Squid Tempest
|
The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 11:51
|
Something I've been pondering lately.
I enjoy the cut and thrust of discussion on this forum very much.
I enjoy people describing the music that moves them and why.
I enjoy people discussing, for example, the merits of this album compared to another.
I particularly enjoy these when the person writing is open-minded, and describes these things from a position of open subjectivity.
In other words, I enjoy these discussions when, for example, they are worded in this (approximate) manner:
1. In my opinion Fred Teapot is one of the great drummers
2. Personally, I'm not a fan of The Gobbledeegooks, although I can understand their appeal.
What irks me, and generally drives me to make an unfavourable response (possibly unjustified), is when people state their opinions as irrefutable and definitive i.e. as the objective truth. Examples as follows:
1. Ron Mogface is definitely by far the best maraca player in the world
2. There is no doubt that Tinkle 3 are the worst folk gamelan band in the Baltic.
Do you agree that the linguistics of these discussions are of import, or am I just being oversensitive (in your opinion)?!
Squid
x
|
Rolling Ronnie
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 11:54
|
|
I think you're spot on, old son. Inviting discussion is great, imposing opinion is (in my view) unforgivable!!
|
stray
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:03
|
You're being over sensitive. I think we're all grown up enough to know an opinion is an opinion. Also, as someone who is more than willing to post comments where I will argue an objective truth I'm not actually being that serious and I'm pretty sure everyone knows that. We really, really, don't want to set any kind of linguistic limitations on posts here, that would be extraordinarily stupid. We are discussing a subject that we are extremely passionate about, so people are bound to do the 'bad things with language' you've identified. Deal with it.
Even in the most reactionary and opinionated post you can often find something worthwhile in the interstice, you just have to become a 'good reader'.
|
Hunter T Wolfe
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:05
|
|
Yeah, but you've got to admit, Tinkle 3 are dreadful.
|
The Sea Cat
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:06
|
|
Absolutely Squid. I've been guilty of a the odd faux pas due to enthusiasm getting the better of me, and I do find it hard to restrain myself re. abject shite such as 'Simon Cowell is not evil distilled','The Beatles were irrelevant' or 'anything pre- 1976 is worthless'. Then I get the urge to polish my flintlock and organise a Tyburn Jig. However, I completely agree with you and try to stick to the broad church philosophy.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:19
|
|
stray wrote: We really, really, don't want to set any kind of linguistic limitations on posts here, that would be extraordinarily stupid.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that we needed to instigate a linguistic police force or anything, although I can see now that my post could be read that way. I was more commenting on how the way things are written can very much determine my own response, rightly or wrongly.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:20
|
|
You've got a point. Their last album was a real let down.
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:22
|
You're wrong. Get over it.
Sorry. Couldn't resist!
;)
|
keith a
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:24
|
What Stray said.
If I write "the new Wild Swans 7" is the single of the year", it's because I think it is.
Surely we don't have to write IMO (or IMHO cos we're all humble here, aren't we?!!) after every single sentence?
What next, Squid - a dress code?
; )
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:24
|
|
You're not Stray in disguise are you? ;-)
|
