Jake TarragonSeptember 28, 2017 at 10:127025 views78 comments
My title, "Only God could play dice", was changed to "Randomness". However, I feel that my misquote of Einstein was rather apt, so I am left wondering why it was changed...
It could have been clearer, so I made it so. Why is it such a big deal for you? It's only a title, and your original title was merely transferred to the content of your opening post. Be thankful that your discussion wasn't deleted for low quality, as was under consideration. The only reason it wasn't was because by that time there were some quality replies that we didn't want to delete.
See the Site Guidelines on starting a new discussion.
Jake TarragonSeptember 28, 2017 at 15:31#1091720 likes
That's a fair point. It's also fair to say you need to put a bit more effort into your OPs. Everyone would benefit from that including you. @Sapientia is right to point out it was nearly deleted.
Jake TarragonSeptember 28, 2017 at 15:35#1091750 likes
In my opinion I would rather have a post of mine deleted than changed. If you don't like what I write, delete me or ban me. But don't change my words. The original title was perfectly clear and refers to a quote of Einstein. And the moderators of this site are clearly no Einsteins.
Anyway, since I think it's such a minor issue, and I agree with Baden that you made a fair point in reply, I'll change your title back to the original. (I also like that you've taken it on the chin and have a sense of humour, so brownie points for that).
Jake TarragonSeptember 28, 2017 at 21:35#1092840 likes
No. You don't get special treatment, and if that's what you're after, then insulting the moderators is not the best tactic.
I expressed an opinion. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm always up for a little friendly squabble but I can't understand your point enough to disagree with it.
I expressed an opinion. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm always up for a little friendly squabble but I can't understand your point enough to disagree with it.
Your first sentence expressed a preference. The following sentences in the quote were in the form of an instruction. I denied the instruction, then explained why. What's not to understand? Perhaps the following will help:
If you don't like what I write, then delete what I write or ban me. But don't change my words.
That's an instruction.
If you don't like what I write, then I'd rather you delete what I write or ban me, instead of changing my words.
That's stating a preference.
[Quote]If you don't like what I write, then I think you should delete what I write or ban me, instead of changing my words.[/quote]
That's an opinion.
If you don't like what I write, then can you please just delete what I write or ban me, rather than change my words?
That's a polite request.
And the moderators of this site are clearly no Einsteins.
If you don't like what I write, then delete what I write or ban me. But don't change my words.
That's an instruction.
That's a preference. "If you don't like me, ban me." That expresses my preference. If you're deliberately misunderstanding that in order to stir up trouble, knock yourself out. If you have reading comprehension issues I'll try to use simpler grammatical constructions.
That's a preference. "If you don't like me, ban me." That expresses my preference. If you're deliberately misunderstanding that in order to stir up trouble, knock yourself out. If you have reading comprehension issues I'll try to use simpler grammatical constructions.
I'm not going to teach you grammar, but I would advise you to teach yourself, since you've demonstrated that you don't know [url=https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=preference+grammar&oq=prefference+gra&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.13940j0j7&client=ms-android-alcatel&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8]how preferences should be expressed[/URL], or the difference between what a preference should look like and [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/factsheet/en33inst-l1-f-following-and-writing-instructions]what an instruction should look like[/URL].
His family I guess. But I suppose you could still correctly say of a dull family member of Einstein, "He's no Einstein" (which would probably confuse him for obvious reasons).
In attempting to insult our collective intelligence you ironically made a basic error of reasoning by engaging in a hasty generalization. Clearly the only demonstrably dumb mod here is @Sapientia.
*Pulls knife out from between Sapientia's shoulder blades*
Jokes aside, @Sapientia is right on the semantics, and no-one took the apparent insult personally, but it's just common sense not to upbraid someone (mod or not) and ask for a favour in the same breath.
No. You don't get special treatment, and if that's what you're after, then insulting the moderators is not the best tactic.
So, how we treat you affects your decisions about our posts? It's not the quality of the posts themselves. It's your personal feelings. Even if that's true, you shouldn't admit it. It makes you look petty and vindictive. It's about reason - not your pride.
My remarks might have given the wrong impression to some, so I'll clarify. The important part was the part where I said that you don't get special treatment. The latter part consisted in a common sense criticism of the way in which special treatment was sought, but didn't really need to said, and, in hindsight, perhaps would have been better left unsaid. But what's done is done.
That doesn't mean that I'm not open to reconsideration. In this case, after reconsideration, and in light of the feedback received, I took the decision to reverse the action I took. That's not something I'll do at the drop of a hat, but if I think it's the right thing to do, I'll do it.
As I've said before, I value the role of the moderators. In general, it works well on this forum. I do have this image in my mind of mother ducks herding their ducklings into the water and out into the pond, which may or may not be what you have in mind.
I do have a recommendation. Say whatever you want in your own posts, but when you are acting as moderators and if you want your authority to be respected, you should maintain more professional detachment. You have authority but you also have a responsibility to be even-handed and appear, let's see...., moderate. You should also make sure that you don't mix moderation and argumentation in the same post. It would make sense, if you are heavily involved in a discussion or with a poster, that a different moderator make the final decision on closing a thread or banning a poster. One more thing specifically relevant to this thread - unilaterally changing the name of a thread that is not offensive or misleading is particularly petty. I spends your credibility capital when you should save it for when you really need it.
