Yeah, I am aware of that, but this is/. -- if one person is going to make a definite, all-encompassing statement, I sure as hell am going to respond with one:)
Not that I should feed the trolls, but did you notice the word "prescriptive" in there? Prescriptive grammar is what you are describing as the "crap grammar rules." So, basically, you haven't pointed out anything that hasn't already been pointed out. So much for blowing holes in my argument. On the other hand, it is a joke, so it doesn't really have to work on all logical levels.
I assume you are ducking because you realise that it was a joke and that you have no sense of humor?
By the way, the other linguistics joke I know:
A freshman is making his way across the green at Harvard. It is his first day, and he is not certain where anything is. He stops the first prof he sees, and asks him: Hey, prof, where's the library at?
The proffessor, with a look of utter disgust, replies: Son, here are Harvard, we do not end our sentences with prepositions!
The student replies: Oh! I am so sorry... where's the library at, asshole?
Tsk tsk! Every one knows that red lines are for spelling, and green lines are for grammar. Now, write that out on the blackboard 500 times before you go home.
You could make that argument, but if you apply it to English, you must (as you say) apply it to English. The point is to get the general gist across, and I would contend that more is understood than is not understood, and that understanding comes from ideological differences rather than grammatical ones (i.e. what is the color red? how does it differ from rust, or mauve, or magenta, or blood?).
there should be a comma between 'uppity' and 'howling'
there should be a comma between 'howling' and 'condescending'
'response' should be 'respond'
'voila' should be capitalized
should read: 'via [a|the] redundant' OR 'via redundant networks'
there should be a period after '(tm)'
Wrong. Read some Pinker and Chomsky. There is underlying grammar to the English language (as well as all other languages), and it is fixed. However, this grammar is understood by infants, and is not what is taught in schools. Yes, English is organic, but that does not mean that it is infinitely changable. I am organic, yet I cannot grow wings and fly.
What is taught in schools is prescriptive grammar -- an way of ordering the language developed by the Victorians in order to make English more like Latin (which was considered the pinacle of languages -- the Vickies had a thing for the Romans).
Incidently, I do not think that you are using the work 'pidgin' properly. Rightly used, it is a pseudo-language that lacks grammar. Pidgins are generally spoken when two or more populations that do not speak the same language are thrust together (think American slave populations, or merchant towns). Given enough time, people will begin to pick up vocabulary from eachother, and will be able to communicate general ideas, but without any consistant structure. Comepare this to creoles, which is what their children will generally speak: a grammatical language that combines all of the input languages. I believe that you are using pidgin to denote argots, jargons, dialects, and accents.
Grammar, the structure that underlies all languages, must be "functional" in order for people to understand eachother. Grammar is "useful" only so far as it furthers communication, and is functional. Therefore, because English is a language in which people can communicate, I would argue that the grammar of English is both functional and useful, though perhaps not the easiest to parse.
A linguistics professor is giving a lecture. He explains that in English, prescriptive grammar dictates that a double negative creates a positive, for instance "I ain't got no money" would parse as "I have money." He then goes on to explain that in many languages, a double negative creates a more emphatic negative, for instance, in Russian "U menya nyet nichyevo" (literally, "By me is not had nothing") uses two negative phrases to create a stronger negative. Furthermore, the prof explains, in most languages, using two positives will create a more emphatic positive, or at the very least, will not change the meaning of a phrase, for instance "Yes, I have bananas" is fundamentally the same as "I have bananas." However, the proffessor concludes, in no language does a double positive create a negative.
A student, in the back of the class, muttering under his breath, was heard to utter "Yeah, right."
Not entirely true. Languages generally fall into one of two categories: word ordered languages, and declined languages (these are not the technical terms -- I can't remember what those terms are). English is very dependent upon word order, as are most Germanic languages. A word's purpose in the sentence is dertermined by its position in the sentence. In languages like Russian and Latin, a word's role is dependent upon prefixes, suffixes, alterations in spelling/pronounciation, &c, and word order is less important. There are plenty of examples of languages were word order is not very relevant, including Latin and Russian.
