Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 180645 times)

pooka · « **Reply #150 on:** June 12, 2007, 11:40:48 AM »

Quote

I want to use my healing talents to keep hope alive and express my vision courageously in word and action.

In my family, I want to build healthy, loving relationships in which we can each become our best selves.

At work, I want to establish a fault-free, self-perpetuating learning environment.

In the world, I want to nurture the development of all life forms, in harmony with the laws of nature.

It is reminiscent of something the Borg Queen would say.

Jonathon · « **Reply #151 on:** June 12, 2007, 12:00:29 PM »

I don't think cybernetic implants are exactly in harmony with the laws of nature.

pooka · « **Reply #152 on:** June 12, 2007, 12:06:22 PM »

But what if they improve quality of life for all creatures?

Jonathon · « **Reply #153 on:** June 12, 2007, 12:12:18 PM »

Then they should rewrite their mission statement to reflect the fact that they assimilate people into a collective and make them cybernetic drones.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #154 on:** June 12, 2007, 03:13:20 PM »

Quote

That's not very nurturing to the tuna, is it?

It is the tuna's mission in life to nourish ME! You know, as part of the interconnectedness of all life forms, harmony, nature, nurturing. Yadda yadda ya.

Porter · « **Reply #155 on:** June 12, 2007, 03:37:29 PM »

Yeah, the circle of life sure is nice when you're up on top of it.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #156 on:** June 12, 2007, 03:49:07 PM »

Yup!

rivka · « **Reply #157 on:** June 13, 2007, 02:10:07 AM »

Quote

Quote
That's not very nurturing to the tuna, is it?
It is the tuna's mission in life to nourish ME! You know, as part of the interconnectedness of all life forms, harmony, nature, nurturing. Yadda yadda ya.

You forgot about the sparks of holiness eating the tuna raises.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #158 on:** June 13, 2007, 06:57:37 AM »

Holy Mackerel!

dkw · « **Reply #159 on:** June 25, 2007, 08:06:48 AM »

Quote

Grammatically speaking, they work the same way—they're both future modals. Semantically, there's a fair amount of overlap, but shall is sometimes used to express obligation or some sort of imperative (compare "thou shalt not steal" to "thou wilt not steal"). But because there's so much overlap in meaning, they're to some extent interchangeable. As you suspected and as Rivka confirmed, the supposed distinction is meaningless here because it doesn't go back to the original.

And as Porter said, it has sometimes been taught that the distinction is reversed for the first person and second/third persons. According to the Wikipedia article:
Quote
The most influential proponent of the distinction was John Wallis, whose 1653 Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae stated "The rule is... to express a future event without emotional overtones, one should say I shall, we shall, but you/he/she/they will; conversely, for emphasis, willfulness, or insistence, one should say I/we will, but you/he/she/they shall".
But this rule is completely baseless. It's not supported by etymology or by any historical usage.

Would it be fair to say that if someone claimed that "I will" is declarative and "I shall" is permissive that that someone has no clue what he is talking about?

(I know that "I may" would actually be the permissive, but is declarative vs permissive even a dichotomy, or are they in two different categories altogether?)

While I am slightly curious about the parenthetical, the first question is mostly rhetorical and venting.

Jonathon · « **Reply #160 on:** June 25, 2007, 09:32:08 AM »

I've never heard someone use the term "permissive" as if it were some sort of grammatical or semantic category, and I don't think I've heard "declarative" used since elementary school. In English the usual term for a statement with ordinary modality is "indicative." So I would say the answer to your first question is yes.

And even if "declarative" and "permissive" were some sort of dichotomy, there isn't a clear dichotomy between "shall" and "will." There's an awful lot of overlap, and "shall" has at least a few separate but related senses that can't all be captured by one label.

pooka · « **Reply #161 on:** June 25, 2007, 09:48:57 AM »

Is it better in that sense to respond to someone with "Let me check with my friend who is a linguist." or to go them one better by BSing about how that used to be the case, but [insert linguistic technobabble] to the effect that [random mutisyllabic word] + ive = pWn3D!!!!

dkw · « **Reply #162 on:** June 25, 2007, 02:25:38 PM »

Good question. I can't decide if I should let this slide or try to tactfully let the guy know. If anyone listening knows grammatical terminology it's making him look bad, but what are the chances that anyone does? Or that they care?

