English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

tchrist

00:42

I have a thought-experiment for the immoderate.

All present, say aye.

tchrist

02:56

@JohanLarsson !!

Færd

03:54

@tchrist sciencealert.com/…

If we were all like that, we'd have a separate dictionary of colors.

tchrist

Yay

Tonepoet

04:08

@tchrist Hey what's up?

Tonepoet

04:20

@Færd Colors and words are very similar in that they are both real, but only in a subjective sense. If everybody capable of ever seeing a color or knowing what a word meant died today, the parts of a word or color which mattered most cease to exist, much like an illusion.

It's very interesting if you think about it and I believe it was one of the thought experiments perhaps posed by Descartes.

Færd

If we die our thoughts die with us. What's surprising about that?

Maybe you mean if I die, my "red, blue, green, ..." die with me, since they're different from others' perception of these colors? Well, that's true in one sense and untrue in another.

Or maybe I should go read the linked page.

Tonepoet

Hmm, well I don't know if Descartes mentioned anything expressly about death, so much as set some interesting philosophical rules for what constitutes legitimate evidence. He has one of the strictest standards that's in any way practical, "cogito ergo sum" which is popularly translated as "I think therefore I am". Even if everything you thought you knew, including your own personality is an illusion, there must be somebody to experience that illusion.

Færd

04:35

Colors are the easiest examples perhaps, but that can be said about everything. If you deny the other end of what you sense that lies in the reality, everything becomes subjective.

(Death wasn't a main point here.)

@Tonepoet If there's nothing more obvious to me than my thoughts, what's that I doing before 'think' in "I think therefore I am"? That's a faulty foundation to build reality upon.

I am more obvious to myself than my thoughts are. This is the first step (or a better one, at least).

Tonepoet

@Færd Descartes was a frenchman who first published the meditations in latin, so analyzing it under the scrutiny of English Grammar doesn't make much sense. It's very possible that the popular translation is mistranslated, or that the English Language is defective in some regard. Maybe "Thought equals existence" might be better.

That's why I included the Latin.

Maybe @Cerberus could tell us just how good of a translation "I think therefore I am" is for Cogito Ergo Sum.

Færd

It doesn't have to do anything with particular features of one language. Either you relate the thoughts to yourself as the thinker or not. If you do, the thinker is perceived before the thoughts are, so the thoughts are not the most obvious things to you. If not, the thoughts has nothing to do with you as their thinker and therefore they cannot prove your existence.

Johan Larsson

@tchrist hej

Tonepoet

@Færd Hmm, maybe I should have said personal identity rather than personality. That has to be put under the scrutiny of your perception of yourself being accurate. I had a rationale for the two being synonymous a long while ago, for one of my early answers but I forgot exactly what it was. It was something along the lines of affix implications.

@Færd Regardless the point is that something has to be thinking, that thought must ultimately be perceived by some entity, which ultimately must be you for it to be experienced. Whether that's a person dreaming it's a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming it's a person is irrelevant for determining what the most elemental proof of reality is.

Færd

04:55

@Tonepoet How do you know that something has to be thinking? That's farther away from being evident than "I think", which brings us back to 'I'.

If you don't know that it's you who's thinking, you'll never know that something (else) is thinking.

Tonepoet

@Færd Even doubt of thought is a thought, so thought is inescapable is more or less my best understanding of it. I think the evidence that it's you that must be thinking is that you must be perceiving the thoughts, which constitutes an act of thinking in itself, even if we suppose somebody else implanted them into your mind.

Færd

You went back to the starting point.

Tonepoet

It's a little tautological admittedly. Does that mean it's necessarily invalid?

Or rather perhaps necessarily isn't the right word.

Færd

@Tonepoet It is. Thoughts, whatever kind they are (doubt, personal identity, ...), cannot prove my existence as the thinker.

Tonepoet

@Færd Let's put this another way. It proves the existence of "a" thinker, and who else could that thinker be but you if you are perceiving them?

Færd

05:04

We went over that too. In order for thoughts to prove the existence of an entity as their thinker, you must know that the thoughts do exist themselves. How do you know that?

Tonepoet

@Færd Direct experience of them.

Færd

As your thoughts, or as some irrelevant thoughts?

Tonepoet

@Færd Hmm, I would suppose irrelevant thoughts.

Or perhaps more accurately, just thoughts.

There's really no need to assign a qualifier to them first.

