|
|
I don't understand this sentence at all
Someone "moral" and "true"?
Fancy yourself a bit dont you timmy boy? So all people not like you are "gross"? how very moral and true of you.
I agree with Timothy. Most of you people are scum, and that is precisely why this forum is such a shit hole.
Both sides of this argument are absurd. Who wrote a sentence is completely irrelevant to how good it is, and presenting the authorship of a sentence to dispute negative opinions betrays an appalling lack of understanding of basic logic. Joe K's list of strawmen compounds the fallacy.
On the other hand, Timothy has been needlessly abusive, and his insulting others' "class", besides being snobbish, is a bit hypocritical given his errors. For instance: "By the way Edward Teach -- you call me snobby, only because the obvious contrast between someone moral and true such as I, convicts you of your own low and dirty estate. You are gross. You are nothing like me, and gave up the ability to be, years ago in your life. " There should be a comma between "way" and "Edward", a colon instead of a dash between "Teach" and "you", no comma between "snobby" and "only", "such as me", not "such as I", a second object for the preposition "between", no comma between "I" and "convicts", and no comma between "be" and "years". Also, "in your life", although not grammatically incorrect, is redundant. "and since it could have been written to convey its meaning more clearly and consisely, it is clunky. It's almost obtuse. Some people who can't think for themselves, look up to these "great" people as if they could do no wrong" "concisely", not "consisely", and no comma between "themselves" and "look".
I am not surprized by the name calling and derision found on the Internet, but disappointed. These are people who are trying to learn English. I gave my honest opinion of the sentence not given in any context and called a dirty word for it. Does the anonymity of the Internet let you get away with being like that?
For normal conversation that sentence would be just as I described it. I would like to address a few things. First of all, although I was not an English major, I have read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and many other authors that are famous too. Much of English literature is wordy and some of it deserves the positive attention it gets, but some of it is a little heavy handed. Even famous authors can get showy and if you talk that that in everyday speach few people will understand you.
Why should great writers care whether lazy plebes like you will understand them?
<<,For normal conversation that sentence would be just as I described it>>
Nowhere did the original poster state interest in normal conversation only. <<if you talk that that in everyday speach few people will understand you. >> Nowhere did the original poster speak of a desire to speak like that in everyday speech. Is it so hard to believe there are learners out there who are interested in more than "everyday conversation"?
It's hardly worth investing any more time in this nasty, unmoderated forum, but I want to give the intelligent post by Another Guest its due. I did read the arguments by Joe K, but I also believe they are strawmen and misrepresent my point, so I won't bother responding.
Another Guest: If I'm not mistaken, the logical fallacy they are committing is called Appeal to Authority. Have I been needlessly abusive? Did you read the vulgarity directed at me and others in this topic? Is it "abuse" if I call attention to someone's wrongness, if that wrongness proves they are a wolf in sheep's clothing, and not to be taken seriously? Now, I think you made a fallacy, based on a misunderstanding of my use of the word "class." It appears you are trying to say it's snobby and hypocritical for me to insult another's class, while I myself made grammatical errors, which would ostensibly indicate I too am "lower class." As opposed to the traditional "caste" type of class -- wherein the goodness of a person's heart and mind were mostly irrelevant, and it was his external position and appearance that mattered -- I am talking about the standard of measurement humans are PROPERLY judged by. For example, from the teachings of Jesus, the movie Titanic, the book Pride and Prejudice, etc. Remember the busybody rich ladies in Titanic, how on the outside they were well-groomed and poised, but inside were miserable, rude people? While Jack, who was homeless and poor, cared about people, treated people well, and never tried to exploit or extort others? Despite appearances, Jack was a high-class person, and those women were low-class. Jack developed something they couldn't even recognize, much less develop in themselves. And this is how I derided the class of the two low people on this board. They are not cultured, moral, developed, etc. In the new paradigm, class is not something you are born into or can buy into. In the new paradigm, class is something you CHOOSE. And unfortunately on this planet, many people choose to be nasty, low, dishonest, immoral people. They choose to be low-class. Regarding your interesting critique of my grammar: I wasn't writing an English paper, so I don't see why you should try to hold me to a higher standard than everyone else; I could have just as well written in all small letters with no punctuation like some other people do. But since it was interesting and you spent time on it, I'll reply. 1. The comma there is optional 2. Not sure if the dash is incorrect, per se, but I see your point 3. Emphasis/Clarity is a valid optional use of commas 4. "Such as I" is correct. ("moral and true such as I [am]") 5. You're right about "between." I must have lost my train of thought on that one 6. Emphasis/Clarity is a valid optional use of commas 7. Emphasis/Clarity is a valid optional use of commas 8. "in your life" is intentional, to establish the context I wanted to establish. Humans aren't mere computers. While it's -logically- redundant, it serves an important emotional purpose, which would not be accomplished if it weren't explicitly stated. 9. I absent-mindedly misspelled "concisely" 10. Emphasis/Clarity is a valid optional use of commas So, again, I'm yakking on the internet, not writing an Englsh paper, but you got me on 2 or 3 of the 10 items you listed. Do you disagree with my analysis?
<the teachings of Jesus, the movie Titanic, the book Pride and Prejudice, etc.>
It is an interesting and perhaps humorous list. <I did read the arguments by Joe K, but I also believe they are strawmen and misrepresent my point, so I won't bother responding. > To take only the third in the sequence: you did yourself say that you "barely" understood the sentence. If you barely understand a sentence, are you qualified to assess it?
Joe K:
You remark on my list; do you perceive the commonality in the three items? Here is my rationale for judging that sentence: I scrutinized it for a minute or two, picking apart the words and eventually coming to somewhat of an understanding of the meaning he intended to convey. Now, the meaning I believe he intended, could have been conveyed much more clearly, and was certainly not worth the minute or two it took me to decipher it. In response to someone who said a literary or artistic sentence doesn't have to be concise, that is true, IF the artistry is adding something -- in mood, style, beauty, etc. This particular wording serves to just delay the reader and doesn't really add anything in terms of mood, etc. It feels like just aimless posing as "creating a mood," and if it weren't Conrad who wrote it, I would think it was just aimless posing.
<Now, the meaning I believe he intended, could have been conveyed much more clearly>
To be able to say, with justice, that the intended meaning could have been conveyed much more clearly, one must have the much clearer sentence in mind. What would that sentence be? <You remark on my list; do you perceive the commonality in the three items? > Commonalities no doubt exist. But it was the incongruity of the three items that I remarked upon.
What incongruity?
I don't need to have a clearer sentence in mind, in order to properly judge that the meaning could have been conveyed more efficiently without loss of aesthetic.
YOU idiots! How can you judge how good a STAND ALONE sentence is! It's part of a BOOK! If it goes with the BOOK and ADDS TO THE BOOK then it is GOOD! If it doesn't fit with the book and DETRACTS from the book then it is BAD!
<I don't need to have a clearer sentence in mind, in order to properly judge that the meaning could have been conveyed more efficiently without loss of aesthetic.>
Come, come, my friend! If you do not have a clearer version of the sentence in mind, how are you in a position to say that a clearer version could exist?
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/f1.htm
I have written something on this sentence. I have linked it to the film, 'Apocalypse Now', which is about a river boat going up river into the heart of darkness to meet Kurtz, a colonialist who has gone native. Conrad contrast the silence (incomprehension) of the dark continent with the noisy chatter of the steamship. The colonists and the natives are unable to communicate with each other or even comprehend each other. Civilisation (Noise) v. The Savages (Silence) = Incomprehension |