The important part was the part where I said that you don't get special treatment. The latter part consisted in a common sense criticism of the way in which special treatment was sought, but didn't really need to said
You have authority but you also have a responsibility to be even-handed and appear, let's see...., moderate.
(Y)
No one should expect special treatment including us. In other words, no one has to be any nicer to us than to any other poster. It's not going to make a difference re moderation.
I do have this image in my mind of mother ducks herding their ducklings into the water and out into the pond, which may or may not be what you have in mind.
That image ^^^^^^^^^ is of ME and is the exact reason why I would never make a good moderator. ;)
I've seen the job and I have no desire to take on that key of responsibility. 8-)
When I raise concerns about the moderators, I try hard to be friendly because, lord knows, I don't want the job and I know they are needed.
Makes me think of an old talk song by U. Utah Phillips. "Moose Turd Pie." It takes place among railroad workers. There is no cook assigned, so they make the person who complains most about the cooking do it. No one likes to cook. The person stuck with the job decides to do what he can to pass it off to someone else, so he goes out in the forest and finds moose manure and bakes it in a pie. Here's the final part, which expresses my feelings about moderation:
[i]Well, this big guy come into the mess car, I mean, he's about 5 foot forty, and he sets himself down like a fool on a stool, picked up a fork and took a big bite of that moose turd pie. Well he threw down his fork and he let out a bellow, "My God, that's moose turd pie!"
I'm not going to teach you grammar, but I would advise you to teach yourself, since you've demonstrated that you don't know how preferences should be expressed, ...
Interesting point of English usage.
It's a very common locution among American sportscasters to say something like:
"If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores."
Now this is a bit of an odd usage in everyday English but it's still legal. If expanded via the pedantic transform (PT), we get:
"If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, he would have scored."
A political usage might be: "If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she becomes president." Any native speaker of English will understand that as an informal way of saying, "If she hadn't set up the server she'd have become president."
It was in that vein that I colloquialized
"In the case that I ever said something you disapprove of, I would prefer that you delete my post in its entirety rather than alter what I wrote."
to
"If you don't like what I say, delete me or ban me."
I confess that to me, your objection seems disingenuous since my meaning is perfectly clear. I truly can't tell why you are continuing to troll me about this. Are you stating that you genuinely did not understand the meaning of what I wrote? Is English your first language? That's a serious question. What I wrote is colloquial English. Not the King's English as they say, but perfectly understandable to any native speaker.
ps -- I clicked your handle. You're in England. Aha! You are not a native speaker of American English. What I wrote is a very common informal locution on this side of the pond.
As George Bernard Shaw allegedly said, The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."
One more thing specifically relevant to this thread - unilaterally changing the name of a thread that is not offensive or misleading is particularly petty. It spends your credibility capital when you should save it for when you really need it.
But to give this some important context, the discussion was under consideration for deletion. I thought that the least I could do is tidy it up a bit.
"If you don't like what I say, delete me or ban me."
I confess that to me, your objection seems disingenuous since my meaning is perfectly clear. I truly can't tell why you are continuing to troll me about this. Are you stating that you genuinely did not understand the meaning of what I wrote? Is English your first language? That's a serious question. What I wrote is colloquial English. Not the King's English as they say, but perfectly understandable to any native speaker.
ps -- I clicked your handle. You're in England. Aha! You are not a native speaker of American English. What I wrote is a very common informal locution on this side of the pond.
As George Bernard Shaw allegedly said, The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."
It's bizarre to me that anyone would see that and interpret it as anything other than an instruction, such as, "If you see a roundabout, then turn around and come back".
It's bizarre to me that anyone would see that and interpret it as anything other than an instruction, such as, "If you see a roundabout, then turn around and come back".
Haha. I left my spanner on the bonnet of the lorry!
So, how would you give an instruction then? If you had wanted to instruct us to delete or ban you if A then how would you give that instruction other than to say: If A, delete me or ban me?
I mean I accept Americans might say, "If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores", which is effectively a grammatical simplification and easy to understand, but that's a completely different construction to the one you used because the second clause of the conditional is in a different grammatical mood not just tense, i.e. indicative vs. imperative. Maybe the colloquialism has to do with the part of America you're from because in standard American English the imperative mood is used to give instructions and orders and the indicative mood is used for questions and statements just as it is in standard British English. That should be the case regardless of whether the conditional construction is used. The differences in standard British and American English in terms of grammar are fairly tiny compared to those in dialects of some other languages. Anyway, I'm mostly curious because I teach English and I haven't come across this before and it leaves me wondering as I mentioned above how you would express an instruction if not with an imperative.
(Of course, effectively your particular instruction was a request but leaving that aspect aside, it's the grammar I'm mostly curious about).
it leaves me wondering as I mentioned above how you would express an instruction
Since I am not the OP (hence I had no dog in this fight) I thought it was perfectly clear that I was making the general point that a forum operator should either delete a post or let it stand as is; but never change a poster's words. Obviously that was not clear to some though I remain baffled as to how anyone could misconstrue my intention.
Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter now. I'm just asking a question about the grammar.
I'm happy to discuss the grammar. I was officially instructing the moderation staff that if in the future I say something objectionable to them, I would prefer my post to be deleted rather than altered. Isn't that what I said? And since I can't control what the staff does, it's clear that I'm expressing a preference rather than a command. I can't make them do anything one way or the other.
Since I haven't said anything objectionable (and in the past I've gone so far out on that limb without having my post being deleted that I can't imagine what it would take) it's clear that my request was hypothetical.
I do in fact feel strongly that forum moderators should delete but never alter posts.
Reply to Baden
I think the grammar is exactly as you and @Sapientia interpret it; it's the bit of context given here that makes the difference. No Americanism. "Charge me or release me!" "Either let me do my job or fire me!" would be other examples of giving instructions to people you're not empowered to give instructions to.
Permissives can do weird stuff with expressing preferences too. "You can change my post if you want, but I'll never post here again." Again, I'm not even in a position to give permission, and this is actually a threat. "What should we watch?" "You can put on whatever you like." That one cedes my portion of the decision-making power to you, perhaps implying I don't have a preference-- but it could also be interpreted as taking all the power before handing it all to you, or implying that my preference would trump yours if I had one.
Srap TasmanerOctober 01, 2017 at 02:39#1100440 likes
Imperatives are also a natural choice for perfecting conditionals: if you're negotiating, and you say, "Throw in another hundred and you've got a deal," it suggests I can make the deal if and only if I throw in another hundred (which could be false, but it's what you want me to think).
Sure, from the pragmatics point of view, I get it. I just wondered if there was a deeper reason for the original apparent chasm of disagreement. And apparently not.
Srap TasmanerOctober 01, 2017 at 03:43#1100540 likes
Reply to Baden
I'll take any excuse to play at linguistics.
I was officially instructing the moderation staff that if in the future I say something objectionable to them, I would prefer my post to be deleted rather than altered. Isn't that what I said?
No, that's not what you said, and that was the problem. That might have been what you meant, but it was certainly not what you said. I'm still not convinced that you understand, to be honest. You're now claiming that you were instructing the moderation staff, after all? That's what we were arguing over, remember? I explained that your original formulation was in the form of an instruction, and you reacted as though I was off my trolley or trolling and insisted that it expressed a preference.
Ironically, the formulation in the quote above does [i]not[/I] constitute an instruction, but a preference. This is clear, as, unlike your original formulation, it contains "I would prefer". In this case, one would have to read between the lines to understand that you meant to instruct or request, rather than merely express a preference.
Do you often express instructions in the form of a preference and vice versa? And if so, why do you end up baffled when you're misunderstood?
Reply to Baden I also doubted his explanation, and still do, but I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt to some extent, given that I've never even been to America.
It's a very common locution among American sportscasters to say something like:
"If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores."
Now this is a bit of an odd usage in everyday English but it's still legal. If expanded via the pedantic transform (PT), we get:
"If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, he would have scored."
A political usage might be: "If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she becomes president." Any native speaker of English will understand that as an informal way of saying, "If she hadn't set up the server she'd have become president."
Now, I'm not American, but I'm evidently a native speaker of English, and I have in fact spent my entire life living in England, yet my "pendantic transform" would make them:
"He'll score, so long as he doesn't fall flat on his face"
&
"If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she'll become president"
Do Americans really mix up present and past tense like that? Do they really use "doesn't" when they mean "hadn't"? That's crazy.
Also, none of those examples are preferences or instructions - whether before or after the "pedantic transform" - so there seems to be a bit of leap going on here.
Srap TasmanerOctober 02, 2017 at 02:52#1102260 likes
Do Americans really mix up present and past tense like that? Do they really use "doesn't" when they mean "hadn't"? That's crazy.
Think of it as a past tense counterfactual expressed in the historical present. No one is mixing up their tenses. It's colorful. It's also a way of avoiding the subjunctive mood, and expresses greater certainty.
Think of it as a past tense counterfactual expressed in the historical present. No one is mixing up their tenses. It's colorful. It's also a way of avoiding the subjunctive mood, and expresses greater certainty.
So, when would the sportscaster be saying, "If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores"? To me, that would only make sense if it was said beforehand and in accordance with my interpretation. If the sportscaster had actually meant, "If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, then he would have scored", then that would only make sense if it was said afterwards, and I would think that the sportscaster has terrible grammar.
On second thought, I think I might get what you're saying. Like, if the sportscaster said it afterwards, but is speaking as though he's reliving the moment, thus the lack of past tense. That's one way I could make sense of it.
Reply to Srap Tasmaner Yes, it's not inconceivable that someone would express themselves in the form of an instruction in inappropriate situations. You have to be careful not to do that in the workplace to your colleagues, and especially your superiors, as it will likely come across as rude, and you might get reproached for it. In fact, I recall this happening at my work about a month ago.
Srap TasmanerOctober 02, 2017 at 05:30#1102700 likes
Like, if the sportscaster said it afterwards, but is speaking as though he's reliving the moment, thus the lack of past tense
There you go. It's more immediate and by using the indicative instead of the subjunctive, it sounds more like a statement of fact, more certain.
