| Author |
Message |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:14 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On 06 Nov 2005, Paul Wolff wrote
-snip-
| Quote: | I work on the basis that most people have a "nice" layer, and
when one has found it, one shouldn't upset the applecart by
seeking to penetrate further (farther?).
|
I'd use "further"; "farther" implies physical rather than
metaphorical distance to me.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:03 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: |
Laura F. Spira <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> spake thusly:
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
I'm starting to think that "Peter Olcott" is a Martian who's keeping
us busy so that we don't notice the invasion until it's too late.
|
What sort of Martian do you think participates in flonk.flonk.flonk?
--
Bob Lieblich
More venereal than martian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:56 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Robert Lieblich <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> spake thusly:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
Laura F. Spira <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> spake thusly:
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
I'm starting to think that "Peter Olcott" is a Martian who's keeping
us busy so that we don't notice the invasion until it's too late.
What sort of Martian do you think participates in flonk.flonk.flonk?
|
You think he's a blood-sucking Martian? Could be.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:11 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Laura F. Spira wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich wrote:
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
|
Egrets? I've had a few ...
I admire the stamina and optimism of those who have contributed at least
three posts to this thread.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:13 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
John Dean <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> spake thusly:
| Quote: | Laura F. Spira wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
Egrets? I've had a few ...
|
Presumably a sufficiently large number to make them worth reporting?
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:14 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
John Dean wrote:
| Quote: | Laura F. Spira wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
Egrets? I've had a few ...
I admire the stamina and optimism of those who have contributed at least
three posts to this thread.
|
Does that include the OP?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:15 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | John Dean <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> spake thusly:
Laura F. Spira wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
Egrets? I've had a few ...
Presumably a sufficiently large number to make them worth reporting?
|
A man's gotta do.. so he did.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:45 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Laura F. Spira wrote:
| Quote: | John Dean wrote:
Laura F. Spira wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful
if one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
Egrets? I've had a few ...
I admire the stamina and optimism of those who have contributed at
least three posts to this thread.
Does that include the OP?
|
Of course. I notice no angels have trodden the space he occupies ...
--
John "Deconstruct *that* mon ami" Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:46 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Laura F. Spira" wrote:
| Quote: |
John Dean wrote:
Laura F. Spira wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
Egrets? I've had a few ...
I admire the stamina and optimism of those who have contributed at least
three posts to this thread.
Does that include the OP?
|
The OP is a bot. There's no other explanation. The guy who scares me
is the creator of the bot.
--
Bot Lieblich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:17 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:44:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd8593c2cf7fcfb98a201@news.ntlworld.com...
Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> spake thusly:
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd84ccb9194e65698a1fb@news.ntlworld.com...
Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> spake thusly:
I just defined it as the standard. ISO can later over-ride me and come
up with another set of defaults. In order for meaning to be precise, yet
not too cumbersome to specify, there would have to be default meanings.
These would come from the first sense meaning of the ISO standard
dictionary, unless explicitly superceded by an ISO standard sense meaning
subscript. The ISO standard would also require a standard set of notational
conventions. These could be county specific, yet tie back to the exact
same semantic meaning. It would be even better if we simply dropped
all but one of these arbitrary conventions.
Is that the UK or US meaning of "county"? Or some Australian or
South African meaning which I'm not familiar with? What is the level
of granularity? People in the UK born only a few miles apart
disagree on the meanings of words - are you going to have separate
conventions for towns, boroughs, villages, streets? Families?
Yes, I know you meant "country", but it's not a good start, is it?
The ISO standard sense meaning of country(1).
OK (whatever that is agreed as - it's not really relevant), but do
you seriously think it's granular enough? The country of the United
Kingdom is very disunited when it comes to the English language.
Norfolk, Belfast, Shetland and Liverpool are in the same ISO country
|
Also usages vary within those four places.
| Quote: | but they're hardly similar in the way they use English.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
I would prefer that there be only a single dictionary.
