From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism Date: 1999/09/19 Message-ID: <3146751265792836@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 527102393 References: <3144404199547949@naggum.no> <37C17E00.D039AEBD@elwood.com> <_Mfw3.358$m84.6201@burlma1-snr2> <3144558626572658@naggum.no> <3144569678548813@naggum.no> <3144685738025120@naggum.no> <3144868668727852@naggum.no> <3145340726081755@naggum.no> <3145817762263928@naggum.no> <3146111469145085@naggum.no> <3146287248569582@naggum.no> <3146678502739903@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 937762468 3028 193.71.66.49 (19 Sep 1999 17:34:28 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; +1 510 435 8604; http://www.naggum.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Sep 1999 17:34:28 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Raffael Cavallaro | I didn't read anything into your post. This is what the expression means | in english; every native speaker understood your use of this expression | the same way. That's why I was not the only one to point out that people | have no real choice but to accept the "horrible working conditions." so all I need to prove you wrong, now, is to find _one_ native speaker who is able to read something and understand that not every "idiom" has to be used idiomatically every time. since that proof has already been posted here, what the hell do you think you're going to accomplish with this insistence that there is only way to read something, regardless of context? the rational way to do what you're trying to do extremely uintelligently, would be to (1) be aware of your assumptions, and (2) express them as just that: your assumptions. this would mean that you understood something in a particular way, instead of stupidly blaming others for a number of _secondary_ consequences of your misunderstanding, even in the presence of evidence to the contrary, and it would shatter the impression that you lack the ability to examine your assumptions. it would also make it possible to deal with you. as is, you react extremely uintelligently, and dealing with your accusations is meaningless -- you are obviously so devoid of ability to examine your assumptions that even when you accuse someone of not writing your preferred style of English, you _continue_ to carp on what they wrote as if you are never going to admit to being in the wrong, no matter what. because of your unintelligent response, there is never going to be any way to make you understand, either: even when you know it was not meant idiomatically, you refuse to read it literally. such insistence is that of a fanatic, and you have given me reason to think that you are indeed fanatical. accusations of being _racist_ because your third world is not the default context reinforces it. | If you _really_ thought otherwise, it might explain your confusion as to | the reactions of others in this forum. which others are you talking about? as far as I see, you're the only nutcase you didn't understand when not to read something idiomatically and insisted on accusing instead of examining your assumptions. I find this quite amazing -- I have yet to meet any actually native speakers who fail to understand any "idiomatic" expression literally when it is called for, if this is indeed your argument. however, it has been common for those who have English as their second language to be "single-mode" with respect to such things, especially with languages which are "single-mode" as their first language, or even their predominant language. | But it is _certainly_ not the case that any native speaker understood you | to be asking a real question. this self-serving generalization is obviously false, and the evidence is right here, in this newsgroup. that you insist on your single-mode view of understanding "idioms" suggests to me that talking to you means finding out which single meaning every expression has in your view, and I'm not going to continue this process. I apologize for not seeing your lack of insight into your own assumptions sooner, so much of this could have been avoided. and, please, take your insistence that "it's idiomatic" elsewhere. thanks. #:Erik