zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:27 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:16 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:15 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Montreal, Canada
Chargone wrote:
way i see it, sociology has one of the same problems as economics:

it has FAR more in common with the rules surounding weather than it does the laws of gravity and such.

(though economics has the added bonus fun of none the less TRYING to treat it like physics, and then failing to account for the fact that people will react to the information given by the model of what's going on by attempting to game it, thus disrupting it's inputs and rendering it void)


Call me an heretic, but linguistics is pretty much in the same situation. As far as I can see, if a science somehow involve the behavior of humans (include in there Psychiatry and Psychology), it will be messy ("Language is messy, and you have to learn to live with that messiness", Erin McKean IIRC) because the human mind is messy and most definitely not very rational.

On the cannibalism issue that was discussed earlier, I want to note that there is a value almost universal to human culture: "the dead are to be respected" (i.e. corpse desacration is generally seen badly: even if the individual was loathed, we still think it inappropriate to a degree), and hence cannibalism is usually constructed in that it is seen as respectful to the deceased.

You can make something evil/alien and cannibalistic by going the other way: if you don't have that "respect" value, then a dead person is nothing else but a big lump of meat. Why treat it differently from a deer?

_________________
Golden age set the moral standard, the Silver Age revised it, the Bronze Age broke free of it and the Rust Age ran wild with it. -- A. David Lewis

We're all under strict orders not to bite the newbies. -- Amaya


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:22 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Pacific Northwest
Interesting post. Recently I've been trying to write the mythology stories for the Salthans, and I realized what I really need to ask is, what values are important to them, and why would they tell the stories, since it seems the purpose of the myths were to instil some sort of moral or practical leason.

@Circeus:
"You can make something evil/alien and cannibalistic by going the other way: if you don't have that "respect" value, then a dead person is nothing else but a big lump of meat. Why treat it differently from a deer?"

Actually in at least one real life culture (I forget which one), it's seen as honring to the perosn to each them, to basic have them "live on" in you, thus respect is what motivates the canabalism.

_________________
The Dikaesh Foundation
Discover Sylvane


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:17 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:15 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Montreal, Canada
Foolster41 wrote:
@Circeus:
"You can make something evil/alien and cannibalistic by going the other way: if you don't have that "respect" value, then a dead person is nothing else but a big lump of meat. Why treat it differently from a deer?"

Actually in at least one real life culture (I forget which one), it's seen as honoring to the person to each them, to basic have them "live on" in you, thus respect is what motivates the cannibalism.


Yeah, but my point is that variations on that aspect (including the "eating to appropriate the person's strength" that does exist in the real world IIRC) are really just a twist on the standard cross-cultural respect-for-the-dead more that makes it feel more palatable. Eliminating the more in question makes the cannibalism sound evil, but it's still not: as sirred notes, "cannibals don't eat flesh for the evulz, but it doesn't have to be for sociologically explainable reasons that directly correlate to human mores either.

_________________
Golden age set the moral standard, the Silver Age revised it, the Bronze Age broke free of it and the Rust Age ran wild with it. -- A. David Lewis

We're all under strict orders not to bite the newbies. -- Amaya


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:22 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:04 pm
Posts: 523
Chargone wrote:
(though economics has the added bonus fun of none the less TRYING to treat it like physics, and then failing to account for the fact that people will react to the information given by the model of what's going on by attempting to game it, thus disrupting it's inputs and rendering it void)

[snip]

i saw mention of supply and demand curves earlier too. nice for describing where your optimal price point at any given time Should be.... completely useless for predicting Anything. (economics is one of the few disciplines where the model not matching reality is considered to prove that Reality Is Doing It Wrong rather than that the model is inadiquate.)


Well, economic theory CAN predict distortions due to monopolies, monopolistic competition (basically brand names), and various government policies. As I understand it, the main thing that it causes economic predictions to go wonky is irrational choices. Economists assume people are all rational actors for simplicity, but people act against their own reasons or with incomplete or wrong information all the time, making it very much like the weather.

And as for theories affecting how people behave: that happens in sociology as well. Indeed, communism could be an example of both, as it originated with Karl Marx's political, social, and economic theories about the historical development of societies (though I think he was intending at one point to "push" society into his utopia by proposing it).

_________________
George Corley
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:11 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Santiago de Chile
Aaaww fuck it, I'm to lazy to get motivated enough to do this classics shit. I'm gonna just talk about sociological shit, and how it relates to conworlding, as said shit comes to mind. and like many of my best teachers at the uni, I'm gonna do it using random annecdotes to illustrate things.