Færd

Then the only thing that they can prove, is themselves. You cannot even deduce that there is a thinker.

Tonepoet

How do thoughts exist without a thinker?

Færd

05:08

Because they are irrelevant things that don't suggest a relation to anything else in and of themselves.

And while you're at it, why just thoughts? You might as well assume the existence of whatever else you want.

Tonepoet

I skipped a number of preliminary steps. Descartes was responding to skeptics, who were appropriately speaking, people who doubted the existence of everything. He played along with them, supposing that if there is any reason for something to be misleading, that it could not be held as sufficient evidence to prove its existence. Hence I can't believe my eyes because I experience optical illusions.

The deconstruction is quite lengthy and I haven't read it in full myself.

@Færd As for why just thoughts, you are supposing that they minimally prove themselves as being thought though, right?

Færd

@Tonepoet I played the role of the skeptic, and you of Descartes. If I had been the skeptic, this would have been what I would tell Descartes (except for the I part).

@Tonepoet Only because you assumed their existence.

You also should be clearer about what 'thought' means; does the thinker lie in the definition of 'thought'? If it does, proving the existence of the thinker by its thoughts is a loop (I don't know what that's called in English).

And if the thinker is absent in the definition of thought, then it cannot be proved to exist.

user227867

05:26

Wow wow, we have many philosophers in this chat. =)

Færd

As if!

Tonepoet

@Færd Is circular reasoning the term you want?

Færd

Right.

If someone doesn't want to believe that they themselves exist, then absolutely nothing can be done about them. Not in an argumentative way.

(Yech, that themselves doesn't feel right at all.)

Tonepoet

Hmm, I misperceived what you were doing. I was hoping to elucidate the thoughts, rather than rigorously prove them. If you asked me if I was worthy to play the role of Descartes, my response would've been "As if!" as well, esp. since I don't know the entirety of his thoughts on the matter and I don't even recollect his responses to critics. The ideas are also criticized and perhaps doubtful even to myself, but I do view them as being perhaps the closest we have gotten to evidence of existence.

Whatever perception of certain reality you do have, it needs to be based upon some sort of axiom though and most other things are just faith based.

To me, Descartes is as close as we've gotten to identifying an objective reality, which is why I deign it respect-worthy.

Færd

05:44

@Tonepoet We're just friendly-chatting here. :)

@Tonepoet The problem is that axioms and faith (as they are typically understood among the public) are all thoughts. I don't like to have an idea that would represent the reality to me from afar. I want the reality itself, and I have it: me. (Sounds selfish, huh? ;) It can be improved, but I won't be able to do that here I'm afraid.)

@Tonepoet Descartes's premise, so far as we hashed it out here, is a faulty foundation to build reality upon.

Tonepoet

@Færd Wait a second here. Isn't that just what you were trying to do Mr. Boldface?

Færd

Pardon, I don't understand your question.

Tonepoet

@Færd Hmm. What basis do you have that "me" as you put it, is reality, other than an axiom of sorts?

Færd

I am not a thought or statement to need to be based on a basis like that. I am reality.

How do I know? Not by interference of any alien thought or axiom or whatever; I know it by myself. That's a whole other type of knowing.

DEAD

@Tonepoet Noice, it's getting philosophical in here

Tonepoet

05:55

@Færd I think we may have miscommunicated because I fail to see how that can be anything other than an axiom.

DEAD

@Færd This is all but a dream.

And I'm the nice part of the dream.

Færd

@Tonepoet I didn't expect my last assertion to be readily understood, but I hoped that this one would: my existence is more obvious to me than the existence of my thoughts, or any thoughts. Apparently I couldn't get this one across either.

@DEAD If we had consistent dreams that would follow each other, we wouldn't slight them as just dreams.

DEAD

I live in two realities.

Færd

Anyway, this can be thought of as a dream in some ways, but not in others.

Tonepoet

@Færd I'm probably using a different sense of the word than you I suppose? There are several. The primary sense of the word is a "self-evident" and perhaps irreducible truth and quite what I meant. The other is "an established principle in some art or science" which is more or less what's more commonly meant today. It should come as no surprise when I cite Noah Webster for the first definition.

Lawrence

06:05

@Tonepoet I think that was the essence of the quote - though perhaps with a slight twist - that there must be someone to initiate that thought.

Tonepoet

@Lawrence Yes, I agree.