In general terms, I think you can't read off the use being made of a sentence, in a given context, from its surface grammar, anymore than you can read off a sentence's logical form from its surface grammar. That use would be something like the mood of the utterance. (For instance, Kevin Spacey can instruct you to go to lunch by repeatedly asking, "Will you go to lunch?")
I thought "delete me or ban me" was the same rhetorical construction as "You can slander my name all over the place, but don't step on my blue suede shoes". Elvis is not asking to be slandered. He's saying that, awful as it would be to be slandered, it would be preferable to having a person step on his blue suede shoes. Similarly, "I would hate to be banned. But I'd prefer (even) being banned to being edited."
The most important point as far as I'm concerned is that we wouldn't actually ban someone solely on the basis of a protest statement like that. We're looking to keep people here and posters have the right to get annoyed at us if they think it's appropriate. Banning is a last resort for lost causes.
Srap TasmanerOctober 02, 2017 at 15:54#1103660 likes
Again, if we're talking about grammar, then strictly speaking he's clearly not asking anything at all, since it wasn't a question. Although I'm guessing your usage is figurative, as in, "He was asking for it".
Anyway, not even Elvis gets special treatment around here. I'll bloody well step on his blue suede shoes if I think the situation calls for it.
unenlightenedOctober 02, 2017 at 22:11#1104680 likes
Me too like to play at linguistics. Me too want special treatment and blue suede shoes.
Me always uses both together in posting behaviours, so solly for conflusion. You step blody well in great big British Christopher Robin Wellington boots... question? Me like to evade sin taxes with some antics.
Sure, from the pragmatics point of view, I get it. I just wondered if there was a deeper reason for the original apparent chasm of disagreement. And apparently not.
Excessive literalism on the part of some. "So shoot me!" is not a command for you to shoot me, nor is it a request. It means "The hell with you if you don't like what I say," or something like that.
A lot of people do this lately, use excessive literalism to make a debating point. Remember when Trump said, "Maybe Putin has Hillary's emails." I recognized that as a sarcastic joke. I thought it was funny. The next day liberals said, "Oh Trump is calling on a foreign head of state to hack the Democrats." It's absurd.
Is there a name for using excessive, disingenuous literalism in order to make a debating point?
I found this online. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/220507/word-for-deliberately-taking-the-literal-rather-than-implied-message
"What is the word for understanding someones implied meaning, but being completely pretentious about it and taking their words for what they literally said?"
The consensus was disingenuous literal-mindedness. Guess there's not an exact word for it.
(Edit) I don't mean to imply that any particular individual here is deliberately misconstruing my words. Only that I personally find it difficult to imagine otherwise.
In my opinion I would rather have a post of mine deleted than changed. If you don't like what I write, delete me or ban me. But don't change my words. The original title was perfectly clear and refers to a quote of Einstein. And the moderators of this site are clearly no Einsteins.
I'll weigh in because I'm an expert in all that is American. So you know, when this issue first arose, I posted in the mod section that I thought the dustup between Fishfry and Sap was unnecessarily combative, and I thought Sap was being testy. (Yes, we bitch at each other). It's clear now there was a significant miscommunication. I like Fishfry didn't get it.
I don't know if it has to do with grammar as much as American bravado or defiance, but it's not to be taken literally. It simply seeks to emphasize how important it is to Fishfry that you not fuck with his posts. As in "Coach, play me or trade me." If the Coach said, "I'll neither play you nor trade you except as I see fit," the player would think, "Why is this peckerhead ignoring my plea [ yes, definitely a plea, not a directive] to get some playtime."
When Sap took it literally and said (as I took it), "Don't tell me what to do; I'll change shit as I see fit because you're like everyone else," I thought "Damn, who pissed in Sap's Cheerios this morning?" I truly did. I'm now relieved to learn though that Sap and Baden are rational and tempered, despite their functional illiteracy.
I thought the dustup between Fishfry and Sap was unnecessarily combative ...
Not at my end. I thought it was funny. My sense was that English was not Sap's native language ... but it turns out that he is British and therefore predisposed to look down condescendingly on we uncultured yanks. And I thought it was totally funny that what I mistook for not understanding the nuances of English turned out to be not understanding the nuances of American. It's perfect that I actually used the expression "not the King's English" when it turned out I was talking to someone who DOES speak the King's English!
At my end I was never upset or thought of myself as having a dust-up. I would never do that on this forum again, having been granted an excessive degree of forbearance by the mods in the past. I appreciate that a lot. I really like the mods here. Also when people take me too seriously I like to act even more serious so as to push their buttons. There might have been a bit of that.
The Einstein thing, it was a joke. Once the subject of Einstein came up at all, the phrase just popped into my head. I never thought anyone would think I actually have a bad word to say about the moderators around here, who like I say genuinely could have banned me a while back but didn't.
As far as the point of grammar I was trying (not very well) to explain, "play me or trade me" explains it better than I did.
Reply to Sapientia It's a rhetorical trope. "Say I'm dumb. But don't say I'm insincere." Despite appearances, that is not an instruction to call me dumb. It's a way of saying that, horrible as it is to be called dumb, it is far worse to be called insincere.
