Exactly.

Exactly twice.

If you are in "the hood" you don't go around correcting people's grammar or demanding that they use the English language properly, especially if it is you who wants to know what they are talking about.

Communication, its worth the effort.
Language was developed to facilitate communication.
Effort must be expended by both parties to communicate.
If one party unduly places a burden on the conversation by using language in a unique way, it would be impolite to do so without agreement and perhaps the person introducing the new language should step up.

Lets apply this concept to other aspects of life.

Community grill.

We all use the community grill.
In this community we have agreed grilling is good, and worth the effort.
Well here I am a griller who was taught by my dear ole grilling mom to make sure and clean up the grill when im done so that the next person doesn't have to do part of my job.

I seriously hope you fellas are keeping up . . .

Defining unique words/unique usage, the crud on the grill, The burden of proof, its all the same if you are going to go to the effort of the task at hand, communication, grilling, determining truth, you should step up to the task and not place the burden on others. We each have to step up, you can continue to pretend your doing your part, but I think we all know whats going on here.

If your answer is seriously, a) I am not interested in communicating, b) I am not interested in grilling, or c) I am not really interested in truth, then please ignore this message from your friendly neighborhood reality checker.

I sit here and read through this thread and witness deveral different offshoots of the topic, all of which hit it from a different vantage point, which I believe is good.

Regarding the burden of proof...

Here is the way I see it. I want to use the correct terminology. I want to bear the burden of proof for a claim which I make that needs it. Every person whom I have ever met that have their intellectual 'act' together shares this view. I feel that this is a result of knowing what your talking about. The more complete an understanding that one has, the more completely they can logically explain what it is that they know, and why they know these things. That ultimately includes what grounds the claims as well.

That my friends, is how the burden is shouldered.

So to me, when I witness someone who makes unsupported claims, and then refuses to want to accept the burden of proof for those claims, it means to me that they do not know what grounds them.




Regarding the correct use of language...

Of course slang exists.

Of course two people can use a term wrongly, and yet both understand one another, as long as they both use it wrongly in the same manner. That avoids the point why language and terms exist. Two people can rob a bank as well. Personally, I just do not want to 'walk around' abusing language, especially by using terms which have a specific meaning in a meaningless way. If one refuses to acknowledge the standard definition(s) which are given in any good dictionary, then they should want to explain why another should accept the new use. This requires giving the reasons... the grounds. If those grounds are offer no clarity, and none of the given definitions work in the new manner that the person is attempting to present it, then it is time for the listener to decide whether or not s/he wants to pursue an expressed idea which is not being clearly made.

If the speaker refuses to budge after being clearly shown that their word usage is incorrect, then I would have to conclude that s/he does not know what the terms actually mean, and they do not have the internal ability to accept the idea that they are using it incorrectly, and I would further question the total understanding of the rest of what was being discussed.

That's just me though, and there are no doubt situations which this does not encompass...

@ Di

@ Dragoness

@ everyone else

Oh now there’s a good example of clear, unambiguous expression of precisely accurate meaning. Is that an example of the kind of “stepping up” you’re talking about?

So maybe I should demand that you stop using “your” when you should be using “you’re”, or “then” when you should be using “than”, or always use proper punctuation? Is that an example of the kind of “stepping up” you’re talking about?

Personally, I always thought I was “doing my part” by trying to understand what you mean when you use those words improperly. But you’re saying I should not try to understand your intended meaning at all and just take what you say as the nonsense it literally is? Is that an example of the kind of “stepping up” you’re talking about?

Gimme a break.

If you seriously think that any of those are even close to anything I would answer, then I have no reason to :step up" to accept any burden at all, because it appears to me that you are more interested in “tearing down” than in “stepping up”.

Step up my ***.

I call it "The Law of allowing."

If you think that people should change the way they communicate so that you can understand them you are placing blame for own your lack of understanding on them. Try allowing people to express themselves freely and let them be. Or try just telling them that you don't understand. Don't place blame and responsibility upon others. If you can't understand them just say so. If misunderstandings constantly keep happening, realize that they are speaking some other kind of language. A dialect within a dialect.

To expect everyone to figure out what yours is and change their way of communicating is an ego trip.

The logical analysis was valid, regardless of grammer.

You know precisely what we are talking about I hope, right?

We are talking about pink smooge, but don't ask me to define it, its everything and nothing, its what made nothing everything.

You know its not the grammer that prevents us from having a proper conversation about pink smooge, your no idiot . . .

Its clear you want to shuffle off the pink smooge and not think abut the pink smooge, or at least not clearly, it far easier to hum about the pink smooge when in the shower and not really look it in the eye when facing it, trust me I know.

Look, either you care about the conversation and the act of communicating or you do not, and this is the last time I am going to ask nicely for you to clean the grill off, I rather suspect at your house the grill stays nice and clean, but no the public grill is a nasty mess!