Okay, first class of the new curriculum: Watzlawick's theory of Communication, with some J.L Ausin and Habermas for good measure.

So I had a bit of an altercation with a collective taxi driver like an hour ago. Collective taxi drivers are dudes that have a sort of broadly-defined pathways through the city that take passengers as they drive. You pay them like 2 euros and they get you to whatever point in their pathway you want. Of course you can also pay them more and they drift off their pathway a bit to take you there. So I was riding one home today, and just three blocks away from the corner of my street the guy drives away to drop off some soldier's boy to his place down at a you-can-only-live-here-if-youre-from-a-military-family housing complex a few kilometers away from his route. So the guy does, wastes some 20 minutes of my time carrying me around for the ride, and then he stops at the corner of my street and refuses to take me 200 meters into the street into my house. So I spewed profanity his way, he replied with more profanity, I slammed his door and he yells some stuff. I flip him the bird and walk away.

Before you go all "cool story bro" on me, let's get into Watzlawick. The guy posits some interesting ideas.

* You always communicate, irrespective of your intention. Or in other words, you cannot not communicate. Silence is a sign: it communicates something... if someone goes "I love you" and you remain silent, you're communicating something, she gets the message. she gets some message, at least. Just by walking you're sending gigabites of information just by walking down the street; your clothes, your gait, the position of your arms relative to your body and to each other... maybe your hands are clenched in a fist, that communicates you're not in a receptive, friendly mood but rather in a more dominant, or defensive, one. maybe you have a thick leather jacket on and some heavy-duty boots, that communicates a lot: you're strong, manly, dominant, you have money or you couldn't afford a leather jacket like that one. Maybe you're listening to music on your ipad: that communicates that you're moderately wealthy, not interested in what happens around you, and have a rich inner life, since you're listening to music, which is art. You're also communicating, if you have sufficiently loud music playing, your musical tastes, your identity in terms of "urban tribes" if you believe in that kind of thing, and your mood. You get the idea, nothing doesn't communicate.

*Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication: when I say "It's not nice to be a dick, Jimmy" I'm saying at least two different things. On one hand, I'm giving you a description of reality, a positive statement about things: no one would object to the idea posited in the phrase: being a dick is not nice, this is true. But of course Jimmy doesn't reply "I agree, but how do we define being a dick?" or anything of the sort: he maybe replies something like "I'm sorry, you're right, I was out of line". What's that about? What line? superficially the guy is changing the topic: I'm describing an identity, that of being a dick, as something that is not nice, and the guy's talking to me about lines? that's weird! But oh, what I'm *really* saying to Jimmy is something along the lines of "Dude, that wasn't okay. What you did was mean to me and it made me feel bad, so for the sake of our friendship don't do that kind of thing again. I'm not gonna stop being your friend or anything, I'm even willing to tease you about it, but I don't appreciate what you just did." That's the relationship aspect of the communication. It's all about you and me and some other people, not about positive noun phrases about the universe. This is why conlangs that are just grammars are kind of boring, and why pragmatics is so cool. "is there any chance you would consider being my wife?" is not a question; it's a marriage proposal: no one replies "Of course there's a chance, no one knows the future, and since its concievable that we could fall in love and become engaged I can only answer your question with a yes, even though I feel nothing for you beyond honest appreciation for a dear acquaintance.". It would be weird... ungrammatical, so to speak. in fact, unpragmatical.

** Communication is not a cause-and-effect message-and-reply pingpong thing. Seeing communication like that is moronic; it's more like a cycle of dialectically mutual intercausality with many different strings that pull and push it, from which the end result of the interaction emerges in a really complex manner.

** There's your linguistic communication, "How're you feeling?", there's your analog communication, like a hot chick's hand down your pants and her suggestive, seductive face while she posits the question, and there's your analog-verbal communication: the intonation of the question that puts the emphasis on the word *feeling*. All that stuff informs the interaction as a sexual tease. If there were the same linguistic thing, the question "How're you feeling", but alongside different analog things, like the same chick putting her hand in your forehead with a concerned voice, the interaction is completely different; it's your mum checking to see if you have a fever.

