« first day (29 days earlier)      last day (92 days later) » 
00:00 - 06:0006:00 - 07:00

6:00 AM
coming off as always serious is not efficient
 
Elaborate
 
it makes it harder to get into people's heads with some really serious idea when you need it
they just stop paying sufficient attention if you're always serious
 
I'm not sure if I understand... or agree
 
well, I am speaking from experience, which might differ from yours
but the hypothesis hasn't failed me so far
 
Rephrase the hypothesis. Like I said, I'm pretty sure I don't understand it
 
6:03 AM
You're always serious → You're perceived as dull → People filter what you say → Fail
Is it better?
 
much
"[Popper] also noted that theism presented as explaining adaptation 'was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.'"
 
you reminded me that I connected the poop-throwing in chimps and the popularity of poop-related jokes with human children
and never bothered to think it through
do you think it's plausible?
and on an unrelated note, how genuine is my English?
oh, and how many protons are in the average human body?
 
1. Yes, but I wouldn't make a bet on it.
2. Define genuine.
3. Don't be such a lazy ass and do it yourself.
 
:D
“Foreigners' English often presents the curious spectacle of a language constructed on strict grammatical principles, but with hardly a single genuinely English sentence in it.” —Henry Sweet
can you say that my sentences could have been written by a native English speaker?
 
In other words, our English is better than theirs
 
6:18 AM
Perhaps an exaggeration would help: “Greetings, most esteemed dude, would you love to bawl what time it is?”
It's a grammatical sentence in English
 
Nothing you say strike me as odd
 
but one a native speaker would hardly say
Ok, thanks
 
Well, not to the extent that I'd question your fluency
mfg says weirder sentences than you
 
lol
 
I often have to use context to understand what he means
 
6:20 AM
the word is “unidiomatic”
I think
the opposite of genuine
 
He has very... esoteric definitions and word constructions
 
idiom·at·ic BrE [ˌɪdiəˈmætɪk] NAmE [ˌɪdiəˈmætɪk] adjective
1. containing expressions that are natural to a ↑native speaker of a language
 
"intellectual landgrab" is perhaps my favorite
Thanks heavens for context
 
@Borror0 that's part of the creativity of a native speaker
you need to be one (or speak a language like one) in order to do some Joycean lexicoining
 
Maybe I needs to be clearer: he makes bad constructions that are unintuitive
 
6:24 AM
they're juicy
:)
 
Panache is less important than intuitiveness
 
*cachinnates
 
Dammit, you fixed it before I could correct you
 
ya typo
 
Nice way to make a point though
 
6:28 AM
though I am not certain that I wouldn't have to spend time in the jim-jam clinic if I listened to mfg's speech regularly
 
lol
How so?
 
he makes me feel like a nincompoop
with his wordage
 
Nincompoop? Oh, you mean a nimrod?
 
I will just own you with an entry from Rodale's:
nincompoop
n
fool, ninny, ninnyhammer, silly, goose, silly billy, Sl. yo-yo, tomfool; simpleton, Simple Simon, saphead, noodle, cuckoo, Inf. jay, idiot, imbecile, mooncalf, Inf. moron, Sl. zombie; dimwit, nitwit, half-wit, scatterbrain, Sl. birdbrain, Sl. flake; rattlehead, rattlebrain, rattlepate, harebrain, Sl. dingbat, Sl. ding-a-ling, featherbrain, addle-brain, addle-head, addle-pate, pinhead; dolt, clod, oaf, dunce, Inf. chump, Sl. jerk, Inf. coot, dullard, Inf. numskull; dope, booby, Inf. dummy, Sl. dumbbell, Sl. meatball, Sl. meathead; blockhead, beetlehead, bonehead, dunderhead, dun
 
Okay. You missed the joke. :)
 
6:32 AM
Your message can be interepreted as an attempt to challenge me to a game of who-knows-more-words :P
 
Nimrod is a term used for "hunter" but bugs bunny used it so much to mock Elmer Fudd that young folks started to use it as an insult of stupidity. In other words, it's the reverse foreign word: it's using an uncommonly used term in a way that is improper and confusing to everyone but native English speakers.
 
not that I know of any biblical words in the Rodale's entry
 
aka booya
 
Ah.
 
What part of his wordage do you find difficult?
 
6:34 AM
I find it difficult to verbalise
 
There's just something off in his syntax, right?
 
it's just… I have to re-read some of his sentences twice
 
You can't tell exactly what it is but his sentences just don't feel right or are easy to get
 
by the time I finish reading it, I forget what was in the beginning of the sentence
 
heh
 
6:36 AM
there was a study that compared native English speakers to proficient English speakers
 
There's a reason I ask him for clarification so often
 
the main finding was that native English speakers had to backtrack a lot less often than the proficient non-native ones
 
backtrack? As in, re-explain?
 
no, in reading, to backtrack to a previous part of the sentence
 
ah
 
6:37 AM
and they were equally good at speaking
 
Makes sense
 
measured by tracking their eye movements, if it matters
 
guessed it
"(Obligatory disclaimers: I’ve been quoted being annoyed and confused at David Reid before and currently work where he used to cancel my projects.)"
lol
 
we can make mfg backtrack too by using crash blossoms
as a revenge ;)
 
6:50 AM
A garden path sentence is a grammatically correct sentence that starts in such a way that the readers' most likely interpretation will be incorrect; they are lured into an improper parse that turns out to be a dead end. Garden path sentences are used in psycholinguistics to illustrate the fact that when they read, human beings process language one word at a time. "Garden path" refers to the saying "to be led down the garden path", meaning "to be misled". According to current psycholinguistic theory, as a person reads a garden path sentence, the reader builds up a structure of meaning one ...
(in case it's too late for you to follow the languagelog link)
 
Honestly, those sound like mfg
I get the same kind of feeling reading them than reading his
anyway, bed time
good night
 
Good night
 
00:00 - 06:0006:00 - 07:00

« first day (29 days earlier)      last day (92 days later) »