I've been trying to beat the lost sinner, but he keeps kicking my butt and Lucatiel is not of much help :/ so I've turned around and am in Huntsman's Copse.
What level are you?
Just curious, how far are you in DS2?
You know I realized something.
I would have been perfectly satisfied if [spoiler]Sherlock getting shot and using his brain to fight back death[/spoiler] was the climax of S3E3.
Frozen is beautiful.
I liked Firefox, but the issue was that Flash decided to go haywire and crazy and watching YouTube videos became a chore as I had to get up Chrome(where it worked great, other things just didn't work, pls google).
Yes, very glad for my dogs recovery. I hope nothing happens that stops the recovery so she'll be up begging for treats ^__^
Pale Moon is so fucking amazing. What the fuck do other companies even do with their browsers nowadays. Come on Google/Microsoft/Apple/Mozilla. Pale Moon is like the definitive version of Firefox :T
Thank you for The Stanley Parable! I really wanted to play it actually so I am excited to install it. I am sure it is less pretentious than I thought because my first impressions are usually wrong.
I like random.
I have yet to find my tumblr style anyway. :'>
Can I follow you?
I luff Rose she's my favorite companion.
Your Doctor Who sig of Rose makes me wanna cry xD why would you put such a depressing gif??
I just have to say it. I really like your avatar.
I haven't put words in your mouth and you didn't "call bullshit" on my comparison, you just said it's "completely different" without explaining why. This entire time you've been making the argument that definitions are determined by scientific classification; that this is why the words "twilight" and "sunset" must remain distinct and never overlap, because that's how the words are used scientifically. If you want to remain consistent, then you must give the same treatment to all words. Otherwise you are a hypocrite and your argument logically contradicts itself to meaninglessness.
grammar is not a set of laws. You keep insisting it is but insistence does not make you right. Provide an actual, logical argument, [I]please.[/I] Laws are what they are because they are put in place by some authority responsible for setting and enforcing laws. There is no equivalent when it comes to grammar.
if anyone is making straw person arguments and putting words in the other's mouth, it is you. I never once said that people do not need different words to refer to different times of day. I never claimed that everything was relative, or that it is not important to differentiate between words.
what I have said is that the words "twilight" and "sunset", like many, like [I]all[/I] words, are inherently meaningless and derive their meaning from the way they are used by the people who say them. Like many words, these words have multiple acceptable definitions, some of which are mutually exclusive and some of which overlap. Which definition is the right definition to use depends on the context and the audience you are speaking to. Which words you should use depends on what information you wish to convey and who you wish to convey it to.
rules of grammar are [I]useful[/I], I would never deny that. So are definitions and distinctions. These are tools which enable us to understand each other, the fundamental purpose of language itself. If I can say something and have the intended message clearly get through to the person I am talking to, that is a successful use of language.
once again you've missed the point entirely. You're insisting that scientific terminology is to be preferred whenever possible. My point is that this simply isn't true, if the purpose of language is to be understood. If you told someone to go to the store and buy you some berries, using the strict botanical definition, and they came back with strawberries, blackberries, and raspberries, that demonstrates a critical failure to properly convey information. Most people don't understand "berries" in the strict botanical sense.
unless you insist that everyone use the term "berries" in the botanical sense and that, therefore, the majority of people are using it [I]wrong[/I], your argument is self-contradictory. If that is, in fact, what you are trying to argue, then you contradicted yourself earlier when you said "things ought to be used in a way where others can understand it", because clearly you don't believe that. You believe that things ought to be used in the way dictated by scientists, not necessarily in a way that most others will understand.
as for the last part of your post...I don't even...are you listening to the words you are saying? Are you seriously trying to argue that grammar is [I]literally[/I] a law? Because honestly, that doesn't make any sense. One of the key properties of a law is that it is issued and enforced by a government.
grammar doesn't work like that. Once again, grammar is emergent. There is no centralized organization that legislates grammar. Comparing it to law is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
adhering to scientific taxonomy when discussing scientific subjects is a great idea, since it provides a clear, unambiguous standard people can refer to in order to be understood and to understand others, so that you don't have to spend half your time defining the terms you use before or during a discussion.
but a lot of words have meanings outside of strict scientific classification, which provides our language with a rich, colorful vocabulary. Yes, words ought to be used in such a way that the concept they are meant to convey is understood. This is, in fact, the very point I've been trying to argue with you this entire time.
this does not always mean using the definitions for words which the scientific community has agreed upon; in fact, sometimes strict scientific definitions clash with more commonly understood ones. Did you know that, according to botanical classifications, bananas are berries? So are watermelons, pumpkins, and tomatoes. Olives, cherries, blackberries, raspberries, and strawberries, on the other hand, are not berries at all, according to the botanical definition.
yet, if you want to be understood in common conversation, you wouldn't refer to the former set as berries and the latter set as drupes, aggregates, and accessory fruits. Most people would have no idea what you were talking about. Being understood and using "correct" language is much less about adhering to strict standards and more about knowing your audience.
laws of grammar are like everything else in the science of language—descriptive, not normative. If you study language, you obtain your facts through observation, like you do in any other science. What do you observe? You observe the language, the way people use it. Rules of grammar are emergent. Nobody decided them, or dictated them, they just arose naturally. We know what they are not because someone wrote a book of rules but because we observed them. This should be most evident with the language we are using now—if you think the rules governing the English language make any sense at all, you're insane. There's no intelligent design behind it.
rules of language are not normative, even though they are enforced in schools. There's no grammar police, only grammar Nazis. I never said words can mean whatever I want them to, or that I can redefine them as I please. Certainly I could if I wanted to, nobody would stop me, but language is a tool to be used for conveying information. As long as the message I am trying to send is understood by the receiving end, I have used the tool as properly as can be.
