a bit guilty about that because it undeniably makes it harder for dyslexics and others who struggle with written language to be able to achieve reading and writing proficiency, and that is definitely a bad thing. But for people outside that group it makes things easier. We (i.e. people not in that group) don't read by sounding words out letter by letter, we read by recognising visual patterns of letters either forming whole words that we already know, or forming separate portions of words that we don't know yet. This is more efficient in the case of English where there are more different patterns of letters, and thus more visual differentiation between words, because there are multiple ways to write the same sound. I remember reading somewhere - sadly I don't remember where - that on average people can read slightly faster in English than in Spanish because of this. So what we do when we read is closer to the way Chinese characters work than it is to how we think we read (by recognising the letters individually and putting them together); and in the same place it said that readers of Japanese (and I think Chinese too) can skim read and get the sense of a passage more quickly than readers of English because of how much further in that direction Japanese has gone.

Barstro
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Barstro » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:45 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:In fact it looks as though flammable is the more recent word, coined specifically to avoid the ambiguity of inflammable.

That makes me feel better about humanity.

goofy wrote:
Barstro wrote:It bothers me that irregardless is a word now just because the public kept using it until better minds gave up. That might be why inflammable means what it means.


inflammable means "capable of being set on fire" and I don't see what that has to do with anyone giving up.

Most other "in" words mean the opposite;
indecisive is being not decisive
inadequate is being less than adequate

But, I can see people using inflammable the same way that "infamous" was used in "The Three Amigos", and the rest of society finally going along with it because it's hard to change the stubbornly ignorant. But, that was just for argument. I do not really believe that inflammable came about because people refused to speak correctly (unlike "irregardless", which is a direct result of people murdering a language).

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2934
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:54 pm UTC

neremanth wrote:I've heard your ideas, and I definitely agree. About the problem, anyway, although I have a different solution to propose. I'm so far from being able to match up what 'begging the question' is supposed to mean from any of the senses of the words in the phrase with which I'm familiar that I struggle to understand whenever people try to explain what the 'correct' meaning is, and forget it again very soon afterwards. (I think your 'circular reasoning' definition might actually break the pattern there though - that's simple enough). So I certainly am never in a position where the correct use would be appropriate and I am actually able to apply it, only ever in positions where it's on the tip of my tongue to use in the 'wrong' sense and I have to hold myself back remembering that it is 'wrong' although not why.


Exactly. When you learn that "infer" doesn't mean "imply", you get something in return: a neat new word. With "beg the question", you lose a potentially useful phrase, gain something that you never get the opportunity to use, and aren't even offered a workable alternative.

neremanth wrote:What I suggest comes from a misspelling I saw somewhere which had it as 'bake the question'. If we adopt 'bake the question' to mean what we all feel that 'beg the question' intuitively ought to mean, then we can sidestep the fight with the few people who insist on the 'correct' meaning for it, while at the same time it's phonetically not so far from 'beg the question' that if we slip up we can't then claim 'No, I said "bake the question", honest!' (Perhaps it's even not so far orthographically that we couldn't claim it was a spell check autocorrect and we meant to write 'bake'). And if we remember a little earlier, while we're still on the 'b', we can even recover in time to say the correct thing in the first place. From an etymological point of view it makes sense: 'bake' is being used as a metaphor to suggest that the argument has produced a further question, piping hot in its oven.

Thanks for your support, and the suggestion. My only problem with "baking the question" is that it puts me in mind of "cooking the books", which suggests a form of intellectual sleight-of-hand that's closer to the "correct" meaning of "begging the question". I actually thought you were going to suggest using it that way around.

Eshru wrote:I am dissapoint at the lack of a missing paren.

Can we just stand back a moment and marvel at the Zen-like nothingness that is the lack of a missing thing?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Kit. » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:02 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:
goofy wrote:
Barstro wrote:It bothers me that irregardless is a word now just because the public kept using it until better minds gave up. That might be why inflammable means what it means.

inflammable means "capable of being set on fire" and I don't see what that has to do with anyone giving up.

Most other "in" words mean the opposite;
indecisive is being not decisive

Inflame is a verb. Indecide isn't.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2934
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:16 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Inflame is a verb. Indecide isn't.

It is now!
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby goofy » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:39 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:
goofy wrote:inflammable means "capable of being set on fire" and I don't see what that has to do with anyone giving up.

Most other "in" words mean the opposite;
indecisive is being not decisive
inadequate is being less than adequate

inspire
inscribe
invoke
inquire
insure
imbue
imperil
impose
irradiate
Barstro wrote:But, I can see people using inflammable the same way that "infamous" was used in "The Three Amigos", and the rest of society finally going along with it because it's hard to change the stubbornly ignorant. But, that was just for argument. I do not really believe that inflammable came about because people refused to speak correctly


I'm not really sure what you're trying to say about inflammable. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says flammable was coined because there was concern that people would misunderstand the in- of inflammable as negative. However, there is no evidence that such an misunderstanding has ever happened.
Barstro wrote:
(unlike "irregardless", which is a direct result of people murdering a language).


Of course it isn't. No language has been murdered. English is still alive and well, and is gaining new speakers every day.

irregardless is not the only word with meaningless negative affixes: debone and unravel are two others. In the 16th and 17th century, words with two negative affixes were common: unboundless, undauntless, uneffectless, unfathomless. And yet somehow English survived!

orthogon wrote:When you learn that "infer" doesn't mean "imply"


The truth about infer
Last edited by goofy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby addams » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:13 pm UTC

I have heard your ideas and they are defiantly good.