An instruction is a type of speech act, not a grammatical form. Cuthbert is obviously right.
That's not what I said. The grammatical form is the imperative form and it's an instruction. And an instruction isn't by definition a type of speech act: that's obviously wrong. Have you ever bought a kettle, television, toaster, etc? They tend to come with written instructions.
Srap TasmanerOctober 03, 2017 at 21:41#1107560 likes
If we're talking about grammar, then that's an instruction.
Whether an utterance is an instruction depends on the context and the purpose of the utterance, its intended or expected understanding by its intended or expected audience, and so on. So it's a question for pragmatics, not grammar.
Reply to fishfry When you talk about what something means, that's semantics. When you talk about its grammatical form, that's syntax. It would help you understand where I'm coming from if you were better able to distinguish which one I'm talking about at a given time.
When you talk about the meaning of, "So shoot me!", you're missing the point. I know what that means when it's used in the way that it's typically used.
In your case, there was more ambiguity than that. You can blame it all on me for being too literal, or suspect me of trolling, but the truth is that you could have expressed yourself more clearly, grammaticality, and courteously; and if you had've done so, then you could have avoided this whole shebang.
Reply to Srap Tasmaner Yes, really. You could have interpreted it as shorthand for saying that it's in the grammatical form indicative of an instruction. (And I know that the imperative form isn't all about instructions. Maybe it's better interpreted as a warning, but whatever).
Sure, ultimately it's down to pragmatics, but the syntax is still relevant and can narrow down the options.
Besides, if the criticism relates more to grammar than semantics, then syntax is of greater relevance. I'm not disputing what fishfry meant, I'm criticising the way in which he expressed himself, which lead to a misunderstanding.
Reply to Hanover I guess I'd make a tough Coach. If you're going to be on my team, you'll learn some manners.
We're not on a playing field, we're in a more formal setting. If you speak to me bluntly, I might respond in kind. If you make a polite request, I similarly might respond in kind. Or I might just respond bluntly anyway, because fuck you. :D
It's a rhetorical trope. "Say I'm dumb. But don't say I'm insincere." Despite appearances, that is not an instruction to call me dumb. It's a way of saying that, horrible as it is to be called dumb, it is far worse to be called insincere.
The first part wasn't ever in question, as with the Elvis lyric. It's the second part that could be taken as an instruction or a warning. Consider, "You can insult me as much as you like, but don't insult my family".
I'm not disputing what fishfry meant, I'm criticising the way in which he expressed himself, which lead to a misunderstanding.
I'll agree @fishfry was a bit up on his hind legs. I didn't find it rude, but you did, and there's nothing more to say about that. (Might be a Merkin thing.)
You do have my sincere appreciation for the work you do to keep this place running.
It's pretty simple folks. The grammar was in the form of a (conditional) instruction, so the default meaning is an instruction. Pragmatics becomes relevant when the context shows the default meaning doesn't apply. Pragmatics are culturally informed. It's been clarified that we've hit on a situation where Americans and non-Americans are informed differently about this kind of situation. No fault on either side.
Comments (78)
See the Site Guidelines on starting a new discussion.
It's not that big a deal but I tend to think that a catchy title (as long as it is relevant and not misleading) is likely to pull in more interest.
That's a fair point. It's also fair to say you need to put a bit more effort into your OPs. Everyone would benefit from that including you. @Sapientia is right to point out it was nearly deleted.
(Y)
No. You don't get special treatment, and if that's what you're after, then insulting the moderators is not the best tactic.
Is anyone (except Einstein)?
Maybe he has "fish to fry". They would go well with those .. ahem ... chips on his shoulder!
*only joking* :)
Anyway, since I think it's such a minor issue, and I agree with Baden that you made a fair point in reply, I'll change your title back to the original. (I also like that you've taken it on the chin and have a sense of humour, so brownie points for that).
Cool! :)
I expressed an opinion. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm always up for a little friendly squabble but I can't understand your point enough to disagree with it.
Your first sentence expressed a preference. The following sentences in the quote were in the form of an instruction. I denied the instruction, then explained why. What's not to understand? Perhaps the following will help:
That's an instruction.
That's stating a preference.
[Quote]If you don't like what I write, then I think you should delete what I write or ban me, instead of changing my words.[/quote]
That's an opinion.
That's a polite request.
That's an insult.
That's a preference. "If you don't like me, ban me." That expresses my preference. If you're deliberately misunderstanding that in order to stir up trouble, knock yourself out. If you have reading comprehension issues I'll try to use simpler grammatical constructions.
Quoting Sapientia
It's a joke. And a commentary on my opinion of their actions in this instance.
Look I'd love to fight with you but you need much better material.
I'm not going to teach you grammar, but I would advise you to teach yourself, since you've demonstrated that you don't know [url=https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=preference+grammar&oq=prefference+gra&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.13940j0j7&client=ms-android-alcatel&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8]how preferences should be expressed[/URL], or the difference between what a preference should look like and [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/factsheet/en33inst-l1-f-following-and-writing-instructions]what an instruction should look like[/URL].