Yeah, your mum's hot in my example. I'm the professor here and I get to imagine your hot mum. You, however, the student, don't get to make references to my mum. Why? because

** Communications are either complementary -this is, we relate to each other because we're different- or symmetric -we relate to each other because we're the same-. An example of a complementary interaction would be buying a beer: you interact with the cashier because you guys are the same, right? if you were a cashier you wouldn't buy beers, you would charge the customers for them. You're, in fact, a customer, and you buy a beer from the guy because he has one and wants cash, and you want beer and have cash. The cashier expects you to choose a beer, give him a set amount of money, and be civil about it. You expect the guy to answer your questions, give you the exact beer you want, and only take away from your money or credit card the exact price of the beer and not more, even though he could go "what? hundred dollar bill? I don't know what you're talking about, sir, you haven't paid your beer yet" and assfuck your entire weekly budget. In a classroom the teacher relates to the students on the basis of difference: different roles, in fact; there's social roles and social norms that highlight that difference, so I can talk about your hot mum and you cant'. neat, aye?

Even neater, though, is Ausin and his theory of the Speech Act. I hereby declare that this is a speech act.

Get this: language is not only good for saying things: it's great for doing things. When I declare you man and wife, I'm not saying anything, I am performing the act of marrying you with someone else. When I tell my chick I love her, I'm not telling her anything: she knows full well I love her because of what we've been through and how nice and caring I am towards her: maybe I'm not the nicest guy, but I'm certainly nicer to her than I am to the taxi driver from before.... that asshole.

So yeah, speech is action, saying is doing: get your head around that one. Traditionally the positivist view of language is that you do things with actions, and you say things with language, but that's too mainstream for us social sciences hipsters; we reject the entire action-speech distinction. And we do it simply by saying things, aren't we awesome? let's take a moment to fap to how awesome we are. That's a joke, not a good joke, but a joke nontheless: jokes are speech acts as well! I'm using language to make you laugh, I'm not communicating anything, strictly speaking, I'm just, you know, bonding or something.

So here comes a bunch of words that end in "-locution", which means speaking, because they all have something to do with speech: we're talking about talking, aren't we? Okay, you have your locution, your illocution, and your perlocution, but y'all gonna have to wait to know what's what: or you can just, you know, google it. I was gonna illustrate the concept of felicity condition using the taxi example, but I don't have time: I made a speech act in which I illocutionarily promised to go to a party with some friends, and now they're using speech to get me to perlocutionarily go with them to it.

Bai

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:35 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:04 pm
Posts: 523
Sorry, got suddenly sidetracked -- why do you use euros in Chile?

_________________
George Corley
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:16 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 281
Ollock wrote:
Sorry, got suddenly sidetracked -- why do you use euros in Chile?


probably for the same reason Egypt uses dollars: because they want to.

_________________
MadBrain is a genius.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:55 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:38 pm
Posts: 285
Or because he's been traveling in Europe.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:04 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Santiago de Chile
Ollock wrote:
Sorry, got suddenly sidetracked -- why do you use euros in Chile?


We don't use euros anymore than we speak in english, and yet I post in English. I'm pretty sure few people in the board intuitively know how much money luca doscientos is

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:54 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Kind of surprised to see posts about linguistics and philosophy of language in a sociology thread... surprised and disappointed that if you're going to talk philosophy you don't mention the context. You're talking here about the Ordinary Language Philosophy or Oxford Linguistic Philosophy (either way, OLP) movement, which dominated Angloaustrian philosophy in early postwar era, from its capital in Oxford. The central figure was the lecturer, Austin*, but others include Grice (he of the maxims), Searle, Wisdom and Strawson. Their ideas had their origin in the either the later Wittgenstein's lecture series (views later reflected in his Philosophical Investigations, and/or Gilbert Ryle's book The Concept of Mind - they later generally adulated Ryle as the founder of the movement and contemned Wittgenstein as the enemy, but the exact relation, both theoretical and chronological, between Wittgenstein and Ryle is somewhat unclear.

Originally, however, these ideas originate with catholic theologians - which is why people tend not to use the marriage example (which you took from Austin, or if not then fortuitously mirrored Austin, who took it from theology) these days. According to Catholic theology, the priest is indeed perpetrating a performative speech act, but in Protestant weddings he is only stating his opinion ('pronouncing') on a point of fact.


*One of the best philosophy-book titles ever is a collection of Austin's work that puns both on its content and on the name of the author: Sense and Sensibilia.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:03 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:31 pm
Posts: 242
Salmoneus wrote:
Kind of surprised to see posts about linguistics and philosophy of language in a sociology thread...


A sociology thread on a board about linguistics and languages?