No offence, but you are haggling about minor semantics. People are getting noisier (i.e. there are higher concentrations of people, creating more noise). That noise is a part of the environment (i.e. the world). The world is getting noisier. Yes, it is shorthand, but it is a perfectly understood way of saying that the environments in which people are living are, indeed, getting noisier. Of course, there are places where there is not as much noise. The top of Wheeler Peak comes to mind, as do wilderness areas. More rural areas in general are quiet as well. However, it is not incorrect to say that the world (meaning the environment in which we live) is becoming increasingly noisy.
In the Reno area I can think of three things:
88.7 - Local NPR, good weather and traffic (but bad jazz throughout the day)
90.5 - NPR station from Sacto, better programming throught the day
97.3 - 'Bob', an indy radio station that (while the DJs have their favorites) plays a nice mix of music from the last 20 or 30 years
Neat... I didn't realize that there were sheild volcanoes in Oregon (my knowledge is much more centralized to the Great Basin, and only to the extent that it is useful for an archaeologist, i.e. where are the tool stones?). How old are those volcanoes, and how do they relate to the "Ring of Fire" volcanism in the area? I would have thought that anything in central or eastern Oregon would have had to move up through a fair amount of continental crust, thus picking up a lot of silicic material on the way. However, (again) my knowlege of the region and topic is limited. Thanks in advance for any explanation.
1) Obsidian is generally related to rhyolitic flows. Where basalt is high in iron and magnesium (thus, mafic -- ma from magnesium, fic from ferous or feric), rhyolite is full of silicon. Andesite is sort of in between. Silicic lava is very viscous -- it tends not to flow as well, and get backed up in a volcano. Then, when enough pressure is present, is 'slodes. Obsidian is a very, very silicic rock. It cools from lava to solid rock very quickly, so does not from a crystaline structure, but it is chemically very similar to rhyolite or pumice. Thus, that does not refute the grandparent, but rather reinforces it.
2) There have been basalt flows. It is possible for composite volcanoes to have basalt flows. Think about what composite means -- a combination of two or more things. Composite volcanoes are not quite sheild volcanoes, and not quite cinder cones. Eruptions can be either highly mafic, or highly silicic. Thus, basalt flows are not out of place.
3) The sharp, dark red rock that you are seeing is probably andesite. There is a lot of andesite in the region. Andesite is a fairly silicic rock (though it does get the red color from more mafic minerals). It is another kind of rock that can be expected to come from a composite volcano.
So, while your observations don't exactly fit with the grandparent's comment, they are not inconsistant.
Slashdot user since before there were user accounts (and when they were launched, alas! I thought "why would I want to waste time registering for an account? They'll probably just sell my email address to spammers...")
No kidding... it took me two or three years before I decided to register a user. Oh, well.
I have only one more thing to add to the thread (because you obviously did not read the article that I linked to): there are many, many Supreme Court cases that bring up dress codes. In some cases, the SCOTUS has ruled that certain dress codes are constitutional, in other cases, the Court has ruled other types of dress codes unconstitutional. As nearly as I can tell, the differences come from two things:
(1) The type of speech abridged must be "important" or "valuable" speech in order for a dress code to be unconstitutional. Political speech is valuable. Obscenities and fighting words are not. Thus, political speech is protected more than obscenity and fighting words. Thus, a school is well within its rights to insist that students not wear t-shirts with graphic sexual images, or halter tops that are overly relvealing, or pants that sag down to one's ankles.
(2) The neutrality of the dress code is also important. A dress code that bans chains is neutral with respect to the content of the speech. Schools are not trying to prevent kids from wearing chains because they object to the content of the speech, but because the chains themselves are dangerous. By the same token, guns are not banned at schools because schools object to free expression through sporting a weapon, but because guns are dangerous. A prohibition against hats falls into a similar realm, i.e. banning hats is done not to squash a particular statement, but as a general rule -- it is neutral to the content of the speech (and even then, there are exceptions, i.e. yamakas for Jewish children).
