Relatable fictional characters

crystal_richardson_ wrote:i find the rules of written language to be arbitrary, and i have always considered the semi-colon to just be a longer pause.

if written language evolved out of oral language, how could such rules be inherent to language use? there is no 'oral' equivalent of the semi-colon, other than as a longer pause second only to the period.

if the purpose of written language is really to just communicate, as in the case of oral language as it was originally, then rules should not matter as long as the meaning conveyed is clear.

Language rules are only stringent in relation to the ineffective transmission of meaning. They're representative, not ancillary, existing as a preventative to written communication becoming nonsensical. Much more broad and dynamic and all-encompassing than you're suggesting; similar to musical notation relative to melody.

Those corrections were made facetiously—the poster's pseudo-intellectuallism, employing intelligent-sounding language-use to bolster their sophistication without remotely understanding it, is deliciously ironic—but to use their example: even if a sentence is understandable to you and me, correct usage is all about satisfying a standard satisfactory to the understanding of everyone speaking the language; the 'rules' evolved through a kind of communication-meritocracy organically, and are perfectly reflective of every vernacular.

'Pertinant' is conceptually close enough to the mark to get the point across, but also wrong enough to be potentially confusing (an error made pretentiously), which would be the same written or spoken; and if you read the sentence out loud, the extra pause and new-emphasis created by the semicolon sounds awkward and unnatural.

Language rules aren't arbitrary; they keep us from sounding like idiots.

I punctuate like a retard. My flair isn't quite as eccentric as Ada's but it's certainly not conventional: Half of the time I even know that I'm misusing punctuation. The other half of the time I am just displaying lack of education.

Well, written-language isn't only representative. It unified our communication ability and in many ways enhanced human consciousness. Style is an artistic component unique to writing, that reversely informs language-sound; Ada's unorthodox grammar-use is well established as an artful style. And your own writing style, as the great philosopher Dazz once said, is beautiful. Albeit sometimes unnecessarily ambiguous.

Even when I was a child, people complained that I speak in very general terms. I overcompensate by repeating the same thing in 7 different ways and then end up with 50 paragraphs of one singular point, hoping one way of writing it will hit home with people. I really struggle to communicate the process before a conclusion. I want to leave the answer up on the board and hope people understand how I got there but it's silly to expect that. Impressions are easier to deal with than details. It just means I'm a lazy thinker.

-- Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:17 pm --

Dazz is to-the-point which I admire. He doesn't have difficulty showing all that needs to be said in a short space.

I like the writing style of both Dazz and gately/courtier. Both, for different reasons.

When I read gately or courtier, often I have to work. Their thoughts can be complex and their writing styles add to the complexity. I like to think that they've taken time to search for just that word I'm reading to convey their meaning, and I like that they approach an issue from multiple vantage points, or perhaps the same vantage point but yet a few inches to the left of the previous thought. But I can get tired of reading them. It is like my current reading of Wallace, an author that gately re-introduced me to -- his wording is wonderful and his imagery can be exhilarating to me yet he can also tire me -- I take him in bites and get filled up fairly quickly.

Dazz's writing can serve as a counterpoint in it's directness and simplicity. His points are often wellmade, though also often without finesse or elegance. I don't have to work hard reading Dazz. He doesn't tire me out. But he's also crass and insulting in a way that gately/courtier/others like them are not -- all can point out something critically (and I appreciate that when reading the observations of others) but gately/courtier just poke you and sometimes obfuscate their meaning so that it can be taken several ways; Dazz just smacks you upside the head.

gately wrote:
Language rules are only stringent in relation to the ineffective transmission of meaning. They're representative, not ancillary, existing as a preventative to written communication becoming nonsensical. Much more broad and dynamic and all-encompassing than you're suggesting; similar to musical notation relative to melody.

Those corrections were made facetiously—the poster's pseudo-intellectuallism, employing intelligent-sounding language-use to bolster their sophistication without remotely understanding it, is deliciously ironic—but to use their example: even if a sentence is understandable to you and me, correct usage is all about satisfying a standard satisfactory to the understanding of everyone speaking the language; the 'rules' evolved through a kind of communication-meritocracy organically, and are perfectly reflective of every vernacular...

I've always been fascinated with language, particularly English, since it's so pleasantly convoluted; so many ways to say the same thing while tweaking the meaning ever so slightly with every variation. There is a beauty in that.

