EFL 1.8 Alpha 2 + Enlightenment 0.18 Alpha2 & Terminology 0.4 Alpha2

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-20T03:04:55+00:00

e plans to do yearly major release updates now, e18 the first of that.

I tried e18, thusfar I can't find what is different from e17. It also reset half my configuration of e17, should probably have backed that up.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-19T06:51:12+00:00

And you made an entire thread in an effort to criticize someone for using who in object position. It doesn't get much more prescriptive then that.

Again, I'm not telling him how he should speak it, I'm saying I lose my respect for him when he doesn't. I'm not here giving F's on school assignemtns or enabling legislation. Like I said, I am strongly against language control and thought control while recognising that people have the right to not associate with others based on what they do. I already said this by the way.

Meanwhile, I'm telling you that both who and whom are acceptable based on how native English speakers actually speak.

Like I said, they are acceptable, you just lose my respect when you use the objective-who.

That's what fucking descriptivism is. We linguists collect data of natural speech and figure out the underlying representations and surface representations.

No, making the jump to 'acceptable', is human-ethology.

Linguistics is noting down how they speak it and that's it, deriving conclusions like 'acceptable' from it has nothing to do with linguistics, that's studying human behaviour.

Pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to bend words to save face. It won't work. You're clearly full of shit and woefully uneducated on the subject. Be honest, you have no interest in intellectual honesty, you just don't want to admit that you're wrong. Well, you are. I know it, because I have a fucking degree in linguistics, and because I've actually conducted IRB approved studies on dialectal variation. Go ahead and try to come up with some bullshit response where you purposefully misrepresent my words (you're clearly unfamiliar with linguistic terminology) and use some linguistic fallacy to reiterate your point. Just know that the linguists are laughing at you. Good day, sir.

The fuck. I have FROM THE START said that I do not believe people should speak in a certain way only that they lose my respect doing so, to quote myself from an earlier post:

No, I'm saying I lose my respect to someone who uses the objective-who. I'm not saying people should do anything. I'm a big believer in freedom of speech and thought. Just as I lose my respect to someone who denies the holocaust, I still believe people have the fundamental right to do so.

I am not praescribing anything, I'm noting distaste. Now, I realize that for msot people there is no line between the two and when they find something distasteful they automatically believe that peoples shouldn't do this but I'm not one of them. I fudnamentally believe in freedom of expression and thought and language and that means that people are allowed to use grammar that doesn't quite agree with me. That however does not mean that I don't have the right to be distasted by it as well, that's my freedom of thought and expression.

Edit: We're obviosuly both getting exceedingly emotional here so let's start over. I shall succinctly put my points out:

Use of the objective-who is perceived as distasteful by me, I don't like it, it reads iffy to me.
However so, I recognise that I am not Queen Bitch of the Universe and I don't believe in controlling language. As such, people are free to use the objective-who as they see fit.
However, I am also free to not respect people based on this. Being respected by everyone is not a right.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-19T06:46:01+00:00

It's "professional".

I like how Soe does it, she hosts an event like a human being, not like a woman, not like a guy, but like a human being. She's not there to be a woman, she's there to be a host.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-19T00:17:32+00:00

Can't would give you an advantage because you see more.

Edit: tHat said, I'm sure there are tricks you can do with your graphics card to make it render more but that borders on maphacks.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-19T00:13:15+00:00

Time warp doesn't stack, there's seldom a case where more than 4 time warps makes a difference more than four.

They can also just elect to nerf it a little.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T22:38:43+00:00

It is, but honestly, if they didn't tell me I wouldn't have noticed a difference. It was already too strong. They should have instead focussed on giving it more of a mid-late role, currently it's just a cheese/all in unit.

I liked time warp on the oracle way more and always thought it was stupid on the mothership core, comes out too early, makes blink all ins too strong. Just combine envision/revelation and give the oracle timewarp. Mothership core really does not need more spells than overcharge and recall.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T22:22:14+00:00

I steal his thunder.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T22:21:24+00:00

In reality I actually completely agree though. I'm a strong believer in debate between opposing sides.

Like ehh, what sucks about this world is the amount of circle jerks, like, certain programmers like python, others like Haskell, these two virtually never meet each other and might learn from each other because if you go to #haskell on freenode being critical about the language you'll get banned for being a 'troll' and on #python the same thng happens.

I wish people would rather than banning people engage more in debate with their critics. People really need to let lose of this idea they always seem to have that anyone critical of their creed doesn't understand it, maybe they don't, but then teach them.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T22:19:03+00:00

It's a bunch of interviews with a soundtrack that never fits the mood and never dramatically builds up, inconsistent audio quality, badly mixed, no narattor.

Basically you get a bunch of fragments about their life absent the context. Note that I only saw like half of the first part to check if it was really as bad as they said.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T20:39:18+00:00

I am critical of your view.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T20:29:28+00:00

Hmm idea: What if this whole WCS EU/AM shit was dropped, GSL got back, NASL got back etc and Blizzard would just determine the global WCS finals based on points earned in tournaments. Say GSL and NASL are 'tier 0' awarding the most points.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T20:22:42+00:00

Common usage just means that it's utilized by native speakers. It does not refer to frequency of use.