Bushsidobillyclub I don't understand your pink smooge and grill analogy.



Where dialect and language is concerned, the person you think is 'introducing the new language' may not realize it is a 'new language.' That is my point. To them, you may be speaking the "new" language.

i find it humorous that in a forum such as this that semantics often become the topic to the point of offsetting the origional op. but even more hilarious is how many times i see sentences such as "that depends on how you define................". fill in the blank. every language has dictionaries which provide the definitions of words as they are commonly used in a particular country. you'd think that if somebody does not know the common definition of a word they'd simply look it up. sure some words have several definitions but most definitions are used depending on the context in which the word is used. at any rate, my experience is that "depends on how you define............" is greatly abused as an ineffective debating tactic moreso than a meaningful exchange of views. semantics? definitions? it really doesn't have to be this difficult folks.

Words can have completely different meanings depending on the context and the community using them. Yes, by all means, look them up in the dictionary. But when I say "universe" I can mean many things.

We own our language. We use it to communicate the best way and the most creative way we can. I am sure glad there are no such thing as "word police" who go around fining people for using bad grammar or "incorrect" language. Just do the best you can to communicate, whatever it takes. That is the objective. Stop placing blame on others. Take some responsibility. If you don't understand, don't assume. Ask.

just saying that exchanging views with some require much more effort at definning words and clearing symantics than is required when exchanging views with others. i don't recall ever having a problem with the definition of universe, as you brought up, in a science forum. nor has the definition been an issue when i discuss the universe with the "science minded" here. your term as i recall. "supernatural" comes to mind. i think that there are eleven difinitions of the word in one dictionary and all eleven say essentially the same thing. that which is outside the natural or physical or otherwise conjured up by the human mind. but it really doesn't matter how you want to define it. i use the word very very often without ever hearing "depends on how you define "supernatural". some folks are so easy to communicate with for me that we actually do exchange views and ideas. we just don't have to waste time with definitions and symantics.

JB - you are half right but where is the reciprication? Please read on.

I think Creative is right, we are kind of all over the board here, (slang for what Creative said) however, there have been many valid points made, the problem seems to be in the 'tone' being used for replies but that's another issue, for now let me review some of the fine point made here.

Creative brought up a problem we all have when discussing issues within certain contexts such as philosophy,mysticism/new age revelations, science, and even specific fields in science.

Each has its own dialect. I use the word dialect becuase many of the words and phrases we use to communicate may cross the line between two or more of these fields and have different meanings from one to the other.

When dialect has different meaning across fields of discussion thier usage can bring about misunderstanding that can lead to hard feelings, especially after a person has felt offended and responded with an attitude.

I quoted JB, above, because she states the most obvious valid point which is that while many people here are intrested and want to discuss an issue they do so from their own point of view.

That means they will use dialect from another field that does not fit well into the discussion at hand. But because the words and terminology actually do fit in with the dialect of the issue being discussed, the person who brought them into play is likely to be misunderstood.

In some cases it is obvious that the person has entered the discussion at a different level - this is when others should ask for clarification and explain why. EX: "according to xx(field of discussion) what you say means this - Is that what you mean?"

It may be that the person entering the discussion honestly does not undertand that their terminology is not appropriately applied.

On the other hand, this error may not be so obvious until several posts have passed in which frustration is looming.

As Bushi said - we all have to take responsibility for our communication. Any time we interact with others we are involved in some kind of reciprical exchange, that makes us all responsible for how we are communicating.

Aside from 'miscommunication' there is one major problem that keeps reoccuring. When a topic is being discussed from a specific point of reference (ie. field of science, philosophy,etc)it may not be appropriate to CHANGE that reference point to something you might be more interested in.

So if someone discovers that their terminology has been misapplied that person has two choices:
1. Change their own 'definiations' to match that of the conversation at hand or
2. Ask permission to continue along this "off-topic" path or if anyone is interested in this path of discussion. Otherwise you are simply being rude and interrupting the conversation.

Sometimes poeple WILL understand the "off-topic" terminology and simply respond in that vein - thereby offering a place at the proverbial dinner table.

But it is rude to continue to PUSH your own point of view based on your own terminology into the middle of other people's discussion.

THIS - I believe, is more likely to be the problem which Creative has been trying to address.

It's really not so much dialect that is at issue, but a lack of common courtesy that most of learn before we are 5 - DON'T INTERRUPT WHEN OTHERS ARE SPEAKING, unless you have something to add to the conversation and that might mean changing your dialect to the correct frame of reference.

(1) Some small discourse community will already have a precise definition in mind when certain words are used within that community. This can make it very easy for people within that community to communicate with other winthin the community without these clarifications - but this has nothing to do with the issue of communication between people who come from different communities. (And 'community' here, of course, is defined only by 'those with whom one regularly communicates on a particular topic).