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] URL in title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, pattern-matching website in body, pattern-matching website in title: garciniacambogiavalue.org/revita-youth-cream/ by caitllowe on english.stackexchange.com

Færd

@Tonepoet Thoughts are not self-evident above the evidentness (evidence?) of the thinker (this sense is what I meant too), nor are they worthy enough to be the established principle in philosophy.

Lawrence

@Tonepoet Perhaps a less rigorously-grammatical rewording would be something like thinker-me implies existential-me. This neatly sidesteps the issue of which came first, the thought or the existence, and might get us closer to the original intent. (Still waiting for @Cerberus to translate the Latin.)

Færd

Same story again: I'm not sure whether I exist, but I'm sure that I'm thinking, so I'm sure of thinking-me, therefore I'm sure of me (or existential-me).

The reasoning can't go this way, is what I was trying to convey.

But I have to go now. Ciao all! :)

Tonepoet

06:16

@Færd Farewell!

Lawrence

@Færd I think [ :) ] the cogito ergo sum formulation presupposes the question, "How do I know I exist?". It whittles away as much of reality as it can philosophically, leaving just one axiomatic concept: thinking. (Even the existence of the thinker isn't axiomatic.) The corollary is that there must be a thinker, hence cogito ergo sum. If you presuppose the existence of the thinker, then concluding that the thinker exists makes a circular argument.

DEAD

07:22

Tonepoet

07:34

@JasperLoy Merriam-Webster's word of the day is sagacious. If you don't mind, I would like you to compare definitions from early 20th century dictionaries to current ones.

@DEAD Hmm, I wonder just what went wrong there...

DEAD

For real? Or are you sarcasming?

Tonepoet

@DEAD I mean that quite really. The father said he trained his kid in mathematics and something seems suspicious about that. >_>

Did the father train the kid earnestly and know his kid was hopeless, or did he train him poorly with the intent of swindling the child out of the college fund?

DEAD

Considering the world of SMBC, the latter

Tonepoet

08:07

I didn't see any money or merchandising change hands. =P

DEAD

Tonepoet

@DEAD That's a futile endeavor because they already fell off. That's why they're in the down under!

DEAD

Helmar

08:30

@DEAD Definitely :)

Tonepoet

@DEAD Hey! Don't chu go talkin' 'bout my momma...

Helmar

Would you mind pinning the following post, I want to drum up some support for the tagging guideline?

2

Q: Proposed ELU tagging guideline

I am suggesting to create a guideline post describing how to tag specifically for the ELU taxonomy. The discussions in chat and all the posts and comments regarding tags on meta lead me to believe that such a guideline could massively improve the state of our taxonomy going forward. If it's well ...

DEAD

08:51

Færd

09:39

> A thinking [an instance of it] exists, and every thinking is an act of a thinker, therefore a thinker exists.

I don't have a problem with that reasoning, but that doesn't lead you to the answer of "How do I know I exist?", and brings about yet another question: "How do you know that a thinking exists?", which I guess is going to be answered with "Direct experience; it's self-evident.".

So here's where the line of thought begins and ends: 1- you see a thinking by direct experience, 2- you attribute the thinking to yourself as the thinker, 3- you deduce your existence as the thinker.

If you eliminate the second step you won't be able to jump directly to 3 from 1, and if you keep the second step, you're adding to your axiomatic concepts: that a) you exist and b) the thinking can be attributed to you, because how can you attribute it to yourself if you don't previously know that you exist?

And in the third step you complete the loop of your circular reasoning.

That is why you cannot absent yourself from your thinking. Once you do that, it loses touch with you and is lost forever.

So the fact (to which we're used to shut our eyes) is that you know yourself before you know your thinking, and not by thinking.

4 hours ago, by Færd

If someone doesn't want to believe that they themselves exist, then absolutely nothing can be done about them. Not in an argumentative way.

user227867

10:37

@Tonepoet I was reading the entry of 'hopefully' in several dictionaries. I was surprised to find that the use to mean 'it is to be hoped that' is not accepted by some people.

NVZ

11:00

@tchrist You edited to change all bold into italics saying "Please use italic for mentions, not bold". But why would you do that on a SWR question? It's much harder to identify the SWs in an answer without bolding them.

@tchrist Although I agree with your idea that italics is better than bold, I'd like to make an exception for SWRs. I'd like to see the words stand out, so that I can avoid posting a duplicate answer without having to read huge chunks of other answers.

