Raffy's Karma [was Re: [ANN] Filtered functions]
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: NY Times
Next: complex symmetric matrices
From: Kenneth Tilton on 17 Dec 2009 21:49 W. James wrote: > Kenneth Tilton wrote: > >> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >> one demonstrating one has given some thought to what one read and >> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing their thought. > > I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning > one demonstrating he has given some thought to what he read and > worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing his thought. > > Word counts equal, consideration for others not. And your version is ungrammatical: the anaphor is unbound. kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: George Neuner on 18 Dec 2009 17:45 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:49:31 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >W. James wrote: >> Kenneth Tilton wrote: >> >>> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >>> one demonstrating one has given some thought to what one read and >>> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing their thought. >> >> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >> one demonstrating he has given some thought to what he read and >> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing his thought. > >Word counts equal, consideration for others not. And your version is >ungrammatical: the anaphor is unbound. Your own attempt has at least three problems: a pronoun number disagreement, "one" being singular while "their" is plural; you used past imperfect tense in "have given" when it should have been past perfect; and your use of the word "stipulate" is incorrect according to its definition. A better choice might have been: "I was clever enough to ask "an intelligent question", meaning one demonstrating that I had given some thought to what I had read and had worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing my thought." which, I am pretty sure, both uses correct word definitions and is grammatically correct (though still slightly informal) English. Tag! You're it. George
From: Kenneth Tilton on 18 Dec 2009 18:05 George Neuner wrote: > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:49:31 -0500, Kenneth Tilton > <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> W. James wrote: >>> Kenneth Tilton wrote: >>> >>>> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >>>> one demonstrating one has given some thought to what one read and >>>> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing their thought. >>> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >>> one demonstrating he has given some thought to what he read and >>> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing his thought. >> Word counts equal, consideration for others not. And your version is >> ungrammatical: the anaphor is unbound. > > Your own attempt has at least three problems: a pronoun number > disagreement, "one" being singular while "their" is plural; you used > past imperfect tense in "have given" when it should have been past > perfect; and your use of the word "stipulate" is incorrect according > to its definition. > > A better choice might have been: > > "I was clever enough to ask "an intelligent question", meaning one > demonstrating that I had given some thought to what I had read and had > worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing my thought." > > which, I am pretty sure, both uses correct word definitions and is > grammatically correct (though still slightly informal) English. > > Tag! You're it. > George I would rather you followed up on the clarifications I offered on Cells, which I took some trouble to explicate. Meanwhile, who said "have given"? And you better supply "its definition" when making claims like that because you are wrong about the word. The "their" is the PC (and British) solution to unknown gender, and I like it and especially like the jolt one gets from the count mismatch. Your "better choice" is interesting in that it means something completely different and maybe that is why you are so off in everything else you offered. The only edit I would make would be "to what he /has/ read" but I thought that would be two many hases so took some poetic license. kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Kenneth Tilton on 18 Dec 2009 18:41 Kenneth Tilton wrote: > George Neuner wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:49:31 -0500, Kenneth Tilton >> <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> W. James wrote: >>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >>>>> one demonstrating one has given some thought to what one read and >>>>> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing their thought. >>>> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >>>> one demonstrating he has given some thought to what he read and >>>> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing his thought. >>> Word counts equal, consideration for others not. And your version is >>> ungrammatical: the anaphor is unbound. >> >> Your own attempt has at least three problems: a pronoun number >> disagreement, "one" being singular while "their" is plural; you used >> past imperfect tense in "have given" when it should have been past >> perfect; and your use of the word "stipulate" is incorrect according >> to its definition. >> >> A better choice might have been: >> >> "I was clever enough to ask "an intelligent question", meaning one >> demonstrating that I had given some thought to what I had read and had >> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing my thought." >> >> which, I am pretty sure, both uses correct word definitions and is >> grammatically correct (though still slightly informal) English. >> >> Tag! You're it. >> George > > I would rather you followed up on the clarifications I offered on Cells, > which I took some trouble to explicate. > > Meanwhile, who said "have given"? And you better supply "its definition" > when making claims like that because you are wrong about the word. The > "their" is the PC (and British) solution to unknown gender, and I like > it and especially like the jolt one gets from the count mismatch. Your > "better choice" is interesting in that it means something completely > different and maybe that is why you are so off in everything else you > offered. The only edit I would make would be "to what he /has/ read" but > I thought that would be two many hases so took some poetic license. > > kt > > Ah, you did misunderstand what I wrote, largely by substituting the meaning you evidenced in your offering for the one intended by the words I chose. Those the easiest way for you to work out what I was saying would be to go back and /read/ what I wrote and especially to see the words I used and then work backwards from what they mean. kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: George Neuner on 18 Dec 2009 22:15
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:05:43 -0500, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >George Neuner wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:49:31 -0500, Kenneth Tilton >> <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> W. James wrote: >>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >>>>> one demonstrating one has given some thought to what one read and >>>>> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing their thought. >>>> >>>> I was clever enough to stipulate "an intelligent question", meaning >>>> one demonstrating he has given some thought to what he read and >>>> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing his thought. >>> >>> Word counts equal, consideration for others not. And your version is >>> ungrammatical: the anaphor is unbound. >> >> Your own attempt has at least three problems: a pronoun number >> disagreement, "one" being singular while "their" is plural; you used >> past imperfect tense in "have given" when it should have been past >> perfect; and your use of the word "stipulate" is incorrect according >> to its definition. >> >> A better choice might have been: >> >> "I was clever enough to ask "an intelligent question", meaning one >> demonstrating that I had given some thought to what I had read and had >> worked through to a synthetic consequence evidencing my thought." >> >> which, I am pretty sure, both uses correct word definitions and is >> grammatically correct (though still slightly informal) English. >> >> Tag! You're it. >> George > >I would rather you followed up on the clarifications I offered on Cells, >which I took some trouble to explicate. I'm still thinking about it. >Meanwhile, who said "have given"? My mistake. Somehow I looked at it and saw "have given" instead of "has given". However, "has" may be either "simple past" or "past imperfect", and therefore your use of it leaves open when your thought took place with respect to the formulation of your question. >And you better supply "its definition" >when making claims like that because you are wrong about the word. The >"their" is the PC (and British) solution to unknown gender, and I like >it and especially like the jolt one gets from the count mismatch. None of "PC", "British" or "I like it" makes it correct. "Their" is plural and does not agree in number with "one has ... thought". The grammatically correct alternative is "its", but, in this context, "its" would read strangely to most people because the referent is intended to be a person. stipulate: �verb (used without object) 1. to make an express demand or arrangement as a condition of agreement (often fol. by for). �verb (used with object) 2. to arrange expressly or specify in terms of agreement: to stipulate a price. 3. to require as an essential condition in making an agreement: Total disarmament was stipulated in the peace treaty. 4. to promise, in making an agreement. 5. Law. to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be established by proof: to stipulate the existence of certain facts or that an expert witness is qualified. Origin: 1615�25; < L stipula-tus (ptp. of stipula-ri- to demand a formal agreement), appar. equiv. to stipul- (see stipule ) + -a-tus -ate 1 Essential to the definition of stipulate is agreement. A question is not agreement. The question itself - its existence or its content - is a fact that can be agreed upon, but that is not what you wrote. (And you can't agree with yourself 8) >Your "better choice" is interesting in that it means something completely >different and maybe that is why you are so off in everything else you >offered. The only edit I would make would be "to what he /has/ read" but >I thought that would be two many hases so took some poetic license. Mine differs in that it more correctly qualifies the timeline - it makes explicit that thought proceeded posing the question (which is clearly what you were trying to convey). It also differs in the use of personal pronouns to precisely indicate who/what is performing the actions. Your conflation of a third-person neutral subordinate clause referring to a first-person action - while not incorrect (if grammatical) - makes for difficult reading at best. >kt George |