It's a spinich in your teeth situation -- would you rather know, or not?

Jonathon · « **Reply #163 on:** June 25, 2007, 02:29:47 PM »

It could always be worse, I suppose; he could have said something like "faith is a verb."

Personally, I'd rather have someone tell me that I was making a fool of myself and spreading nonsense. Not everyone is of that mindset, though.

Porter · « **Reply #164 on:** June 25, 2007, 04:33:43 PM »

"faith is a verb." -- Jon Boy

I'm just looking for things to take out of context, ain't I?

This one isn't as funny as my sig, though.

Jonathon · « **Reply #165 on:** June 25, 2007, 04:39:20 PM »

Unless you're not above spurious and misleading editing in your quotations, you really should have a set of single quotes inside the double quotes, like this: "'faith is a verb.'"

Porter · « **Reply #166 on:** June 25, 2007, 06:40:18 PM »

Well, misleading editing was pretty much the point, but if I put in the single quotes, I can claim that it's not misleading at all, since the punctuation explicitly says that you were quoting something. Thanks!

pooka · « **Reply #167 on:** June 26, 2007, 05:45:04 AM »

Spinach in teeth could happen to anyone. Flaunting of ignorance... well, it probably does happen to everyone, but I think "he who is convinced against his will..." applies. What was the context? Did he make this pronouncement to a group of people?

Basically, if one wants to become the type of person to go about correcting people's mistaken notions about grammar, it's probably a good idea to have a book or two that you are then willing to stick to in the future where you can show people. I happen to have a whole shelf where I could go and look stuff up depending on what the desired outcome of the conversation is. :devil: I'm just sayin'. It's a rare argument that can be won with "Language is an organism; words are neither good nor bad, they simply exist."

Boy that last phrase was hard to put. Also, I've never had to open a book with someone. In general, the knowledge that I could results in people not questioning me much. It's weird, because we question each other a lot here, because we're mostly languagey types, and hyperliteral ones at that. In normal life, people find me scary.

Part of what I love about my job is that my boss is very literate, and I know that he values my skills. I just realized that.

Porter · « **Reply #168 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:18:49 AM »

Quote

Basically, if one wants to become the type of person to go about correcting people's mistaken notions about grammar, it's probably a good idea to have a book or two that you are then willing to stick to in the future where you can show people.

I disagree. Case in point, the current case. I knew that at one point, shall/will was taught to have different levels of emphasis, and that they were reversed for first person. I had no problems sharing that notion even though I have no book which says that, and I couldn't give any references. If somebody had challenged the veracity of what I said, all I could have done is shrugged and said "I know I've read it somewhere", which I have.

Lucky, Jonathon had my six, so that wasn't a problem.

*high five*

Jonathon · « **Reply #169 on:** June 26, 2007, 07:52:36 AM »

*dons appropriate protection first*

*high five*

pooka · « **Reply #170 on:** June 26, 2007, 09:54:30 AM »

"Had my six"?

Porter · « **Reply #171 on:** June 26, 2007, 10:01:06 AM »

Had my back.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #172 on:** June 26, 2007, 12:39:21 PM »

He had your back? And that was lucky?

Huh.

Porter · « **Reply #173 on:** June 26, 2007, 12:46:34 PM »

Lucky for me.

Jonathon · « **Reply #174 on:** July 17, 2007, 01:05:12 PM »

"I didn't say that I didn't say it. I said that I didn't say that I said it. I want to make that very clear." —George Romney

I'm assuming this is Mitt Romney's father. Of course, the quote is attributed but unverified, so take it for what it's worth.