ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:28 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:06 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:22 pm
Posts: 362
Location: MA, USA
Gambit3le wrote:
P.S. Sorry to all the catgirls, I'll send flowers to the funerals.


Only catgirl on this thread is of the four-eared variety, and it's impossible to kill those off fast enough. Keep it coming, grammar-freaks.

_________________
Initiated by, adopted evil minion of: Insane_Megalamanic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:07 pm 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:35 am
Posts: 25
Gambit3le wrote:

The term "Grammatical Correctness" is a lie. Each individual has their own internalized grammar. This grammar is composed of the ways that your mind interprets certain symbols, which includes all of the world not just a specific language. (If you see something written in another language this enters your mind as nothing because you cannot recognize the symbols, not because they have no meaning) So to say that your particular grammar is somehow more correct than another person's particular grammar is not only dictatorial, but also quite narcissistic. There is no "perfect" grammar in existence, and as long as we're not Borg, there never will be.

That is almost, but not quite true. Grammar and language in general isn't objective all right, but it isn't subjective either. If it was we would be unable to communicate, because there'd be no correlation between the meaning you attached to this string of letters, and the one I meant for it to have.

What language is, is inter-subjective, meaning that groups of people have shared ideas of what words mean, how sentences should be structured and so on. Grammar might only be correct or incorrect in a given social context, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as bad grammar, it can be bad in a given social setting, or it can simply not be a product of any inter-subjective concept of how sentences should be structured.

A Britt can plausibly claim that his grammar is just as good as an Americans and visa versa, but an individual cannot plausibly claim that you grammar is just as good as the shared grammar of everybody around him. Jon's comment might be entirely correct in his context, but it might also be a product of poor education or simply have made a mistake in a rather heated situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:35 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:13 pm
Posts: 80
how about to the roots of all this? to the fundimentals that rule all english? i see subject, i see predicate, nouns, verbs, i see a sugject and predicate that are in aggrement, i see a gramatically correct string of words.

http://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/imsc.htm#PARA

correct me if i am wrong about this, but i for one am not seeing it.

_________________
Learn from yesterday
Live for today
Dream for tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:52 pm 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:35 am
Posts: 25
Zenith wrote:
how about to the roots of all this? to the fundimentals that rule all english? i see subject, i see predicate, nouns, verbs, i see a sugject and predicate that are in aggrement, i see a gramatically correct string of words.

http://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/imsc.htm#PARA

correct me if i am wrong about this, but i for one am not seeing it.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think there's something mildly amusing, about a post about proper grammar (I think) being practically unintelligible. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:56 pm 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:53 pm
Posts: 2
In an attempt to put this silly grammar arguement to a merciful end, I offer the following quote:

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll

By the way, Mister Poe, I love the comic.

Thank you.

_________________
That which does not kill you must be foreplay.

DNI'ed by Insane_Megalamaniac


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:01 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:04 pm
Posts: 236
Location: All alone in my own little Universe.
Fizzgig wrote:
In an attempt to put this silly grammar arguement to a merciful end, I offer the following quote:

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll

By the way, Mister Poe, I love the comic.

Thank you.


thank you.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:02 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:13 pm
Posts: 80
kerberos wrote:
Zenith wrote:
how about to the roots of all this? to the fundimentals that rule all english? i see subject, i see predicate, nouns, verbs, i see a sugject and predicate that are in aggrement, i see a gramatically correct string of words.

http://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/imsc.htm#PARA

correct me if i am wrong about this, but i for one am not seeing it.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think there's something mildly amusing, about a post about proper grammar (I think) being practically unintelligible. :P


beautiful isn't it? :roll: i had a long drawn out post concerning your intelligents and my typing habits, however i'm trying to cut back on being an asshole. besides, you probably wouldn't be able to understand it anyways (despite it being in english, generally okay spelling, thought process, breaks indicated by commas, etc.)

_________________
Learn from yesterday
Live for today
Dream for tomorrow


Last edited by Zenith on Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:04 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:13 pm
Posts: 80
Fizzgig wrote:
In an attempt to put this silly grammar arguement to a merciful end, I offer the following quote:

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll

By the way, Mister Poe, I love the comic.

Thank you.


that was great... seriously

_________________
Learn from yesterday
Live for today
Dream for tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:08 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Fizzgig wrote:
In an attempt to put this silly grammar arguement to a merciful end, I offer the following quote:

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll

By the way, Mister Poe, I love the comic.

Thank you.


I'm DNI'ing you not only for using one of my favorite quotes, but for having a Dark Crystal reference in your name and avatar.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:43 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:04 pm
Posts: 236
Location: All alone in my own little Universe.
Does anyone else think that the reason we readers notice every little error or typo in the comic is because it's a webcomic?

I wanted to try my theory so I read a bit of some other dead tree comics I found laying around. They all had some similar "errors". I'm wondering if perhaps the time lag between comics is actually a good thing.

Hear me out.

I think that having to wait at the least a day or two for each page of the comic makes its dramatic impact much more powerful. The time factor also allows for a more complex structure to the story and for time to talk about it.