The point is, whether or not you agree that public school dress codes are right, they have been held up by the Supreme Court, and they are legal. My point has not been that dress codes are a good thing (though I think that certain restraints are more than appropriate), but that they are legal, and constitutional, and enforcable. If you think that they are an inhibition to free speech, then you ought to find a lawyer, and sue a school district. Maybe your case will make it to the Supreme Court, and dress codes will be overturned. I doubt it, though, as there is a fairly large amount of case law on the subject, and I doubt that you would get out of the Circuit Court.
Ugh... Binford. The best evidence shows anatomically modern humans showing up no earlier than about 100,000 years ago, and H. neanderthalensis disappearing about 25-30,000 years ago... earlier in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. 90,000 years, no. However, there is good evidence that both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis existed at the same time (though in different areas) for quite a long time.
Clothing is not protected speech. If you think that it is, you may want to review the Supreme Court cases involving dress codes. As to suggestive clothing and profanity, why don't you take that up with the FCC? Stop making assumptions. It makes you look bad. Though the personal attacks weren't helping your case much either.
There is one major case that I can think of in which the SCOTUS has struck down dress policies. That was Tinker v. the Des Moines School District. In that case, it was ruled that wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War was okay because (1) the students were quiet and passive (2) the students were not being disruptive and (3) the students were not impinging upon others rights.
Now, have a look at this article: http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_13.html
The bibliography is important as well, there are several Supreme Court cases referenced. Dress codes are legal and enforcable in public schools. Again, freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want where ever you want.
Now, let me take your example about self defense. A knife is for self defense. So is a gun. Should kids be allowed to bring these to school? And under the pretense of first amendment protection? I am inclined to say no.
Finally, I am an American. I was born in Arizona, raised in Iowa, went to school in California, and now live in Nevada. The website that I link to is Introversion Software's site for their game Darwinia. Before you start calling names, you ought to try and get your facts straight.
Personal attacks. Nice. Shows how mature you are, and how strong your point it. In fact, clothing, in and of itself, is not considered speech. Of the pieces that may be considered speech, the schools are generally justified in prohibiting them. Are you allowed to curse on a schoolyard or in class? No. Are you allowed to make obscene sexual comments at school? No. Are you allowed to encourage children to drink, smoke, or otherwise imbibe substances that are illegal for them? No. Most of the dress code policies are directed at those kinds of attire (no clothing with profanity, no clothing with sexually explicit images or text, no clothing with cigarette, alcohol or drug endorsements).
Now, let us look at a policy of not hats indoors. Are hats (in generally, not specifically) a form of speech? No, they are not. So, it is allowed for schools to ban hats and other headgear indoors. There are many reasons for this, some of which I have outlined above, and in other posts. On the other hand, some kinds of headgear are constitutionally protected as RELIGIOUS symbols (i.e. a yamaka). A student may wear those, in they same way that they may wear a cross, as it is a form of religious expression.
Okay, how about chains (you know, the ones that many kids wear to hang onto their wallets?). Again, not a form of expression in a general sense. Furthermore, they are dangerous in a school setting. In a fight, they can be a weapon. In a PE class, they are dangerous.
It is not inappropriate for a public school to demand that students dispatch themselves in a certain manner. A dress code is part of that. It does not violate someone's First Amendment rights to require them to adhere to a dress code any more than it violates their rights to insist that they not shout out "Fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech is not the freedom say whatever you want -- there are limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. You are dismissed.
Yeah, I am aware of that, but this is /. -- if one person is going to make a definite, all-encompassing statement, I sure as hell am going to respond with one :)
Not that I should feed the trolls, but did you notice the word "prescriptive" in there? Prescriptive grammar is what you are describing as the "crap grammar rules." So, basically, you haven't pointed out anything that hasn't already been pointed out. So much for blowing holes in my argument. On the other hand, it is a joke, so it doesn't really have to work on all logical levels.