His family I guess. But I suppose you could still correctly say of a dull family member of Einstein, "He's no Einstein" (which would probably confuse him for obvious reasons).
In attempting to insult our collective intelligence you ironically made a basic error of reasoning by engaging in a hasty generalization. Clearly the only demonstrably dumb mod here is @Sapientia.
*Pulls knife out from between Sapientia's shoulder blades*
Sorry mate, had to happen. Poland is mine. >:)
Jokes aside, @Sapientia is right on the semantics, and no-one took the apparent insult personally, but it's just common sense not to upbraid someone (mod or not) and ask for a favour in the same breath.
So, how we treat you affects your decisions about our posts? It's not the quality of the posts themselves. It's your personal feelings. Even if that's true, you shouldn't admit it. It makes you look petty and vindictive. It's about reason - not your pride.
It's not.
That doesn't mean that I'm not open to reconsideration. In this case, after reconsideration, and in light of the feedback received, I took the decision to reverse the action I took. That's not something I'll do at the drop of a hat, but if I think it's the right thing to do, I'll do it.
As I've said before, I value the role of the moderators. In general, it works well on this forum. I do have this image in my mind of mother ducks herding their ducklings into the water and out into the pond, which may or may not be what you have in mind.
I do have a recommendation. Say whatever you want in your own posts, but when you are acting as moderators and if you want your authority to be respected, you should maintain more professional detachment. You have authority but you also have a responsibility to be even-handed and appear, let's see...., moderate. You should also make sure that you don't mix moderation and argumentation in the same post. It would make sense, if you are heavily involved in a discussion or with a poster, that a different moderator make the final decision on closing a thread or banning a poster. One more thing specifically relevant to this thread - unilaterally changing the name of a thread that is not offensive or misleading is particularly petty. I spends your credibility capital when you should save it for when you really need it.
(Y)
Quoting T Clark
(Y)
No one should expect special treatment including us. In other words, no one has to be any nicer to us than to any other poster. It's not going to make a difference re moderation.
Your pugnacity is immoderate. I always love to have a chance to use "pugnacity."
Ok, I'll give you the last word on that.
That image ^^^^^^^^^ is of ME and is the exact reason why I would never make a good moderator. ;)
Aw :) I think you'd be good.
I've seen the job and I have no desire to take on that key of responsibility. 8-)
Fair enough. (Y)
When I raise concerns about the moderators, I try hard to be friendly because, lord knows, I don't want the job and I know they are needed.
Makes me think of an old talk song by U. Utah Phillips. "Moose Turd Pie." It takes place among railroad workers. There is no cook assigned, so they make the person who complains most about the cooking do it. No one likes to cook. The person stuck with the job decides to do what he can to pass it off to someone else, so he goes out in the forest and finds moose manure and bakes it in a pie. Here's the final part, which expresses my feelings about moderation:
[i]Well, this big guy come into the mess car, I mean, he's about 5 foot forty, and he sets himself down like a fool on a stool, picked up a fork and took a big bite of that moose turd pie. Well he threw down his fork and he let out a bellow, "My God, that's moose turd pie!"
"It's good though."[/i]
Interesting point of English usage.
It's a very common locution among American sportscasters to say something like:
"If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores."
Now this is a bit of an odd usage in everyday English but it's still legal. If expanded via the pedantic transform (PT), we get:
"If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, he would have scored."
A political usage might be: "If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she becomes president." Any native speaker of English will understand that as an informal way of saying, "If she hadn't set up the server she'd have become president."
It was in that vein that I colloquialized
"In the case that I ever said something you disapprove of, I would prefer that you delete my post in its entirety rather than alter what I wrote."
to
"If you don't like what I say, delete me or ban me."
I confess that to me, your objection seems disingenuous since my meaning is perfectly clear. I truly can't tell why you are continuing to troll me about this. Are you stating that you genuinely did not understand the meaning of what I wrote? Is English your first language? That's a serious question. What I wrote is colloquial English. Not the King's English as they say, but perfectly understandable to any native speaker.
ps -- I clicked your handle. You're in England. Aha! You are not a native speaker of American English. What I wrote is a very common informal locution on this side of the pond.
As George Bernard Shaw allegedly said, The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."
But to give this some important context, the discussion was under consideration for deletion. I thought that the least I could do is tidy it up a bit.
It's bizarre to me that anyone would see that and interpret it as anything other than an instruction, such as, "If you see a roundabout, then turn around and come back".
Haha. I left my spanner on the bonnet of the lorry!
So, how would you give an instruction then? If you had wanted to instruct us to delete or ban you if A then how would you give that instruction other than to say: If A, delete me or ban me?
I mean I accept Americans might say, "If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores", which is effectively a grammatical simplification and easy to understand, but that's a completely different construction to the one you used because the second clause of the conditional is in a different grammatical mood not just tense, i.e. indicative vs. imperative. Maybe the colloquialism has to do with the part of America you're from because in standard American English the imperative mood is used to give instructions and orders and the indicative mood is used for questions and statements just as it is in standard British English. That should be the case regardless of whether the conditional construction is used. The differences in standard British and American English in terms of grammar are fairly tiny compared to those in dialects of some other languages. Anyway, I'm mostly curious because I teach English and I haven't come across this before and it leaves me wondering as I mentioned above how you would express an instruction if not with an imperative.
