i18n@... wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > i
> > >
> > > Nor have you. But since I originally raised the issue, I will say this::
> >
> > Was I talking to you?
>
> Your message came to me by email, on a thread I have been actively
> participating.
>
> If you have a message aimed at only an individual, please email it to
> them directly. Otherwise, all messages on the list are public, you know
> that!
>
> Truth is, I wrote last night, but on reflection decided not to mail, a
> message noting that there have been many times you have left ambiguous
> antecedents, only to jump on someone in a nasty way when asking for
> clarification, or in this case for even deeming to get in the way of
> your target of the hour.
>
> Consider it noted publicly that you have a problem with antecedents, and
> that before sending messages, you might like to check the use of all of
> your pronouns from the point of view of a reader (also known as
> "editing") or else expect that sometimes you will be asked for
> clarifications.
>
> I consider the latter choice fair in an informal forum such as this.
>
> I also do *not* consider fair that you will, deliberately or not, write
> vaguely, as a means to draw people in for an insult. I am certain no one
> else does either.
>
> We all admire the rhetorical skill you display, I am sure, when you do
> that. Please give it a rest until there are new readers to show off to.
>
> >
> > And what did ME zip right to? Voice recognition software!!!! Sheesh.
>
> Hey, if you insist that the KB is no good, then all solutions for text
> input are on the table IMHO. If someone said they could use fMRI using a
> cheap device that was optimized for Vai, or perhaps a sensor that
> measures eye and head motion, to develop text input, well, that is all
> fair game. After all, I mentioned Morse code input as requiring only one
> key - and you didn't jump on me for suggesting that was a viable
> alternative for any language!
>
> >
> > Obviously it's political!!! What else could it be, when it's a question
> > of imposing imperialist cultures on indigenous peoples??
>
> Well, if you would re-read the messages in these threads with open eyes,
> you would see other opinions that are well thought out, even if you
> disagree with them.
>
> But the reason I asked you to clarify that is because if your true
> motive here is political, fine, OK, great, but at least it is now
> upfront and stated, and we know whether or not you are on topic for the
> list in general, or if we should send the thread to a list that deals
> more with the political ramification of technology and "cultural
> imperialism" (of which there are a great many respected ones, I am sure)

Fuck, as Seshat would not want me to say, off. (Referring, to clarify
the antecedent, to everything above, not just the last sentence or
paragraph.)

> Thanks for letting us know where you stand.
>
> > > Definitely not going to happen. Languages evolve over time to reflect
> > > their environment, and lately environments that have been heretofore
> > > isolated are becoming less so. The Bible notwithstanding,I don't think
> > > any of us are prepared to argue that all languages are static and
> > > originated exactly as they are.
> >
> > Hunh?
>
> It is plain English. Read it until you get it. I know you are capable.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with English pragmatics. The "Hunh?"
questions not the semantics of the "plain English," but the relevance of
the paragraph. Who has suggested that anyone is "prepared to argue"
that?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...