(2) Finding that it is easy to communicate with some people does not mean that it is effective. Many of the most easefull communications I have observed are amongst people who only want to hear themselves talk, and have their opinions validated by others - therefore they gladly listen and validate others' opinions - so we have pairs and groupings of people who don't even understand each other or care to, but who believe they are communicating well, and with ease.

Thats an extreme case, but a common one. There is similar case, in which few within the group care about precision or accuracy, and those few have learned to 'let it go' while the majority of the group actually fail to achieve precision in the communication, but few notice or care.





A great example of 'within a particular discourse community'.



I don't agree with this statement - but I think it reflects the level of precision that matters to you on that topic. I don't mean that as criticism, because on some topics I just don't care... but if we are to really get into it, we would see that distinguishing amongst the differences in those definitions can actually allow more precise communication, in some circumstances.

When ever we discuss issues with people 'in general' in other words outside the realm of a specific group understanding, problems will arise with 'dialect' and definition. If "meaningful exchange of views" is to be considered, they must be considered from the same point of reference.

The problem we see in these threads is that when a person clarifies their postion (ie. definiation of terminology) and another disagrees with that position with their reasons why - the next steps taken are usually to bicker in an effort to persuade the other.

It would be much easier to make a choice:
1. Either accept the other persons defintions and continue using
that clarification.
2. Ask others involved in the postings how they would like to
proceed.
3. If you are the OP and you're intrested only in disussing from
your frame of reference. Kindly explain that to the person
disagreeing with you.

THE OTHER PERSON:also has choices
1. to be rude and contunue "off-topic" interrupting other poeple's
discussion.
2. Corelate their own perspective and continer to add to the
discussion.
3. Start ANOTHER THREAD in order to discuss their own views.

All too often, we have a bunch of adults who are not happy to find another sandbox to play in and contunue to throw sand in the face of others.

This is a communication error - one of the first ones we learn to avoid as small children.

It's not that other perspectives are not welcome it's just that some perspectives are not appropriate for the discussion at hand. In another thread the same poeple may join in - but they do so from the same point of reference at the OP.

Why is this so much harder to explain to adults than to a 4 year old child?

Logical analysis of what? The etiquette of communication? The etiquette of clean grills? Your personal estimation of how clean a grill should be or how precise language should be?

Well the thread topic says “Arguing semantics”.

Ok, so you’re talking about “pink smooges”. I’m not.

“Proper conversation”? And I suppose you are the one who determines what constitutes a “proper conversation”.

Well…actually I would agree – just as I determine for myself, and everyone else determines for themselves, what constitutes a “proper conversation”.

On the contrary, it seems clear to me that the pink smooge is being “shuffled off” by those who don’t understand it, not by those who do understand it.

Here’s my whole point. - it’s not your grill!.

Neither you nor anyone else has exclusive rights to determine what words others must use and what their meanings must be, in any context, whether you are involved in the conversation or not.

Well if you don’t like the state of the grill, then don’t use it. It’s that simple (since it’s not your grill in the first place).

But calling out the grill police to shoot anyone who doesn’t live up to your standards of grill cleanliness does not make the food any better or the party any more fun. It only servers to make everyone else less likely to use the grill at all. So the end result is not “better grilling”, it’s actually “less grilling”. And eventually, if it continues, grilling stops completely, and you’ve achieved the perfect grill - one that never gets dirty because everyone is too afraid to use it! So now you’ve got the grill all to yourself and never have to worry about anyone ever making it dirty.

Happy grilling.

DI,


Yes, I understand what you are saying. This is why it is probably a good practice to "lerk" for a while to see if you understand what is being talked about and the dialect and 'level' of the discussion before you pop off with some off the wall remark just to get attention.

It is about etiquette. The only people afraid to use the grill would be people who do not want to use a clean one. There are dirty ones to use as well, just not usually in the same location. I personally do not like the implicit meanings behind the terms clean and dirty, I was just following the given analogous frame.

Freedom of choice is great Sky, I want to say that this post is not condescending in any way, my friend. I wish you would understand the idea that some words have specific meaning for very good reason. Some people do not care that much about terminological correctness...

But some do because it is extremely important for an accurate understanding.

Yes, I don’t like those terms either - or the whole analogy for that matter. But like you I was just working with what was already there.

I completely understand and agree why words have very specific meanings. And I have no objection whatsoever to them being used with their agreed upon meanings. But I also have no objection to them being used with made-up meanings either. I see no point in blasting someone for using a word improperly. To me, that is impolite. And I see no point in arguing semantics. Discussing semantics may be necessary to achieve understanding. But the whole point of communicating at all, is to gain understanding. And arguing semantics does nothing to accomplish that.

If improper word usage is a barrier to understanding, then by all means use proper wording (if such exists). But don’t put the cart before the horse and make proper word usage the purpose. The purpose is understanding.