Language rules aren't arbitrary; they keep us from sounding like idiots.

But then again, breaking those rules can be a beautiful thing as well. From abstract poetry to flowery prose to technical manuals to the cut-ups of Burroughs and Gysin, there is so much you can do with language. Words, like colors, can be distorted by the words around them. Additionally, a writer's, or more commonly, a speaker's choice of words can reveal a whole lot about their true intent, or what they're not saying.

gately wrote:..written-language isn't only representative. It unified our communication ability and in many ways enhanced human consciousness.

That's all at risk now. Early internet chat sites and their hyperactive idiot-child otherwise known as social media are the biggest threat to language since Madjoe (R.I.P.) clawed his way out of his mother's womb. Millennials who have grown up texting and Tweeting are destroying the power of language by ignorantly disregarding it.

The expression of posters who use asswipe acronyms like LOL is completely lost on me. LOL has come to mean "I hereby diminish the veracity of what I just said because I have no confidence in my convictions. Also, I move my lips when I read." It pisses me off.

Surgically sterilizing the ignorant might be a good way to reverse the disintegration of language, but I've yet to think of a way to make it socially feasible.

Courtier wrote:Even when I was a child, people complained that I speak in very general terms. I overcompensate by repeating the same thing in 7 different ways and then end up with 50 paragraphs of one singular point, hoping one way of writing it will hit home with people. I really struggle to communicate the process before a conclusion. I want to leave the answer up on the board and hope people understand how I got there but it's silly to expect that. Impressions are easier to deal with than details. It just means I'm a lazy thinker.

I do a similar thing. For me, it's the belief that I must use roundabout embellishments in my speech in order to clarify the uniqueness of what I'm saying. As if even my most patent, direct thoughts are too complex for other's to pick up on. Somehow, I suspect this is a schizoid-related thing.

It just means I'm a lazy thinker.

No, I think it's just that you doubt the efficacy of others to pick up on what you are saying/meaning. At least that's the case with me.

Dazz is to-the-point which I admire. He doesn't have difficulty showing all that needs to be said in a short space.

Dazz is a verbal terrorist.

I contradicted myself when initially writing how I relate to fictional characters.

My instinct was to say that I don't relate to characters but I do admire qualities in them. Some of those qualities might be their ideals, some of which I share. That's relating to them on some level. I had to think about how to reconcile that.

Somehow I remove the idea or trait away from the character, or I remove it away from myself, and compare them separate from the people expressing them, so I don't feel like there is a connection between us, just a fondness of the idea. Perhaps this mechanism is why I find connection isn't possible: I'm relating to something they do or say rather than the people themselves. That might be true for most people - in that they like what people say or do, since that is for all intents and purposes who they are - but I don't seem to form an attachment to the person as a consequence which is tricky. I just like to see the idea. I could tell you characters I like and admire and who have similar ideas to me but I find it difficult to say I relate to them.

naps wrote:...the biggest threat to language since Madjoe (R.I.P.) clawed his way out of his mother's womb.

I mean, LOL

The expression of posters who use asswipe acronyms like LOL is completely lost on me. LOL has come to mean "I hereby diminish the veracity of what I just said because I have no confidence in my convictions. Also, I move my lips when I read." It pisses me off.

woops

^


I actually wasn't thinking of you at all. Your posts are a kind of marriage between succinct thoughts and direct, emotional expression. They're pleasantly breezy and well-grounded. I can't even recall any instances when you've used LOL. But now that you've brought my attention to it, I'm afraid I will have to foe you LOL

When I first came to this forum, I was very serious in my posts. I was trying to have discussions about the mental illness/personality disorders within my family with people-on-the-ground and not mental health professionals.

It was my first forum experience. After some time, a member I admired PM'ed me and suggested that my posts would be better understood in the spirit in which I was offering them if I'd start using emoticons or 'lol' or something to show my emotion.

I didn't like emoticons at all, and I had never once written "lol" in texts, so I balked. They just seemed... well... silly to me.

But eventually I saw that they were helpful to me in reading others' posts and deciphering their intent.

So I reluctantly started.

Still use them where I think what I'm saying could be misconstrued.

But they do seem like a take-away feature. And their overuse has cheapened them for everyone. And they are... come on... kinda silly. And I feel silly using them.

I'll pull back now, naps. Don't want to offend your fine sensibilities