I assume you are ducking because you realise that it was a joke and that you have no sense of humor?
By the way, the other linguistics joke I know:
A freshman is making his way across the green at Harvard. It is his first day, and he is not certain where anything is. He stops the first prof he sees, and asks him: Hey, prof, where's the library at?
The proffessor, with a look of utter disgust, replies: Son, here are Harvard, we do not end our sentences with prepositions!
The student replies: Oh! I am so sorry... where's the library at, asshole?
Not to mention 'meeses' ('meese' being the plural form of 'mouse').
English is a complex and "dirty" language, effective usage can involve breaking what are the accepted rules.
In this, English is no different from any other language.
Tsk tsk! Every one knows that red lines are for spelling, and green lines are for grammar. Now, write that out on the blackboard 500 times before you go home.
Damnit, stop using run-ons! For the love of God, stop with the run-ons! The paper clip will kill you while you sleep!
You could make that argument, but if you apply it to English, you must (as you say) apply it to English. The point is to get the general gist across, and I would contend that more is understood than is not understood, and that understanding comes from ideological differences rather than grammatical ones (i.e. what is the color red? how does it differ from rust, or mauve, or magenta, or blood?).
there should be a comma between 'uppity' and 'howling'
there should be a comma between 'howling' and 'condescending'
'response' should be 'respond'
'voila' should be capitalized
should read: 'via [a|the] redundant' OR 'via redundant networks'
there should be a period after '(tm)'
Wrong. Read some Pinker and Chomsky. There is underlying grammar to the English language (as well as all other languages), and it is fixed. However, this grammar is understood by infants, and is not what is taught in schools. Yes, English is organic, but that does not mean that it is infinitely changable. I am organic, yet I cannot grow wings and fly.
What is taught in schools is prescriptive grammar -- an way of ordering the language developed by the Victorians in order to make English more like Latin (which was considered the pinacle of languages -- the Vickies had a thing for the Romans).
Incidently, I do not think that you are using the work 'pidgin' properly. Rightly used, it is a pseudo-language that lacks grammar. Pidgins are generally spoken when two or more populations that do not speak the same language are thrust together (think American slave populations, or merchant towns). Given enough time, people will begin to pick up vocabulary from eachother, and will be able to communicate general ideas, but without any consistant structure. Comepare this to creoles, which is what their children will generally speak: a grammatical language that combines all of the input languages. I believe that you are using pidgin to denote argots, jargons, dialects, and accents.
Grammar, the structure that underlies all languages, must be "functional" in order for people to understand eachother. Grammar is "useful" only so far as it furthers communication, and is functional. Therefore, because English is a language in which people can communicate, I would argue that the grammar of English is both functional and useful, though perhaps not the easiest to parse.
A linguistics professor is giving a lecture. He explains that in English, prescriptive grammar dictates that a double negative creates a positive, for instance "I ain't got no money" would parse as "I have money." He then goes on to explain that in many languages, a double negative creates a more emphatic negative, for instance, in Russian "U menya nyet nichyevo" (literally, "By me is not had nothing") uses two negative phrases to create a stronger negative. Furthermore, the prof explains, in most languages, using two positives will create a more emphatic positive, or at the very least, will not change the meaning of a phrase, for instance "Yes, I have bananas" is fundamentally the same as "I have bananas." However, the proffessor concludes, in no language does a double positive create a negative.
A student, in the back of the class, muttering under his breath, was heard to utter "Yeah, right."
Not entirely true. Languages generally fall into one of two categories: word ordered languages, and declined languages (these are not the technical terms -- I can't remember what those terms are). English is very dependent upon word order, as are most Germanic languages. A word's purpose in the sentence is dertermined by its position in the sentence. In languages like Russian and Latin, a word's role is dependent upon prefixes, suffixes, alterations in spelling/pronounciation, &c, and word order is less important. There are plenty of examples of languages were word order is not very relevant, including Latin and Russian.