(Of course, effectively your particular instruction was a request but leaving that aspect aside, it's the grammar I'm mostly curious about).
Since I am not the OP (hence I had no dog in this fight) I thought it was perfectly clear that I was making the general point that a forum operator should either delete a post or let it stand as is; but never change a poster's words. Obviously that was not clear to some though I remain baffled as to how anyone could misconstrue my intention.
Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter now. I'm just asking a question about the grammar.
I'm happy to discuss the grammar. I was officially instructing the moderation staff that if in the future I say something objectionable to them, I would prefer my post to be deleted rather than altered. Isn't that what I said? And since I can't control what the staff does, it's clear that I'm expressing a preference rather than a command. I can't make them do anything one way or the other.
Since I haven't said anything objectionable (and in the past I've gone so far out on that limb without having my post being deleted that I can't imagine what it would take) it's clear that my request was hypothetical.
I do in fact feel strongly that forum moderators should delete but never alter posts.
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.
I think the grammar is exactly as you and @Sapientia interpret it; it's the bit of context given here that makes the difference. No Americanism. "Charge me or release me!" "Either let me do my job or fire me!" would be other examples of giving instructions to people you're not empowered to give instructions to.
Permissives can do weird stuff with expressing preferences too. "You can change my post if you want, but I'll never post here again." Again, I'm not even in a position to give permission, and this is actually a threat. "What should we watch?" "You can put on whatever you like." That one cedes my portion of the decision-making power to you, perhaps implying I don't have a preference-- but it could also be interpreted as taking all the power before handing it all to you, or implying that my preference would trump yours if I had one.
Sure, from the pragmatics point of view, I get it. I just wondered if there was a deeper reason for the original apparent chasm of disagreement. And apparently not.
I'll take any excuse to play at linguistics.
Oh, yes, me too. :)
No, that's not what you said, and that was the problem. That might have been what you meant, but it was certainly not what you said. I'm still not convinced that you understand, to be honest. You're now claiming that you were instructing the moderation staff, after all? That's what we were arguing over, remember? I explained that your original formulation was in the form of an instruction, and you reacted as though I was off my trolley or trolling and insisted that it expressed a preference.
Ironically, the formulation in the quote above does [i]not[/I] constitute an instruction, but a preference. This is clear, as, unlike your original formulation, it contains "I would prefer". In this case, one would have to read between the lines to understand that you meant to instruct or request, rather than merely express a preference.
Do you often express instructions in the form of a preference and vice versa? And if so, why do you end up baffled when you're misunderstood?
But, to pick it apart further:
Quoting fishfry
Now, I'm not American, but I'm evidently a native speaker of English, and I have in fact spent my entire life living in England, yet my "pendantic transform" would make them:
"He'll score, so long as he doesn't fall flat on his face"
&
"If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she'll become president"
Do Americans really mix up present and past tense like that? Do they really use "doesn't" when they mean "hadn't"? That's crazy.
Also, none of those examples are preferences or instructions - whether before or after the "pedantic transform" - so there seems to be a bit of leap going on here.
Think of it as a past tense counterfactual expressed in the historical present. No one is mixing up their tenses. It's colorful. It's also a way of avoiding the subjunctive mood, and expresses greater certainty.
So, when would the sportscaster be saying, "If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores"? To me, that would only make sense if it was said beforehand and in accordance with my interpretation. If the sportscaster had actually meant, "If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, then he would have scored", then that would only make sense if it was said afterwards, and I would think that the sportscaster has terrible grammar.
On second thought, I think I might get what you're saying. Like, if the sportscaster said it afterwards, but is speaking as though he's reliving the moment, thus the lack of past tense. That's one way I could make sense of it.
There you go. It's more immediate and by using the indicative instead of the subjunctive, it sounds more like a statement of fact, more certain.
In general terms, I think you can't read off the use being made of a sentence, in a given context, from its surface grammar, anymore than you can read off a sentence's logical form from its surface grammar. That use would be something like the mood of the utterance. (For instance, Kevin Spacey can instruct you to go to lunch by repeatedly asking, "Will you go to lunch?")
The most important point as far as I'm concerned is that we wouldn't actually ban someone solely on the basis of a protest statement like that. We're looking to keep people here and posters have the right to get annoyed at us if they think it's appropriate. Banning is a last resort for lost causes.
An epigram!
Heh... and I wasn't even trying.
If we're talking about grammar, then that's an instruction. Otherwise it can be whatever you want it to be. Let's not confuse syntax and semantics.
Quoting Cuthbert
Again, if we're talking about grammar, then strictly speaking he's clearly not asking anything at all, since it wasn't a question. Although I'm guessing your usage is figurative, as in, "He was asking for it".
Anyway, not even Elvis gets special treatment around here. I'll bloody well step on his blue suede shoes if I think the situation calls for it.
Quoting Sapientia
Me always uses both together in posting behaviours, so solly for conflusion. You step blody well in great big British Christopher Robin Wellington boots... question? Me like to evade sin taxes with some antics.