_________________
MI DRALAS, KHARULE MEVO STANI?!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:58 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Santiago de Chile
Nah, the marriage example can probably be explained simply because I'm latin american, although it may be the traditional example for the whole thing. regarding context, I just felt like rambling about something and the whole thing was what I had at the top of my brain. I intended it as an introduction to Habermas but I got carried away. As far as disciplinary fields go, I think they're a bit pointless. HCT, OLP, felicity condition analysis and concepts like Illocutionary force indicating devices and the classes of illocutionary acts have been extremely useful to me professionally in cualitative data analysis, and it leads quite nicely to things like Habermas. I'll post the second part of this soonish

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:44 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:43 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Virginia, U.S.A
This is a great thread and you are an excellent (and entertaining) writer, Torco.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:46 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Torco wrote:
HCT, OLP, felicity condition analysis and concepts like Illocutionary force indicating devices and the classes of illocutionary acts have been extremely useful to me professionally in cualitative data analysis,

Well obviously - that's how you can tell it's philosophy. Philosophy is the thing that helps you do all the other things.
Quote:
and it leads quite nicely to things like Habermas.

Philosophy leads to philosophy? A shock!

However, some context is important here, in that Habermas is the Mortal Enemy of people like Austin and Grice. He's a Continental, and descended from Gadamer and the Frankfurt School and horrible things like that.
[He's about the only Continental who gets taken seriously, so he's sometimes thought of as a sort of cross-over or apostate (the anti-Rorty, if you like), but people still think of him kind of the way medieval christians thought about jewish converts]

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:53 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
By the way, I wrote a little more about OLP here: http://zbb.spinnwebe.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32419&start=175 [and indeed about the later wittgenstein]

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:58 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Santiago de Chile
spats wrote:
This is a great thread and you are an excellent (and entertaining) writer, Torco.


Why thanks, man. glad you enjoy it.

Salmoneus wrote:
Torco wrote:
HCT, OLP, felicity condition analysis and concepts like Illocutionary force indicating devices and the classes of illocutionary acts have been extremely useful to me professionally in cualitative data analysis,

Well obviously - that's how you can tell it's philosophy. Philosophy is the thing that helps you do all the other things


If you say so... I'm not so sure those things help you do all other things. They're pretty useless in, say, automotive mechanics. The line between philosophy of the mind and psychology is pretty thin... you could even call all non-empirical psychology PotM. Anyway, thank you for your philosophical context, Sal.

Quote:
By the way, I wrote a little more about OLP here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32419&start=175 [and indeed about the later wittgenstein]


Shameless self-promotion much :P ?
nah, really, that's quite allright. I imagine these kind of threads, in particular yours, become a bit not-so-navigable after a while. They should have some sort of table of contents

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:19 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Torco wrote:
spats wrote:
This is a great thread and you are an excellent (and entertaining) writer, Torco.


Why thanks, man. glad you enjoy it.

Salmoneus wrote:
Torco wrote:
HCT, OLP, felicity condition analysis and concepts like Illocutionary force indicating devices and the classes of illocutionary acts have been extremely useful to me professionally in cualitative data analysis,

Well obviously - that's how you can tell it's philosophy. Philosophy is the thing that helps you do all the other things


If you say so... I'm not so sure those things help you do all other things. They're pretty useless in, say, automotive mechanics. The line between philosophy of the mind and psychology is pretty thin... you could even call all non-empirical psychology PotM. Anyway, thank you for your philosophical context, Sal.

Philosophy is extremely important in automotive mechanics. It's just that many of the philosophical principles that are important in understanding automotive mechanics are ones that have already been internalised by society, whereas the ones that are important in understanding communication are often ones that we still have to remind people about.
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, I wrote a little more about OLP here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32419&start=175 [and indeed about the later wittgenstein]


Shameless self-promotion much :P ?
nah, really, that's quite allright. I imagine these kind of threads, in particular yours, become a bit not-so-navigable after a while. They should have some sort of table of contents

That; and also that it was a long time ago and I'm sure many people didn't read it at the time. So, since it touches on the same topics, I thought people might be interested.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:19 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Santiago de Chile
Torco's Wonderful Crash Course on Discourse Analysis
also known as commenting on the board's drama

Some of you may be familiar with the whole Ojo thing. Well, it's a bit of a drift from a true conworlding orientation to this thread, but hey, since we're talking about communication here, plus I want to comment on board drama. sue me.

On this thread,, someone said this

Quote:
Seriously guys, he's obviously not retard-Xados. He capitalizes his (legible) sentences, writes with punctuation and uses the term "Glossophile" for god's sake. I see no reason to ban his account.