No offence, but you are haggling about minor semantics. People are getting noisier (i.e. there are higher concentrations of people, creating more noise). That noise is a part of the environment (i.e. the world). The world is getting noisier. Yes, it is shorthand, but it is a perfectly understood way of saying that the environments in which people are living are, indeed, getting noisier. Of course, there are places where there is not as much noise. The top of Wheeler Peak comes to mind, as do wilderness areas. More rural areas in general are quiet as well. However, it is not incorrect to say that the world (meaning the environment in which we live) is becoming increasingly noisy.
SORRY, I'M AFRAID YOU WILL HAVE TO SPEAK UP!
Yes, you stupid lameness filter, I know it is like yelling... you see, that was done for comic effect.
In the Reno area I can think of three things:
88.7 - Local NPR, good weather and traffic (but bad jazz throughout the day)
90.5 - NPR station from Sacto, better programming throught the day
97.3 - 'Bob', an indy radio station that (while the DJs have their favorites) plays a nice mix of music from the last 20 or 30 years
Neat... I didn't realize that there were sheild volcanoes in Oregon (my knowledge is much more centralized to the Great Basin, and only to the extent that it is useful for an archaeologist, i.e. where are the tool stones?). How old are those volcanoes, and how do they relate to the "Ring of Fire" volcanism in the area? I would have thought that anything in central or eastern Oregon would have had to move up through a fair amount of continental crust, thus picking up a lot of silicic material on the way. However, (again) my knowlege of the region and topic is limited. Thanks in advance for any explanation.
You know you can change the keybindings, da? It is in the Options menu, or you can hack the preferences file by
1) Obsidian is generally related to rhyolitic flows. Where basalt is high in iron and magnesium (thus, mafic -- ma from magnesium, fic from ferous or feric), rhyolite is full of silicon. Andesite is sort of in between. Silicic lava is very viscous -- it tends not to flow as well, and get backed up in a volcano. Then, when enough pressure is present, is 'slodes. Obsidian is a very, very silicic rock. It cools from lava to solid rock very quickly, so does not from a crystaline structure, but it is chemically very similar to rhyolite or pumice. Thus, that does not refute the grandparent, but rather reinforces it.
2) There have been basalt flows. It is possible for composite volcanoes to have basalt flows. Think about what composite means -- a combination of two or more things. Composite volcanoes are not quite sheild volcanoes, and not quite cinder cones. Eruptions can be either highly mafic, or highly silicic. Thus, basalt flows are not out of place.
3) The sharp, dark red rock that you are seeing is probably andesite. There is a lot of andesite in the region. Andesite is a fairly silicic rock (though it does get the red color from more mafic minerals). It is another kind of rock that can be expected to come from a composite volcano.
So, while your observations don't exactly fit with the grandparent's comment, they are not inconsistant.
Slashdot user since before there were user accounts (and when they were launched, alas! I thought "why would I want to waste time registering for an account? They'll probably just sell my email address to spammers...")
No kidding... it took me two or three years before I decided to register a user. Oh, well.
I have only one more thing to add to the thread (because you obviously did not read the article that I linked to): there are many, many Supreme Court cases that bring up dress codes. In some cases, the SCOTUS has ruled that certain dress codes are constitutional, in other cases, the Court has ruled other types of dress codes unconstitutional. As nearly as I can tell, the differences come from two things:
(1) The type of speech abridged must be "important" or "valuable" speech in order for a dress code to be unconstitutional. Political speech is valuable. Obscenities and fighting words are not. Thus, political speech is protected more than obscenity and fighting words. Thus, a school is well within its rights to insist that students not wear t-shirts with graphic sexual images, or halter tops that are overly relvealing, or pants that sag down to one's ankles.