An instruction is a type of speech act, not a grammatical form. @Cuthbert is obviously right.
Excessive literalism on the part of some. "So shoot me!" is not a command for you to shoot me, nor is it a request. It means "The hell with you if you don't like what I say," or something like that.
A lot of people do this lately, use excessive literalism to make a debating point. Remember when Trump said, "Maybe Putin has Hillary's emails." I recognized that as a sarcastic joke. I thought it was funny. The next day liberals said, "Oh Trump is calling on a foreign head of state to hack the Democrats." It's absurd.
Is there a name for using excessive, disingenuous literalism in order to make a debating point?
I found this online. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/220507/word-for-deliberately-taking-the-literal-rather-than-implied-message
"What is the word for understanding someones implied meaning, but being completely pretentious about it and taking their words for what they literally said?"
The consensus was disingenuous literal-mindedness. Guess there's not an exact word for it.
(Edit) I don't mean to imply that any particular individual here is deliberately misconstruing my words. Only that I personally find it difficult to imagine otherwise.
Quoting fishfry
I'll weigh in because I'm an expert in all that is American. So you know, when this issue first arose, I posted in the mod section that I thought the dustup between Fishfry and Sap was unnecessarily combative, and I thought Sap was being testy. (Yes, we bitch at each other). It's clear now there was a significant miscommunication. I like Fishfry didn't get it.
I don't know if it has to do with grammar as much as American bravado or defiance, but it's not to be taken literally. It simply seeks to emphasize how important it is to Fishfry that you not fuck with his posts. As in "Coach, play me or trade me." If the Coach said, "I'll neither play you nor trade you except as I see fit," the player would think, "Why is this peckerhead ignoring my plea [ yes, definitely a plea, not a directive] to get some playtime."
When Sap took it literally and said (as I took it), "Don't tell me what to do; I'll change shit as I see fit because you're like everyone else," I thought "Damn, who pissed in Sap's Cheerios this morning?" I truly did. I'm now relieved to learn though that Sap and Baden are rational and tempered, despite their functional illiteracy.
Carry on - as you guys say.
Haha. As I said, I got the pragmatics if not the grammar claims but I'll piss in your Cheerios anytime. (Y)
^you guys^y'all
And shame on you.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quoting Hanover
Not at my end. I thought it was funny. My sense was that English was not Sap's native language ... but it turns out that he is British and therefore predisposed to look down condescendingly on we uncultured yanks. And I thought it was totally funny that what I mistook for not understanding the nuances of English turned out to be not understanding the nuances of American. It's perfect that I actually used the expression "not the King's English" when it turned out I was talking to someone who DOES speak the King's English!
At my end I was never upset or thought of myself as having a dust-up. I would never do that on this forum again, having been granted an excessive degree of forbearance by the mods in the past. I appreciate that a lot. I really like the mods here. Also when people take me too seriously I like to act even more serious so as to push their buttons. There might have been a bit of that.
The Einstein thing, it was a joke. Once the subject of Einstein came up at all, the phrase just popped into my head. I never thought anyone would think I actually have a bad word to say about the moderators around here, who like I say genuinely could have banned me a while back but didn't.
As far as the point of grammar I was trying (not very well) to explain, "play me or trade me" explains it better than I did.
@Hanover gets overly sensitive about stuff like this. We just humour him. :p
*giggles*
That's interesting as I can spot that one straight away as not being meant as an instruction.
(No, don't actually call me crazy.. :))
That's not what I said. The grammatical form is the imperative form and it's an instruction. And an instruction isn't by definition a type of speech act: that's obviously wrong. Have you ever bought a kettle, television, toaster, etc? They tend to come with written instructions.
Really? What other way is there to read this:
Quoting Sapientia
Whether an utterance is an instruction depends on the context and the purpose of the utterance, its intended or expected understanding by its intended or expected audience, and so on. So it's a question for pragmatics, not grammar.
When you talk about the meaning of, "So shoot me!", you're missing the point. I know what that means when it's used in the way that it's typically used.
In your case, there was more ambiguity than that. You can blame it all on me for being too literal, or suspect me of trolling, but the truth is that you could have expressed yourself more clearly, grammaticality, and courteously; and if you had've done so, then you could have avoided this whole shebang.
Sure, ultimately it's down to pragmatics, but the syntax is still relevant and can narrow down the options.
Besides, if the criticism relates more to grammar than semantics, then syntax is of greater relevance. I'm not disputing what fishfry meant, I'm criticising the way in which he expressed himself, which lead to a misunderstanding.
We're not on a playing field, we're in a more formal setting. If you speak to me bluntly, I might respond in kind. If you make a polite request, I similarly might respond in kind. Or I might just respond bluntly anyway, because fuck you. :D
The first part wasn't ever in question, as with the Elvis lyric. It's the second part that could be taken as an instruction or a warning. Consider, "You can insult me as much as you like, but don't insult my family".
Quoting Baden
I'll agree @fishfry was a bit up on his hind legs. I didn't find it rude, but you did, and there's nothing more to say about that. (Might be a Merkin thing.)
You do have my sincere appreciation for the work you do to keep this place running.