In a society where we need everything NOW not five minutes from now, not next week, but NOW! something like a regular time schedule can be a rather relaxing and comforting thing... or for those who are more impatient, a real pain in the ass.

Television commercials are the best example I can think of for time dialation. Information on commercials and even mainstream television is now given in fifteen second chunks. This has contributed to the shrinking of attention spans. If you don't think so try watching old commercials from before 1980.

What I'm trying to say is this. WEBCOMICS are our Keanu Reeves. They will save us from the agony of living life fifteen seconds at a time. Webcomics will set the human race free and allow us to regain our lost attention spans.

Mr. Poe, I salute you sir! :D

You are a tribute to your race and a generally wonderful, nay, Iconic personage.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
:-? Ohkaaay . . . Keep up the grammar discussion, guys, we've only got about thirty more hours to kill before the next posting.

:argh: Now, I tried reading the latest Terry Goodkind novel today: near-perfect grammar, thoroughly mediocre writing style, and 200 pages of exposition and backdrop before the plot gets cranking. Oh, yeh, most of the non-exposition pages were dreary scenes of women being brutalized and raped, leavened by shorter scenes of men being brutalized and slaughtered. But his books do get on the NY Times best seller lists. It's the perfect grammar, I'm sure.

:-? Just to antagonize all sides . . . both grammar enforcers and grammar innovators are necessary. The language must change, but the enforcers are the selective force, making that change useful (evolution, expression) rather than destructive (dissolution, incoherence). Someone garbling the grammar of a sentence and claiming it expresses the freedom of all to innovate and grow is like someone caught screwing a goat and claiming he is expressing the ultimate need of all mankind to perfect the search for love and family. I ain't buying it, but you can if you want to.

:) Oh, yeah. Poe, that was an excellent layout on Friday. Lots of information, nicely compressed, tells the readers exactly why they should be biting their nails waiting for an update.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:22 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Posts: 41
Lets see...most of the theories on Jon's fighting stance so far have gone with the theory he's trying to set up a shot on Warrel, to help out Sarine.

But what if he's actually aiming both guns at Sara?

Yes, sure, they look like they're pointed in two different directions. But Jon just got done fighting Warrel a moment ago. When he pointed a gun at Warrel, what did Warrel do? He popped around directly behind Jon to hit him from the other direction, before Jon could re-aim over there. Warrel is currently in the process of doing that exact same thing to Sarine, while Jon watches.

But what if Jon already had his second gun aimed behind him? Then he'd be set against any attempts to come from behind. Thus, the hope that Sara is trained in the same way and will stick with something simple like coming from behind, rather then something complex that he can't predict.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:35 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:13 pm
Posts: 80
Kerostasis wrote:
Lets see...most of the theories on Jon's fighting stance so far have gone with the theory he's trying to set up a shot on Warrel, to help out Sarine.

But what if he's actually aiming both guns at Sara?

Yes, sure, they look like they're pointed in two different directions. But Jon just got done fighting Warrel a moment ago. When he pointed a gun at Warrel, what did Warrel do? He popped around directly behind Jon to hit him from the other direction, before Jon could re-aim over there. Warrel is currently in the process of doing that exact same thing to Sarine, while Jon watches.

But what if Jon already had his second gun aimed behind him? Then he'd be set against any attempts to come from behind. Thus, the hope that Sara is trained in the same way and will stick with something simple like coming from behind, rather then something complex that he can't predict.


i see where you are going... and it could be, though jon has effectively left open his chest and back by turning his body and pointing his weapons to his sides.

_________________
Learn from yesterday
Live for today
Dream for tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:35 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 7:47 pm
Posts: 6152
Location: somewhere in Canada
Kerostasis wrote:
Lets see...most of the theories on Jon's fighting stance so far have gone with the theory he's trying to set up a shot on Warrel, to help out Sarine.

But what if he's actually aiming both guns at Sara?

Yes, sure, they look like they're pointed in two different directions. But Jon just got done fighting Warrel a moment ago. When he pointed a gun at Warrel, what did Warrel do? He popped around directly behind Jon to hit him from the other direction, before Jon could re-aim over there. Warrel is currently in the process of doing that exact same thing to Sarine, while Jon watches.

But what if Jon already had his second gun aimed behind him? Then he'd be set against any attempts to come from behind. Thus, the hope that Sara is trained in the same way and will stick with something simple like coming from behind, rather then something complex that he can't predict.


Just one drawback with that. I'm assuming that with the time-fugue comes enhanced perception, in that it seems like everything is moving in slow-motion compared to you (as inferred by Sarine vs Warrel). Which means even if she decides to go behind him she's still going to see the gun pointed and about to fire so she can simply turn around or head in a new direction before springing back and countering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:52 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Posts: 41
Certainly, I'm not suggesting this is an unstoppable technique or anything. Its just a starting stance. But it definately leaves him a lot less open then if he pointed all his weapons in the same direction, don't you think?