I Can Do It! Yeah! Internet Enlightenment! Yeah!


Spoiler:
Any person that can type, "Fuck you you fucking Fuck."
Can type, "Your ideas are good ones, I read them."
That's not true for the person that is a strict literalist.

There is a Code for our little Savants.
What do those two sentence look like when typed using only the letters they share?

There may be other better ideas.
Keep that one and we will look at some others.

Everyone has ideas. Some ideas are better than others.

Spoiler:
Examples. Everyone wants examples.
What is an example of a Good Idea and then a Better Idea?

Oh. Throwing water balloons at the Children.
That's a good idea.

Filling the balloons with warm water or setting the balloons in the sun for a while is a better idea.
See? The better idea did not detract from the good idea.

Both require planing. First we need balloons. Balloons come from China. That is far.

Now; I need a better idea. Who do you think we are George Martial?
He could do the impossible. I can't.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:20 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:(unlike "irregardless", which is a direct result of people murdering a language).

Maybe people will stop saying it near you if you consistently take it as a double negative and comment about how their story doesn't make sense.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Klear » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:34 pm UTC

goofy wrote:Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says flammable was coined because there was concern that people would misunderstand the in- of inflammable as negative. However, there is no evidence that such an misunderstanding has ever happened.


Ahem.=)

Barstro
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Barstro » Tue Jul 16, 2013 5:38 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Barstro wrote:(unlike "irregardless", which is a direct result of people murdering a language).

Maybe people will stop saying it near you if you consistently take it as a double negative and comment about how their story doesn't make sense.


Nah. Better to give up the fight. (see comic 1108; Not sure how to link in this forum)

Interesting points above. As for no examples of people being confused by inflammable; who lived to tell the tale?

User avatar
Darekun
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:57 am UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Darekun » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:00 pm UTC

I heard you're idea's and their definately good.

Ekuzei!

Freiberg wrote:I'm still wondering whether the missing apostrophes in the last frame are deliberate or not.

Reminds me of the Bob The Angry Flower comic about apostrophes, which asserts that if you don't know how to use the apostrophes, just don't use them :J

Quicksilver wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote:Does this strip has a punchline somewear or is it intensionally ambiguous?
the jimmies will be rustled today.

Is it just a jimmy-rustling strip? That would be sad…

not baby Newt wrote:I thought it was about being too insecure to compliment another person's ideas. Which makes sense and might still be part of it. The implied strong connection between insecurity and grammar sensitivity I do not get, unless they are simply trolling her (and Randall, us).

Well, words are memes. There word usage are another person's ideas. It's basically the descriptivist/prescriptivist divide writ Twitter-sized.

nixiebunny wrote:Homonyms are a very stupid idea. Why are their three words that sound identical but have completely different meanings and spellings?

Spelling bees are a disgrace to the language community.

User avatar
neremanth
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:24 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby neremanth » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:04 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:My only problem with "baking the question" is that it puts me in mind of "cooking the books", which suggests a form of intellectual sleight-of-hand that's closer to the "correct" meaning of "begging the question". I actually thought you were going to suggest using it that way around.

That's a good point. It's tempting to adopt 'baking the question' for the 'correct' meaning of 'begging the question', but then we lose the advantage of being able to avoid arguing when we want to use the 'wrong' sense of 'begging the question', and also, as I mentioned, I never use 'begging the question' in its 'correct' sense so defining 'baking the question' to mean that would just mean I'd never use it. Guess I'll just have to try to remember to use 'raising the question'.

---

addams wrote:
Spoiler:
Any person that can type, "Fuck you you fucking Fuck."
Can type, "Your ideas are good ones, I read them."
That's not true for the person that is a strict literalist.

There is a Code for our little Savants.
What do those two sentence look like when typed using only the letters they share?


I make it "uc you you uc ing uc ." and "You i goo on, I .". (I am a strict literalist ;) ).

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4784
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:34 pm UTC

As someone earlier mentioned, "begging the question" is a horrible translation in the first place, so even for the technically correct sense of it, it should probably just be avoided. If someone says something which brings a question to mind or highlights the importance of another issue, just say it "raises the question". If someone argues for something from premises which already (implicitly) include that conclusion, just say they're "assuming the conclusion".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

im3w1l
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:41 am UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby im3w1l » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:10 am UTC

Sometimes a cyprus mulch hibernates, but another demon always caricatures a cashier! If the tuba player over a hydrogen atom borrows money from another roller coaster toward an inferiority complex, then the cab driver over another girl scout takes a coffee break. When an accidentally orbiting hydrogen atom is usually hypnotic, a slow parking lot negotiates a prenuptial agreement with an accurately magnificent blood clot. A power drill inside the spider leaves, because a vacuum cleaner about a burglar pours freezing cold water on a phony fundraiser. Indeed, a crank case buys an expensive gift for the grizzly bear for a tuba player.An insurance agent

PaulLambeth
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:34 pm UTC

Re: 1238: "Enlightenment"

Postby PaulLambeth » Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:09 am UTC

goofy wrote:
Barstro wrote:It bothers me that irregardless is a word now just because the public kept using it until better minds gave up. That might be why inflammable means what it means.


inflammable means "capable of being set on fire" and I don't see what that has to do with anyone giving up.


Bastro's a prescriptivist, is what is meant.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: moody7277 and 20 guests