I don't know what kind of science you're using, because true science is descriptive, not normative. In linguistics, the science of language, the only thing you can be objective about is how words are actually used. There is no objective standard that dictates how words [I]ought[/I] to be used. This is the science and education I've been using.
and who gave you the authority to dictate "correct" usage of language?
I'm not missing the point, I'm saying your entire point is bullshit and irrelevant.
you're missing the point entirely. I'm talking about words and language, not concepts. Saying that [I]Acinonyx jubatus[/I] and [I]Panthera onca[/I] are the same animal is objectively wrong because the concepts are distinct, but the words we use to refer to these concepts ("cheetah" and "jaguar", respectively) are completely arbitrary and are only "correct" insofar as they are the words you should use if you want to be clearly understood.
there's nothing inherent to the cheetah that dictates we should use that specific combination of letters and sounds to refer to it. It's entirely consensus and if the consensus were to change, for any reason at all, so would the "correct" word. This happens all the time, in fact, as language evolves and words that once referred to one concept start referring to a different concept.
it's also wrong to think that jaguars and leopards are the same animal, but I could refer to either one of them with the word "panther" and be completely right.
I'm not arguing scientific terms though, I'm arguing language. Why are the scientific definitions of words to be preferred over other usages? Scientists only dictate "proper" language as it pertains to their science. Scientific terms are mutually agreed upon by the scientific community to ease communication. A particular usage of a word might be incorrect according to some arbitrary scientific standard, but perfectly acceptable in broader understanding.
and who decides how a word is "intended" to be used anyway? Very few words in the English language can be said to have a single, definite coiner.
but [I]why[/I] am I wrong? You haven't defended your point at all beyond saying "I'm right, you're wrong." How am I supposed to take an argument like that seriously? How am I supposed to argue against such an argument?
and when did I make an argument against "using specific words for specific things"? The vague period of time between day and night isn't that specific and can be referred to with several different terms, as I already proved to you with [I]multiple[/I] thesauruses.
what makes some words "correct" and other words "incorrect"? Who is the one who dictates proper language? It is some objective, empirical fact, observable scientifically like gravity or evolution?
I can and, in fact, already have argued against it.
the only reason the word "ovaries" is preferred over the word "penises" when referring to the pair of ovum-producing reproductive organs in the vertebrate female reproductive system is because that is the word that is best understood to refer to that concept. You could use the word "penises" if you wanted to, but nobody would understand you as referring to the concept that you are attempting to refer to.
language is about conveying information. The important part about language is comprehension; that is, being able to convey information in such a way that other people understand it.
I never said anything about people considering two different times of day to be the same, though. Certainly it's logically impossible for two different things to be the same, as that would be a contradiction.
rather, I merely pointed out that people use two different arbitrary combinations of glyphs and their corresponding vocalizations to refer to similar concepts. That's how language works. There's no judge of what usages of language are correct and incorrect. It's just a matter of how people understand arbitrary symbols and sounds.
the way you use and interpret the definitions of words is very relevant in an argument about the definitions of words.
FIRST VM OF 2013
That generally tends to happen to me too, but I usually try to explain myself a little better. That or I ignore what they have to say about it if they don't understand my way of thinking.
A reset button would be great for life.
I was just playing the Quija board and then I went to bed, not gonna be on long today, and I may not be on for the next two days but that is unclear as of yet.
Oh, you're married? That's great! I'm engaged, we're getting married once we both finish college. ^__^
While I don't enjoy losing time to commute back and forth between school, I'm thankful I don't dorm..I'd never be able to handle it. I need silence to study, any noise or commotion drives me [i]crazy[/i].
Ah yeah, salon shampoo/hair products are crazily overpriced. :/ I love "Bedhead" brand products, but I don't buy them too often because they're so pricey. Their hair serum is great (and a little goes a very long way, I had this one little bottle for several years, lol). I also love the "Healthy Sexy Hair: Soya Want Full Hair" hairspray, it gives such volume! I just don't like the price, at least $17 at the cheapest..but I love it so much that I'm willing to sacrifice the money for it. XD
Ah, so you have a new roommate? Hopefully that's going well for you! My close friend has had issues with her roommates in college, but I think it's a bit different (and better) than when you're not in school. In college, it seems there's often conflict in personalities when it comes to studying habits and noise..I think a major mistake they make is mixing people with different majors. :/ A pharmacy major versus drama major are clearly going to have different studying requirements.. But colleges often tend to handle most things half-assed. XD
Oh and about hair products! Do you ever use Fructis? I love their products. Especially the hair spray, smells even prettier than the Tresemme stuff!
Haha, really?? That's so weird! This one, right?
That stuff smells so pretty. And you're welcome!
I haven't been up to anything too interesting these past days, lol. Just been lazing around trying to make the most of having nothing to do in my last few days of freedom before school starts..mostly reading, catching up on TV shows, and ZU. What about you? ^__^