Helmar

@NVZ Probably due to this meta.english.stackexchange.com/a/4722/184706

NVZ

@tchrist I know you mean well, but this edit spree is going too far.

DEAD

What does it mean for something to go too far?

Helmar

23

Q: What emphasis to use when referring to words?

Let's say I'm asking a question about the word "cheese". Which of the following should I use? I see various versions being used all over, and it'd be nice to have something consistent. Does the word 'cheese' indicate something yellow? Does the word "cheese" indicate something yellow? Does the w...

discussion style

DEAD

What is his edits hurting @NVZ?

(Not making a point, just curious)

NVZ

11:12

I wish he was online now.

Helmar

He lives in the US, doesn't he?

And not on the east coast if I remember correctly

DEAD

@NVZ Any reason you're not answering me?

NVZ

@Helmar been there, upvoted that months ago. But that does not mean we should change all SWR words into italics.

Lawrence

@DEAD Gotta be careful with those generalisations.

NVZ

@DEAD Sorry, what's your question?

DEAD

11:15

5 mins ago, by DEAD

What is his edits hurting @NVZ?

NVZ

15 mins ago, by NVZ

@tchrist You edited to change all bold into italics saying "Please use italic for mentions, not bold". But why would you do that on a SWR question? It's much harder to identify the SWs in an answer without bolding them.

8 mins ago, by NVZ

@tchrist Although I agree with your idea that italics is better than bold, I'd like to make an exception for SWRs. I'd like to see the words stand out, so that I can avoid posting a duplicate answer without having to read huge chunks of other answers.

DEAD

Then you can edit and embolden the word and put it in quotes.

TCh's point being that bold isn't and can't be used as a means of use-mention distinction.

So unless you use quotes or italics, bold in itself is not valid.

I believe you can resolve this without stirring up some drama?

NVZ

@DEAD I don't intend to step on a mod's toes, but I'm raising my concerns here.

@DEAD drama?

DEAD

9 mins ago, by NVZ

@tchrist I know you mean well, but this edit spree is going too far.

NVZ

@DEAD what drama are you referring to? All I did was mention what I felt was a step too far.

DEAD

11:19

That . . . does not bear any positive connotations.

Helmar

I for once think the best way is to use italics in a sentence where I mention the word or in any example sentences and bolden it in the obligatory dictionary citation.

NVZ

@DEAD Now I don't see why you'd like to make it appear as a drama. LOL

DEAD

Not merely 'raising concerns'.

@NVZ Could be expressed in a better manner. 'too far' implies you're vowing vengeance or declaring war or something.

Lawrence

@Færd That doesn't gel with what I said previously on this. It should be more like this: 1. whoever thinks a thought exists. 2. I thought a thought. 3. Therefore, I exist.

NVZ

@DEAD I don't see your point.

I'm not waging a war, just mentioning my thoughts.

DEAD

11:23

@NVZ "this has gone too far." does not just imply some concern.

@NVZ I know that.

NVZ

Maybe it's that I'm not a native speaker, I may not know the best words.

And tchrist knows that, I know he'll see what i mean.

@DEAD you're free to correct me as well, we are all here to help each other be better in English. :)

Lawrence

@NVZ Sven Yargs agrees with you - SWR words in bold.

NVZ

@Lawrence it's good to have someone who shares my opinion. "SWR words in bold" :)

DEAD

But use quotes (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

NVZ

@DEAD who cleans up the room after you're done flipping all of those tables? Haha

Lawrence

11:29

@NVZ For what it's worth, I agree with Sven Yargs on this one - SWR words in bold. But I have my own set of not-always-consistently-applied guidelines for formatting. :)

Helmar

@Lawrence Consistency is overrated ;)

NVZ

@Helmar "Nothing stays consistent" is the only thing consistent.

Helmar

And nothing holds longer than an interim solution :D

What do you guys thing about my tagging proposal?

3

Q: Proposed ELU tagging guideline

I am suggesting to create a guideline post describing how to tag specifically for the ELU taxonomy. The discussions in chat and all the posts and comments regarding tags on meta lead me to believe that such a guideline could massively improve the state of our taxonomy going forward. If it's well ...

discussion tags guideline

DEAD

@Helmar Great effort there, but are the meaning-, idiom- etc. distinctions useful?

At least your meta is not as disgustingly apathetic as meta.ELL.

Helmar

@DEAD Well that guideline is supposed to help with the current taxonomy, where we do have those distinctions. Only if we start tagging properly we can make proper use of the tags. Improving the actual tags would be a second step I didn't want to mix into this one.