I'm just thinking, if he's gonna shoot at Warrel, behind him, that means he first has to LOOK at Warrel in order to aim correctly. That means he has to take his eyes off of Sara for at least as long as it takes to quickly turn your head all the way around, and back.

That doesn't seem like a long time in normal situations--maybe 1 second, 1.5 seconds tops?--but against a Time Fuguing enemy, thats enough time to get your arm cut off. I just don't know if Jon would abandon his own safety for an off chance to improve someone else's battle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:12 pm 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:50 am
Posts: 70
Gambit3le wrote:
I get the feeling that you were taught that Grammar is PROSCRIPTIVE, and thus a total be all and end all for the formulation of language.

I was taught grammar by editors who would've hit me with a stick if I'd told them that it didn't matter and was wholly subjective. I don't know what word you're looking for, but grammar isn't it. Grammar is the rules-of-use that give a language that structure which makes it a language, as opposed to a bunch of meaningless gibberish. If it wasn't necessary then languages would be much easier to learn. Grammar evolves over time, but English grammar hasn't yet evolved to the point where using a perfect tense verb as an imperative is acceptable. If it was acceptable we wouldn't be having this discussion, because it wouldn't have looked and sounded wrong to so many people, even people who don't know or care what a perfect tense verb or imperative mood are.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:40 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:13 pm
Posts: 80
Prine wrote:
Gambit3le wrote:
I get the feeling that you were taught that Grammar is PROSCRIPTIVE, and thus a total be all and end all for the formulation of language.

I was taught grammar by editors who would've hit me with a stick if I'd told them that it didn't matter and was wholly subjective. I don't know what word you're looking for, but grammar isn't it. Grammar is the rules-of-use that give a language that structure which makes it a language, as opposed to a bunch of meaningless gibberish. If it wasn't necessary then languages would be much easier to learn. Grammar evolves over time, but English grammar hasn't yet evolved to the point where using a perfect tense verb as an imperative is acceptable. If it was acceptable we wouldn't be having this discussion, because it wouldn't have looked and sounded wrong to so many people, even people who don't know or care what a perfect tense verb or imperative mood are.


sounds like trainning and forced "knowledge" through painful stimuli... how long does it take for a kid to want the pain to stop? thats how long it will take for them to get it the way you want it.

_________________
Learn from yesterday
Live for today
Dream for tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:43 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:13 pm
Posts: 80
Kerostasis wrote:
Certainly, I'm not suggesting this is an unstoppable technique or anything. Its just a starting stance. But it definately leaves him a lot less open then if he pointed all his weapons in the same direction, don't you think?

I'm just thinking, if he's gonna shoot at Warrel, behind him, that means he first has to LOOK at Warrel in order to aim correctly. That means he has to take his eyes off of Sara for at least as long as it takes to quickly turn your head all the way around, and back.

That doesn't seem like a long time in normal situations--maybe 1 second, 1.5 seconds tops?--but against a Time Fuguing enemy, thats enough time to get your arm cut off. I just don't know if Jon would abandon his own safety for an off chance to improve someone else's battle.


again true, though perhaps there is the off chance he is just that good (to not have to look that is) ? but chest and back are still large open areas to a trainned fighter... i only see this being answered monday... if it's not left as a cliff hanger, or goes on even longer.

_________________
Learn from yesterday
Live for today
Dream for tomorrow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:35 am
Posts: 25
Zenith wrote:
kerberos wrote:
Zenith wrote:
how about to the roots of all this? to the fundimentals that rule all english? i see subject, i see predicate, nouns, verbs, i see a sugject and predicate that are in aggrement, i see a gramatically correct string of words.

http://faculty.washington.edu/ezent/imsc.htm#PARA

correct me if i am wrong about this, but i for one am not seeing it.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think there's something mildly amusing, about a post about proper grammar (I think) being practically unintelligible. :P


beautiful isn't it? :roll: i had a long drawn out post concerning your intelligents and my typing habits, however i'm trying to cut back on being an asshole. besides, you probably wouldn't be able to understand it anyways (despite it being in english, generally okay spelling, thought process, breaks indicated by commas, etc.)

I see somebody got the wrong leg out of bed today. But (yes, I'm starting a sentence with a conjunction) the problem is neither you punctuation (much better than mine I'm sure), your spelling (though you really should use spell control, in any post where you claim to spell properly), nor, I think, your though process. It's not even the fact that you seem to have some deep seated aversion to capitalisation. There just seems to be words missing, which makes it difficult to read.

Edited for an amusing mistake of my own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:18 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:26 pm
Posts: 63
It's still generally not alright to start sentences with conjunctions in formal writing, but in most common english use it's perfectly acceptable. I've even seen it done in grammar books ("Doing Grammar," most recently). The rule is that the conjunction must be followed by an independant clause. It is one of those examples of the use of language evolving, with the rules of grammar not keeping up. In the past, the vast majority (all that I have, or have heard of) taught that it was unacceptable. Some English classes still teach that it's unacceptable, some teach that it's acceptable.

_________________
oops


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group