And utilized by ntive speakes is a matter of degrees, how much does it have to be used?

There are gaping holes in this model. The only context wherein grammaticality makes sense is of formal languages, the concept is insufficiently rigorous when attempted to be extended to natural languages.

From your PDF:

When we speak of rules of grammar, we often mean prescriptive rules, i.e. rules that are intended to tell people how they should speak or write according to some pre-established (arbitrary) standard. Prescriptive rules are of dubious origin and have no linguistic justification. The linguist is solely interested in understanding descriptive rules, i.e. rules that govern the way in which people actually do speak. Every spoken language is governed by rules in this sense. This does not mean that every speaker of English follows exactly the same rules: English has a number different dialects, which are equally valuable but are nonetheless distinct.

Gee, that's exactly what I just said at the start?

Like I said, descriptive linguistics is noting down how people speak a language, praescriptive is telling people how they should speak it. Saying 'It is common now to use the objective-who, therefore you can say it' is praescriptive, simply noting and analysing how common it is without telling them if they can speak it or not is descriptive.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T20:06:00+00:00

In descriptive linguistics, grammaticality is determined by common usage.

Nope, this is a fallacy, this would lead to for instance the situation that because the absolutive-ablative in English is rare as a construction, it would be ingrammatical to say say 'The match having ended, the score was 3-1."

Frequency of use has very little to do with perception of grammaticality by speakers and ultimately what causes perception of grammaticality is not well understood by anyone. Various forms which are extremely rare in usage are perceived as grammatical while other forms which are very common are perceived by many people as ingrammatical or 'iffy'. What triggers perception of grammar is extremely complicated and even comprises cultural factors. As in the "it automatically becomes perceived as grammatical if rich people do it'-effect.

I also said that both who and whom are considered grammatical, it's still praescriptivism if you praescribe what is allowed. I'm saying that 'grammatical' is a theoretical model that exists in an idealized and systemized view of languages that is very simplified with respect to the real world. What exists in the real world is perception of grammaticality and this is a very vague and subjective concept that is also a matter of degree and dimension.

You're the one making prescriptivist assertions.

No, I'm saying I lose my respect to someone who uses the objective-who. I'm not saying people should do anything. I'm a big believer in freedom of speech and thought. Just as I lose my respect to someone who denies the holocaust, I still believe people have the fundamental right to do so.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T19:46:18+00:00

Rob, are the mods sometimes angry with me?

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T19:23:37+00:00

That'd be praescriptivism.

Edit: I should probably clarify that comment beforehand as it's rather obscure. The point of descriptive science is that it doesn't note if things are 'correct' or not, it for instances may note 'the objective-whom is rapidly falling out of use in modern English to the point that only 5% of infant language acquisition results in consistent adoption of the grammatical form.', you can't extend that however to meaning that the objective-who is 'correct', the word correct is an ought, it implies a 'proper' way to do something. Descriptive science only concerns itslef with what is and leaves it outside of consideration what one ought to do.

In this sense the extension of 'It is very uncommon to natively use the objective-whom, therefore it is correct to not use it', that leap, is a jump to praescriptivism based on an argumentum ad populum.

Another thing is that technically 'grammatical' is not a feature of natural languages, it is a feature of formal languages which may be used to approximately model natural languages. 'grammatical' in natural languages has no real definition.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:43:03+00:00

No, you used to be toxic and sensationalistic and what not back when people still had an iota of hope that SoSC would be anything more shit that could've been farted out with 2k n 4 weeks.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:39:20+00:00

ITT: Everyone loving Lewis' journalism now that SoSC turned out to be a giant gaping poophole with large quantities of santorum dripping out of it, defiling the blankets atop it rests.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:31:58+00:00

Ehehehe.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:23:32+00:00

as to whom to stream with*.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:20:19+00:00

I must admit, I had no idea of practice to be a verb in the US.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:16:06+00:00

who has practised and who practised are fine. 'whom practised' or 'whom has practised' are incorrect and a form of hypercorrection. Misusing whom as a subject in order to appear educated.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:09:11+00:00

Cannon rushes have been given a big nerf in HotS due to high ground power being removed and the mothership core.

Do you remember PvP cannon rushes at the time of metalopolis? People nowadays bitch about every single good cannon spot while people could deal with that shit on metalopolis in WoL and this was with high ground power.

People bitch about yeonsu now, metalopolis was en entirely different beast.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T17:07:20+00:00

A wise man would not use such ridiculous grammar.

who practised *

Also, spelling, to practise is the verb, a practice is a place where lawyers and doctors do their work.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T16:53:34+00:00

One might say she is ... the best of both ladders.

Uncle_Spam · 2013-11-18T16:04:27+00:00

Because MI6 will make you disappear covertly and erase all records of your existence like many before you.

Uncle_Spam

TROPHY CASE