DEAD

11:42

@Helmar Well, thing is, either [meaning] or its children should stay.

Tags are indeed a lost cause.

Helmar

@DEAD I'm not quite ready to give up on them

NVZ

@DEAD don't lose hope. Hope is all we have.

DEAD

2

Q: Growing Pains – Lost cause?

I think I'll die sooner than persuading people about the fact that we have a really, really bad tagging system right now. Out of the sea of users, only a handful of them seem to care about the tags. No mods have chipped in active retagging. I'm not looking for an unconstructive argument about my ...

discussion

Helmar

tchrist is mod now, he is quite the paragon of tagging ;)

DEAD

@NVZ It's not that I don't try.

It's that . . .

NVZ

11:45

@Helmar tchrist is my now favourite mod. After he took office, I have not been able to spend all of my 24 close-votes.

DEAD

What makes you certain that no-one else cares? It's the beginning of the year, and I'm super busy at work right now (a lot of folks are still catching up from the holidays). Just because folks don't have the time to immediately start cleaning up a lot of tags doesn't mean we don't care. I think having the discussion so that we're all pointed in the same direction is valuable. I'm sorry you're getting discouraged. — ColleenV ♦ Jan 6 at 20:35

NVZ

Also, since the review queues are almost non-existent, I feel like I'm an obsolete reviewer. Haha

Helmar

I also think he set the record yesterday for fastest duplicate detection. Although he used gold badge power not mod power

NVZ

@Helmar who decides what power to use? System or user?

Helmar

@NVZ Idk, guess system

DEAD

11:47

@NVZ What would be the difference?

No activity.

5

Q: Do we want word-s or sentence-s in our tags?

I'm thinking of organizing something big. This is the last match, and I'd try my hardest to finally beat tags. This post might be the first of the many to come. We need to know what we want our tags to be, this time step by step. The main question of this series of posts is What kind of class...

discussion tags

NVZ

@DEAD difference is seeing the gold badge mentioned under the question closed as dupe.

DEAD

Yet we have this

Lying dead there.

@NVZ Both the badge and the mod status would be shown.

NVZ

@DEAD of course.

DEAD

It's the same action.

Doesn't matter.

NVZ

@DEAD but the question's status says "closed as dupe by the power of gold, not mod"

DEAD

11:48

@NVZ So?

Helmar

It looks like this with badge power

0

Q: Male Version of Mistress

Is there a male version of the word mistress? If a married man has a mistress, then a married woman has a...

single-word-requests

DEAD

What should it have said?

NVZ

@DEAD where are you going with this?

Helmar

@DEAD I changed tactics with tackling tags

DEAD

I'm saying that both actions are the same.

Helmar

11:50

I want to get some support for the guideline

If more are involved in tagging than we can step by step improve the actual tags

DEAD

Why would it matter?

With what? You're asking whether or not the badge closed the question.

Helmar

It really doesn't matter

Lawrence

@Helmar :)

Helmar

Just shows another angle of awesomeness ;)

Lawrence

@Helmar Upvoted. Learners can do with one as well. :)

DEAD

11:51

So anyway, I appreciate the kind words NVZ, but they're of no use in a dead meta.

I can't keep up hopes.

I made a title rewriting event, and guess what, only the chat regulars that didn't even need an event to help did.

Helmar

@DEAD So help establish it in ELU, then you can point as us as an example ;)

NVZ

@DEAD we know. But I'm only curious to find out what power, mod's or gold's, closed the post as dupe. Apparently, on a recent post, tchrist's gold took charge, not his diamond.

Helmar

@Lawrence Thanks :)

DEAD

@Helmar I'm not sure how much weight my voice holds as a 101'er.

@NVZ You can think of it as both doing it. But a dupehammer can't reopen and close a question more than once. After that, it will only be mod power.

Helmar

@DEAD Well you can vote and favorite and pin it in chat, neither of which is really reputation dependent ;)

DEAD

11:55

I guess the system chooses the labeling as 'dupehammer closed this' since those are ranted against less often than mods.

NVZ

@DEAD i'm starting to think that we're not on the same page. What meta are you talking about?

DEAD

@Helmar I can only pin things if I'm a room owner or mod.

Helmar

There are two parallel discussions

DEAD

@NVZ Meta.ELL. You went all spiritual, saying that 'hope is all we have'.