Determining someone's identity on a board is hard, but hey, let's try it. We're gonna do so from the perspective of communication, since that's exactly what we're talking about here. First, let's review some basic vocabulary.

Locution is the shit you say, literally, it is the words that come out of your mouth
Illocution is kind of what you mean by it: Illocutions are the speech acts that you perform while speaking: there are many kinds of illocutions. People have different illocutionary patterns: If I say to a dude something like "Let's get it on, baby" people who know me will probably think I'm either offering a fight or encouraging a party: If, say, the resident homosexual horny guy AHEM ASTRAIOS =) uses the same phrase on a dude, they're probably offering them something more... personal ;)

What I mean is that people have different speech patterns, different locutions for the same illocution, so to speak, and different preferred ways to formulate different illocutions, and so the same thing said by different people means something different.

A fun consequence of this is that you can identify someone by their illocutionary rythms. Check this out. Someone who says phrases like this has a clear pattern:

Quote:
yes it was something else but ignore the first 15 posts

Quote:
aaugh! how did i not see this but seriously this is for actuall arguments

Quote:
okay the library thing is intrusive, so that idea is scratched that idea but i just want to know where sources on your conlang are


The pattern, in case you didn't notice (come on, I highlited the parts with colours, don't you kids learn better with colours? what? this isn't kindergarden? sorry about that, moving on), the pattern is

Quote:
declaration - but - request


What is a declaration? a declaration is the illocutionary act to state that something is true: "this chair is blue", never mind the chair, never mind what I'm saying; what I'm doing here is declaring that the colour of the chair is true, this is, that the proposition 'chair's colour = blue' is a true one.

What is a request? Really? you have to ask? it's the act of asking someone to do something: it doesn't need to be a physical action, it can be an illocutionary speech act itself: "you have to tell me!" is such a request. It's not a declaration, you're not asserting that 'person X has a duty to tell speaker thing Y = TRUE', you're asking the person to tell you... something!

What? the blue thing from the second phrase isn't a request? of course it is!: this is for actuall arguments is just the locution, illocutionarily, The person here means 'do not make mock-arguments but reserve this thread for venting real ones, which is why I made it in the first place', an obvious request. Similarly, the "I just want to know where your blablaba" is, illocutively, too a request: it is requesting for the listener to please support his proyect of having a directory in order to easily find and therefore read everyone's stuff. Someone saying that isn't declaring an interest, they're requesting an action: to comply with their expectation of posting links to their constuff.

See? this illocutionary thing is fun!

_________________________

Okay, enough board drama:

for your homework

how do your various cultures formulate requests ? how do they formulate declarations ? and perhaps more interestingly, since this is about sociology ultimately, How do those forms vary according to various social statuses? [is that the plural of status?]. Do rich people request thing the same as poor people? how about poor people requesting something of a rich person? what about declarations?

I'll be grading your homeworks, so... yeah... you can win... like a photo of my dog or something.

EDIT: terminology mix-up lost in translation: what I above call declaratives are, in English, called assertives. declarations are assertions, and stuff.

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Last edited by Torco on Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Posts: 2974
Location: Israel
Torco wrote:
AHEM ASTRAIOS =)
Quote:
I may well have earned the label of resident horny gay guy but there's no need to point it out all the time. :P
Haz I did it rite??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:24 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 10:42 am
Posts: 639
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
This place is weeod.

_________________
vec


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:36 am 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:46 pm
Posts: 68
Location: New Zealand, Earth, Sol.
this seems both blindingly obvious and really obscure at the same time now that i've read it, but not the sort of thing i'd tend to think of... (that thought got scrambled somewhere between what occured in my brain as i read it and what i actually typed <_<)

useful information and thoughts are useful.

heh. profiling my postings... i've not no idea what else would be included, but over use of parentheses, ellipses, and a complete lack of capitalisation but for emphasis are probably in there :D (i think i got those right)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:31 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Santiago de Chile
Astraios wrote:
Torco wrote:
AHEM ASTRAIOS =)
Quote:
I may well have earned the label of resident horny gay guy but there's no need to point it out all the time. :P
Haz I did it rite??

:D u winz, ser

@Chargone: Social Science has that trait: take Marxist Class Theory: it feels pretty obvious, almost so much as to be unnecesary to mention; people do what's in their best interest, both as individuals and as groups. But the fact of the matter is that stating it out loud, and connecting it with other stuff, allows you to think about it much better.

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:06 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
Please don't ever analyze my habits, it would embarrass me to find out that I have some crazy quirk or habit...

*chews fingernails*

_________________
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group