Squid Tempest
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:25
|
|
As I said above, I didn't intend to imply that we needed to instigate a code or somesuch. Sorry, it was poorly worded, must sort out my own linguistics!
|
stray
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:28
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote: I was more commenting on how the way things are written can very much determine my own response, rightly or wrongly.
Well.. DURRRR!!! Really ? ;)
Go read some Derrida :p
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grammatology-Jacques-Derrida/dp/0801858305/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260876462&sr=8-1
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:32
|
|
stray wrote: Well.. DURRRR!!! Really ? ;)
Good case in point. That sort of reply makes me bristle! Illogical response given that I know you and understand your modus operandi to some extent, but a gut reaction to the wording.
|
cHARLIE
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:34
|
I think you should get out a bit more.
(((running for cover)))
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:36
|
|
I set myself up for this didn't I?! Ah, the perils of navel contemplation.
|
stray
|
Edited Dec 15, 2009, 12:44
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:37
|
I'm serious, this is a job for Derrida. Seriously. Your reply about 'not knowing' as in not knowing the signifiers agenga or M.O. (me, the guy who wrote something you're replying to) can only be 'known' by deconstructing the text, and deconstruct it in as many ways as you can think of. As I said in my first reply become a 'good reader'. Find what you want, and identify if it's likely to be the correct interpretation.
I mean. I did give hints in the form of ;):p an affectation of internet discussion which is really powerful.
Edit : Plus, you've known me for years. This has a strong effect on how I post here when I'm directly replying to you, as I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that you get me.
|
cHARLIE
|
Edited Dec 15, 2009, 12:41
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:39
|
ha ha ... it's ok mate we are all a bunch of cyberspAced muso dweebs togeVa!
(((now give us a big cyBore hug you ald punk rocking bugger)))
|
Lord Lucan
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:46
|
|
Doesn't bother me if someone states that something is the best thing since sliced bread as if it's fact, because it's obvious it's just an opinion, innit?
|
machineryelf
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:53
|
Does this mean I can't say ''Gong are shite'' anymore 8-(
suggested dress code
http://www.prolific.org/archive/images/pigchildren1-thumb.jpg
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: The Linguistics of Unsung
Dec 15, 2009, 12:54
|
|
stray wrote: I'm serious, this is a job for Derrida. Seriously. Your reply about 'not knowing' as in not knowing the signifiers agenga or M.O. (me, the guy who wrote something you're replying to) can only be 'known' by deconstructing the text, and deconstruct it in as many ways as you can think of. As I said in my first reply become a 'good reader'. Find what you want, and identify if it's likely to be the correct interpretation.
I mean. I did give hints in the form of ;):p an affectation of internet discussion which is really powerful.
Edit : Plus, you've known me for years. This has a strong effect on how I post here when I'm directly replying to you, as I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that you get me.
Yup, that's kind of what I meant - because I know you I "get" the subtext. As for Derrida, I wish I could persuade myself to read some, but my reading tends to be somewhat lightweight these days.
|