Helmar

@DEAD Well starring, pinning whatever drums up attention ;)

DEAD

11:56

I upvoted the meta post.

Where's my sandwich?

NVZ

@DEAD well, i was actually talking about this post, closed by gold, not diamond:

0

Q: Male Version of Mistress

Is there a male version of the word mistress? If a married man has a mistress, then a married woman has a...

single-word-requests

DEAD

@NVZ We were talking about both.

Helmar

DEAD

You don't seem to be . . . OMG A SANDWICH . . . accustomed to the rules in this chat, NVZ.

Helmar

@NVZ Guess that means gold is stronger than diamond on SE.

DEAD

11:58

"Be as confusing as possible"

@Helmar It isn't.

A mod can reopen and close a question with a binding vote infinitely.

But a dupehammerer can only have one binding close vote and one binding reopen vote.

NVZ

@DEAD Maybe I had my evil twin take over. I'm missing the context of this chat now. I think I'm lost. Are we talking about 4 things at once now?

DEAD

Five.

And that's gotta be a record when Mitch and Rob aren't here.

NVZ

1. tchrist's edit. Ended discussion. 2. Dupe closed by gold, not diamond. Ended. What are 3, 4 and 5?

DEAD

3. How I gave up on meta.ELL

Helmar

4. How I haven't given up on ELU tags

DEAD

12:00

4. Meta.ELU and how Helmar hasn't given up on ELU.

5. Talking about talking, and how we're confusingly talking

Cerberus

@Tonepoet It is a good translation. Why?

NVZ

LOL. Ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Helmar

6. Whatever Cerberus is talking about

user227867

@Cerberus Woof! Maybe you can run for ELU mod next election.

DEAD

I think. Therefore I downvote.

user227867

12:02

The votes on SE are just like the likes on YouTube.

NVZ

@DEAD I don't think.. (NVZ disappears)

Cerberus

@Lawrence The Latin doesn't imply a chronological order either, just an order of reasoning.

Woof!

NVZ

@JasperLoy youtube has no downvotes.

Cerberus

But I have to go.

Helmar

@JasperLoy What is our female Ghostbusters voting clusterfuck?

user227867

12:03

@NVZ It has likes and dislikes.

user227867

@Helmar I never watched the show, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

user227867

Has anyone here used the physical American Heritage Dictionary? I am wondering why there are so many colourful pictures in it.

Helmar

@JasperLoy I recently read that the trailer was the most downvoted/disliked video of all time

Lawrence

@Cerberus Does cogito mean "my thinking" (noun) or "I think" (verb)?

Helmar

@JasperLoy Can't say that I have.

NVZ

12:04

@JasperLoy yes, but even a billion dislikes won't hide a youtube video from feed.

user227867

It seems that many big dictionaries have biographical or encyclopedia entries. Why?

Helmar

Because they can

user227867

It is a waste of space.

NVZ

@Helmar I think the most disliked video on youtube is JB's Baby song.

user227867

I want my dictionary to be about the language, not other things.

user227867

12:06

@NVZ One of my favourites. If Justin Bieber had no tattoos, I would totally become a girl and marry him.

user227867

@NVZ I also like Jacob Sartorius's Sweatshirt.

Helmar

@NVZ Yeah, guess whoever wrote what I read didn't look it up, or I forgot some constraint. That song has 6.7mio dislikes versus meager 1mio on Ghostbusters

NVZ

@Helmar I don't think Ghost Busters is a relevant-enough thing for 2016.

user227867

I am going to explore more big dictionaries now, see you guys.

NVZ

It had it's peak.

Helmar

12:09

@JasperLoy Bye

Yeah

The franchise was ruined by the second and third movie a long time ago

NVZ

But there's hope. If, and only if, new Ghost Busters is from Christopher Nolan, it would be awesome. Hehe

Guys, don't batman away. Come back.

Cerberus

@Lawrence Verb, "I think".

archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/…

Lawrence

@Cerberus Thanks. Wow, I thought I could read. :)

NVZ

@Cerberus "I think, therefore I am"

Lawrence

@Cerberus Ok, this seems to support my guess that cogito has both "I" and "think" mingled in a single concept.

Cerberus

12:22

Correct x2.

The ending -o = "I".

Like the English ending -s = "he/she/it".