All the other things can be taken care of through the
ISO standard sense meaning subscripts.
The more I read your messages the less clear I am about who will use |
your proposed highly regimented and formalised dialect of English.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:50:03 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
.... |
| Quote: | Bob Lieblich
Time to go torture some cats
|
Dear Bob,
Will you be doing with Olcott what you did with the Dispenser,
pointlessly responding to his nonsensical posts? Man, particularly one
of your standing, was meant for higher callings. Every minute you and
others spend responding to his posts deprives the rest of us of time
we could hear you expound on issues that matter. Seriously.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:b27tm1pvqoefb7vsv1jlc3cmsofobdlogp@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:44:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd8593c2cf7fcfb98a201@news.ntlworld.com...
Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> spake thusly:
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd84ccb9194e65698a1fb@news.ntlworld.com...
Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> spake thusly:
I just defined it as the standard. ISO can later over-ride me and come
up with another set of defaults. In order for meaning to be precise, yet
not too cumbersome to specify, there would have to be default meanings.
These would come from the first sense meaning of the ISO standard
dictionary, unless explicitly superceded by an ISO standard sense meaning
subscript. The ISO standard would also require a standard set of notational
conventions. These could be county specific, yet tie back to the exact
same semantic meaning. It would be even better if we simply dropped
all but one of these arbitrary conventions.
Is that the UK or US meaning of "county"? Or some Australian or
South African meaning which I'm not familiar with? What is the level
of granularity? People in the UK born only a few miles apart
disagree on the meanings of words - are you going to have separate
conventions for towns, boroughs, villages, streets? Families?
Yes, I know you meant "country", but it's not a good start, is it?
The ISO standard sense meaning of country(1).
OK (whatever that is agreed as - it's not really relevant), but do
you seriously think it's granular enough? The country of the United
Kingdom is very disunited when it comes to the English language.
Norfolk, Belfast, Shetland and Liverpool are in the same ISO country
Also usages vary within those four places.
but they're hardly similar in the way they use English.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
I would prefer that there be only a single dictionary.
All the other things can be taken care of through the
ISO standard sense meaning subscripts.
The more I read your messages the less clear I am about who will use
your proposed highly regimented and formalised dialect of English.
|
I have already explicitly specified this about a dozen times.
This is used for formal documents such as business contracts
and scientific studies.
| Quote: | --
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
In message <MPG.1dd8593c2cf7fcfb98a201@news.ntlworld.com>, the Omrud
<usenet.omrud@gmail.com> writes
| Quote: | The ISO standard sense meaning of country(1).
OK (whatever that is agreed as - it's not really relevant), but do
you seriously think it's granular enough? The country of the United
Kingdom is very disunited when it comes to the English language.
Norfolk, Belfast, Shetland and Liverpool are in the same ISO country
but they're hardly similar in the way they use English.
|
But they're surprising similar when it comes to recognising the sensible
the three-letter abbreviations of ISO standard 4217, in which the
"symbol" for an English pound sign is GBP and the US dollar is USD.
They're so simple that even Scotch and Welsh can understand them.
I don't know what the abbreviation for Scotch pounds is and don't really
care so long as I'm not palmed off with them in my change.
--
James Follett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linz
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:47 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:b27tm1pvqoefb7vsv1jlc3cmsofobdlogp@4ax.com...
The more I read your messages the less clear I am about who will use
your proposed highly regimented and formalised dialect of English.
I have already explicitly specified this about a dozen times.
This is used for formal documents such as business contracts
and scientific studies.
|
'Is', or 'hope it will be'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:59 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Linz" <spam@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message news:dknpih$elb$1@fiasco.xenopsyche.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:b27tm1pvqoefb7vsv1jlc3cmsofobdlogp@4ax.com...
The more I read your messages the less clear I am about who will use
your proposed highly regimented and formalised dialect of English.
I have already explicitly specified this about a dozen times.
This is used for formal documents such as business contracts
and scientific studies.
'Is', or 'hope it will be'?
Intended to be. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in