(2) The neutrality of the dress code is also important. A dress code that bans chains is neutral with respect to the content of the speech. Schools are not trying to prevent kids from wearing chains because they object to the content of the speech, but because the chains themselves are dangerous. By the same token, guns are not banned at schools because schools object to free expression through sporting a weapon, but because guns are dangerous. A prohibition against hats falls into a similar realm, i.e. banning hats is done not to squash a particular statement, but as a general rule -- it is neutral to the content of the speech (and even then, there are exceptions, i.e. yamakas for Jewish children).
The point is, whether or not you agree that public school dress codes are right, they have been held up by the Supreme Court, and they are legal. My point has not been that dress codes are a good thing (though I think that certain restraints are more than appropriate), but that they are legal, and constitutional, and enforcable. If you think that they are an inhibition to free speech, then you ought to find a lawyer, and sue a school district. Maybe your case will make it to the Supreme Court, and dress codes will be overturned. I doubt it, though, as there is a fairly large amount of case law on the subject, and I doubt that you would get out of the Circuit Court.
Ugh... Binford. The best evidence shows anatomically modern humans showing up no earlier than about 100,000 years ago, and H. neanderthalensis disappearing about 25-30,000 years ago... earlier in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. 90,000 years, no. However, there is good evidence that both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis existed at the same time (though in different areas) for quite a long time.
Clothing is not protected speech. If you think that it is, you may want to review the Supreme Court cases involving dress codes. As to suggestive clothing and profanity, why don't you take that up with the FCC? Stop making assumptions. It makes you look bad. Though the personal attacks weren't helping your case much either.
There is one major case that I can think of in which the SCOTUS has struck down dress policies. That was Tinker v. the Des Moines School District. In that case, it was ruled that wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War was okay because (1) the students were quiet and passive (2) the students were not being disruptive and (3) the students were not impinging upon others rights.
Now, have a look at this article: http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_13.html
The bibliography is important as well, there are several Supreme Court cases referenced. Dress codes are legal and enforcable in public schools. Again, freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want where ever you want.
Now, let me take your example about self defense. A knife is for self defense. So is a gun. Should kids be allowed to bring these to school? And under the pretense of first amendment protection? I am inclined to say no.
Finally, I am an American. I was born in Arizona, raised in Iowa, went to school in California, and now live in Nevada. The website that I link to is Introversion Software's site for their game Darwinia. Before you start calling names, you ought to try and get your facts straight.
Personal attacks. Nice. Shows how mature you are, and how strong your point it. In fact, clothing, in and of itself, is not considered speech. Of the pieces that may be considered speech, the schools are generally justified in prohibiting them. Are you allowed to curse on a schoolyard or in class? No. Are you allowed to make obscene sexual comments at school? No. Are you allowed to encourage children to drink, smoke, or otherwise imbibe substances that are illegal for them? No. Most of the dress code policies are directed at those kinds of attire (no clothing with profanity, no clothing with sexually explicit images or text, no clothing with cigarette, alcohol or drug endorsements).
Now, let us look at a policy of not hats indoors. Are hats (in generally, not specifically) a form of speech? No, they are not. So, it is allowed for schools to ban hats and other headgear indoors. There are many reasons for this, some of which I have outlined above, and in other posts. On the other hand, some kinds of headgear are constitutionally protected as RELIGIOUS symbols (i.e. a yamaka). A student may wear those, in they same way that they may wear a cross, as it is a form of religious expression.
Okay, how about chains (you know, the ones that many kids wear to hang onto their wallets?). Again, not a form of expression in a general sense. Furthermore, they are dangerous in a school setting. In a fight, they can be a weapon. In a PE class, they are dangerous.
It is not inappropriate for a public school to demand that students dispatch themselves in a certain manner. A dress code is part of that. It does not violate someone's First Amendment rights to require them to adhere to a dress code any more than it violates their rights to insist that they not shout out "Fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech is not the freedom say whatever you want -- there are limits.