Lawrence

@Cerberus I'm happy with what I put up earlier on the subject, then. Thanks! :)

Cerberus

Pro-drop language

A pro-drop language (from "pronoun-dropping") is a language in which certain classes of pronouns may be omitted when they are in some sense pragmatically inferable (the precise conditions vary from language to language, and can be quite intricate). The phenomenon of "pronoun-dropping" is also commonly referred to in linguistics as zero or null anaphora. In everyday speech there are often instances when who or what is being referred to can be inferred from context. Proponents of the term "pro-drop" take the view that pronouns which in other languages would have those referents can be omitted, or...

Færd

@Lawrence This is even more clearly subjected to my critique.

As much as I've learned from our previous discussions, you don't appear to be interested in following a constructive line of reasoning in this one. You raise points that I've addressed, questioned, and rejected before, again, without pointing out any faults in my objections. Sorry, I quit this time.

It's not too relevant to the subject of this room anyway. :)

Lawrence

@Cerberus Fascinating.

@Færd Actually, I read your interaction with DEAD. However, when it came to your critique of my thoughts on the subject, I considered your premise flawed, which I corrected in my reply to you. Since the rest followed logically from the premise, I didn't belabour the point by going line by line. I hope you don't think I'm ignoring your argument. I disagree with it, which is quite a different thing.

Færd

I didn't have this discussion with DEAD ever.

Lawrence

12:36

@Færd My mistake. Tonepoet.

Færd

Anyway. See you later.

Lawrence

12:58

@Færd This seems to have caused you some hurt / offense; I hope that you now see that my reply wasn't ignoring your thoughts. I also don't think my comments were non-constructive as you allege, and here's why. Tracing the chain of discussion back, my initial message here on this topic was directed to Tonepoet. I took your contiguous message on the topic to be a reply to me, which is why I then interacted with you on it. ...

... I haven't seen your rebuttal of my last message to you on the topic. If anything, your note that you cannot absent yourself from your thinking fits what I was saying. ...

... You may recall that I reworded the quote to refer to thinker-me - the thinker and the thought are bound. Hence finding one finds the other. But finding a person is the challenge; that's why the starting point was the thought. ...

... Please note that I'm simply interacting with your logic; my disagreement with your position is not personal. I still don't think you've seen my point. If you'd prefer to drop this line of discussion, I'm ok with that. If you'd like to pick it up again, that's also ok with me.

M-J

Hi.

Lawrence

... I just don't want you to leave the discussion thinking that you've been ignored. (to @Færd)

Hi @M-J!

Tarun

is it correct to say "She is an MBA"?. I think it is incorrect as MBA refers to a degree not to a person.

Lawrence

@Tarun It's said colloquially.

Tarun

Where is word of the day. I cant see any today.

@Lawrence Thank you. It sound so weird though.

Lawrence

13:06

@Tarun Note that MBA stands for "Master of Business Administration". Although it idiomatically refers to the degree / course, I suppose the person could also be called a "master" of BA when they've mastered it. :)

@Tarun I know what you mean, though.

It's like calling someone a BA or BSc.

Like, "Oh look, there goes a BA".

If it's any consolation, I don't think "She is an MBA" would be used (idiomatically) in a formal register.

M-J

So badly*

Lawrence

@M-J How about "although"?

Tarun

@Lawrence Yes. Thank you for your explanation. You are so kind : )

Lawrence

@M-J Oops, your message disappeared.

@Tarun You're welcome. :)

M-J

@Lawrence Oh, I don't know why!

Thank you anyways.

Lawrence

13:09

@M-J You might have pressed the up-arrow, then typed some stuff and hit enter.

That edits a previous message. (Only works for 2 minutes or so in chat.)

(Unless you're a mod. Mods have unlimited edits.)

M-J

@Lawrence HAHA! Yes I did it. What's a mod!?

Lawrence

@M-J Moderator.

M-J

Uh, alright, thank you.

Lawrence

They're volunteers who look after the place, and have more flexibility to do things.

terdon

english.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators

Lawrence

13:11

For example, it normally takes 5 votes to place a question on hold. If a moderator votes, it's done immediately.

terdon

Oh. No onebox? Weird. Anyway, this link explains what mods are: english.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators

Lawrence

@M-J terdon is a moderator. Did you notice how efficient he/she was? :)

M-J

@Lawrence :)))

Lawrence

The people chosen as moderators tend to be very familiar with the norms of the community they moderate.

