Stevie did a Bat Mitzvah

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Unless you're using it as an adjective, of course, in which case it simply describes the noun which it is modifying, regardless of the presence or absence of any other qualifiers.

If I said, "Black radicals are marching on Washington today," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

If I said, "I think it's wrong for Black Panthers to raise their children to think that violence is an acceptable political response. They're just creating more black radicals," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

You misread the sentence. No harm, no foul.

I used the example rich/poor but I could just as easily have used the example assholes/angels. Thus, the group analogy.
in your second example the noun is radicals, and the adjective is Black. As we know, radicals come in all colors. And if the speaker is talking about radicals and Black radicals in particular, how can you point to a claim that all black people are radicals? That is a change in focus isnt it? And I am not doing that.

My point was that the phrase "rich assholes" defined a GROUP. The intersection between group A (all rich people) and group B (all assholes) A distinct group all its own.(X) (obviously, not all rich people are assholes, nor are all assholes rich) It delineates a particular set, not its separate parts. Thus, MORE rich assholes means an increase to the original group of rich assholes. (since they are procreating!) As I said to Amber (maybe she didnt read?) we are not talking a finite number here.

Earlier on, someone made the fallacy leap (aka Categorical fallacy) between what Jason and I thought (that Eliud was defining a group) to the statement "are you saying all rich people are assholes?" I want to state for the record, I never said that. I never said Eliud said that. I am merely saying that it is possible to recognize or identify the phrase "rich assholes" as its own entity.
As either group A or group B increases its numbers, there is the liklihood that the subset (X) will increase as well.

Eliud clarified his meaning later on and as I said, I was ok with that. I was merely pointing out to Amber that there was more than one way of reading that sentence, and I stand by that statement.


oh and Amber? Whatever.

[Jyqm]

Exaggerated sigh.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

except in this case the noun was "assholes" and the adjective was "rich".

Right...

therefore, your example is flipped.

No, it's not.

you can say that not all assholes are rich under your example

In my example, the noun was "radicals" and the adjective was "black," and I used a couple of sentences where it was clear that the phrase did not implt that all black people are radicals.

In ELIUD's sentence, the noun was "assholes" and the adjective was "rich."

As we know, radicals come in all colors.

Indeed, as do assholes.

My point was that the phrase "rich assholes" defined a GROUP.

As does the phrase "black radicals."

Thus, MORE rich assholes means an increase to the original group of rich assholes. (since they are procreating!)

Right. How is this different from my example in the which the black radicals create more black radicals?

I was merely pointing out to Amber that there was more than one way of reading that sentence, and I stand by that statement.

You do that. I can see this is very important to you.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Exaggerated sigh.



Right...
No, it's not.

In my example, the noun was "radicals" and the adjective was "black," and I used a couple of sentences where it was clear that the phrase did not implt that all black people are radicals.

In ELIUD's sentence, the noun was "assholes" and the adjective was "rich."

Indeed, as do assholes.

As does the phrase "black radicals."

Right. How is this different from my example in the which the black radicals create more black radicals?

You do that. I can see this is very important to you.

while you posted this, I edited some of my earlier post.

Im not saying our two examples are different. I am saying that someone earlier on made a categorical error (not me) thinking that the phrase I was highlighting actually lead to another conclusion. Go back and read my other post on this page.

btw: YES this is important to me. I resent Amber's insistence that there is only one way to "read" something, or that only she has the ability to be logical. She can cry mea culpa all she wants but I know how she treated me via PM, and considering she wasnt even the person I was talking to originally, her blithe announcements of her superiority were really quite unnecessary. As are her comments (oh so thinly veiled) directed at me now. She really should look in the mirror before she starts accusing ME of anything.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Were you born in Ireland?

I wish.....someday I hope to go there....

"getting your Irish up" is an expression...

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

while you posted this, I edited some of my earlier post.

Im not saying our two examples are different. I am saying that someone earlier on made a categorical error (not me) thinking that the phrase I was highlighting actually lead to another conclusion. Go back and read my other post on this page.

Gotcha. All clear.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Gotcha. All clear.

Thank you for that.

[David]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

btw: YES this is important to me. I resent Amber's insistence that there is only one way to "read" something, or that only she has the ability to be logical.

This all reminds me of the exchange between Derrida & Abrams ("The Deconstructing Angel" &c.).

[David]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Not everyone can be grammar superstars like us. Though I am amazed that this particular branch of discussion has gone on for so many pages.

As Joseph Sawicki used to say, All grammars leak.

Consider the sentence (used in Fowler): Neither John nor Mary knew his own mind.

Grammatical yet leaky!

Incidentally, Fowler's suggestion is to recast: e.g., Both were alike irresolute.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by David

I heard Stevie, Joe & Don used the young lady's Bat Mitzvah as an opportunity to stretch out a little with their set lists -- you know, to run through some Yiddish numbers that they don't get to play very often when they're booked into the Garden or Irvine Meadows. [...]

BWA HA HA!

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

I figure since most of the familiar (and familial sorta) names like Petty, Nicks, Henley, etc...went in on this, they donated their "earnings" to Henley's Walden Woods thingy or whatever.

Perhaps Henley enlisted them, since as you know, one of the articles said his pay went to that (although that's unconfirmed). It would explain Petty's presence. Slumming for "the greater good" and all that.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I know, I'm actually Irish myself. It's just when Curtis asked if you had red hair I suddenly wondered if you were called Irishgrl because you were born in Ireland or just that your family is Irish.

My family is Irish, (my dad's side particularly) and I identify with that part of my heritage the most. Hence the name I picked for myself.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Next time I am in Texas - me, you, and Livia are going out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what a wild time THAT will be . Don't forget your chiffon!

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by amber

And if people start thinking that all words have no concrete meaning, and are up for "interpretation" even though the interpretation is something no one ever said, or can even be stretched to intimate that they meant that, well, then, suck balls. To me, it's called "spinning" or "making stuff up" pure and simple.

I like to call it Post-Structuralism, or if one prefers, Deconstructionism...check out Derrida's theory of Differance . He will change the way you think about language and meaning. NOTHING about language is concrete. He'll twist your logic six ways to Sunday .

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted. This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text. Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that accompany its production. "

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by David

This all reminds me of the exchange between Derrida & Abrams ("The Deconstructing Angel" &c.).

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I like to call it Post-Structuralism, or if one prefers, Deconstructionism...check out Derrida's theory of Differance . He will change the way you think about language and meaning. NOTHING about language is concrete. He'll twist your logic six ways to Sunday .

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted. This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text. Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that accompany its production. "

may I just say: THANK YOU!! now its MY TURN to feel validated. And to point out that the reason Amber was having such a hard time illustrating any error in logic on MY part was due to the fact that I didnt MAKE any. Now, Im off to research Derrida, because I like educating myself and I give a ****.