M-J

Sorry for laughing terdon, I don't want to be rude, I'm not sure how close you are with each other. Thanks for explanation Lawrence, I know moderators, I was just not familiar with the acronym.

Lawrence

13:14

Let me try ...

english.stackexchange.com/help

Hmm, the "http://" at the start didn't help. Neither did a trailing "/". Nor going back up the chain all the way to the help page.

M-J

@Lawrence Can someone really hurt this huge website from within its chat room?! :/

Lawrence

@M-J What do you mean by hurt?

@M-J Oh, no problem. Ignore my ramblings about the mods, then. :)

M-J

@Lawrence I mean exerting a bad effect.

Lawrence

@M-J Yes. To me, the site is only as good as its people. If the people left, you'd still have their accumulated writings, but you would have lost their further input. It's unfortunately all too easy to cause offense, even unintentionally.

Another way chats can cause problems is with inaccurate advice.

... or instigating action on linked posts, etc. But otherwise, chat is quite separate from the other areas. It can be searched, and conversations can be bookmarked, though.

@M-J So to answer your question in a (less?) round-about way, it's not possible to cause technical harm to the website from chat. But human factors, that's another matter.

M-J

@Lawrence Yes I think that happens usually a lot. That's why I always try to take advice from native speakers.

terdon

13:25

@M-J Oh, good grief, all you did was smile! And I wouldn't have minded if you had laughed either :)

Lawrence

@M-J Native speakers can also cause offense, unfortunately. What matters on that score is your intent and your attempt to communicate it.

terdon

I'm not a mod here though.

Lawrence

@terdon You're just as respected. :)

M-J

@Lawrence That's right.

terdon

awww, shucks

M-J

13:27

@Lawrence As respected as whom? :))

Lawrence

@M-J As the actual ELU mods.

@M-J Also, if you take a look at terdon's user profile, you'll see that he/she moderates more than one SE site. Just not ELU. (For now.)

DEAD

@terdon Heh, why would it?

terdon

@DEAD I guess I was expecting SE help pages to one box like SE questions/answers.

Helmar

Is the viewed count of a post counting once per user or is it IP based?

tchrist

@NVZ I'm not very happy that you're going around rolling back my edits. In fact, I'm rather unhappy about it.

NVZ

13:34

@tchrist acknowledged. :)

tchrist

You've gone too far.

DEAD

@Helmar No one knows for sure, but it's IP-based I think.

@tchrist Yeah, I can't distinguish his face components now

NVZ

@tchrist We've come too far. Btw, it was, maybe one or two I may have made edits after yours.

Færd

@Lawrence I do get annoyed sometimes, but not because I take things personally. Let's forget about the whole issue of offense, as there has been none.

Helmar

@DEAD So it likely counts me a few times if I used several devices for SE or is it reduced to one, because I'm logged in

Færd

13:36

@Lawrence Just answer me this one question that I've repeatedly asked before: How do you ascribe a thought to yourself in step 2 when you're not yet sure of your existence? How do you ascribe an actual entity to something that's yet to be proved to exist, by saying "I thought a thought"?

DEAD

@Helmar It most prolly counts as one.

Lawrence

@Færd Give me a moment ...

DEAD

Not even the method.

Again, the formula isn't disclosed to prevent abuse.

Færd

@Lawrence Have as much as you want. You'll have to give me way more, since I'm very slow at thinking in English.

Helmar

I'm not asking to abuse anything, I try to evaluate the degree of support from four meager up votes vs 26 views

DEAD

13:38

@Helmar I know

The programmers are naughty though.

So SO saved all the headache.

Helmar

I am also quite intrigued by the near-total absence of mod comments on the matter.

DEAD

Dark matter?

Helmar

Comment absorbing dark matter? ;)

DEAD

@Helmar Matter?

I hate chat timeouts.

Helmar

@DEAD The usual, the tagging guideline ;)

DEAD

13:44

Let's backbite about mods then

You saw that TCh? His avatars looks like a . . . looks like a . . . looks like nothing I've seen.

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in body: I second-hand every action Clariderm cream by Clariderm cream on english.stackexchange.com

Helmar

I guess meta voting is even stranger than anticipated

data.stackexchange.com/meta.english/revision/534500/675973

DEAD

@Helmar Meh, you're just trying to make sense of something that does not make sense.

Or is pretty random, at least.

Helmar

13:59

Single user behavior can be arbitrary but overall there should be a recognizable pattern.

The pattern is, people hardly vote on meta.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…