> if you're not ready to allow me to clear up your misconceptions about the
> meaning of my own remarks, even where you acknowledge you potentially
> misunderstand the English, there isn't much point in continuing the dialogue.

Of course you can try to clear up what you think is my misconception about what you *meant* to write. It's just that I won't take your word that this is what you actually *wrote* (I'm still hoping for some other native English speaker to state his opinion), making me believe that you retracted your former statement that a review can't be on something that "hasn't been sold" when you later said that a review can be done on "hardware not publicly available".

And as I have your attention again I ask those yet unanswered questions once more:

Do you think the author believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or do you think he believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad?
In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?
Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?
If my conclusion that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author is wrong then what do you believe how this part was written without access to a physical device as you say? Would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

Yeah okay, why not. Whilst I wouldn't say I am a perfect communicator, I am English, and I therefore meet your criterion.

I haven't read the whole thread, but if I understand correctly the phrase in question is "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold".

This is a perfectly solid statement, it's not quite how I'd word this message, but it does not contain a logical contradiction. If a native English speaker were to break it down, it would sound like "it hasn't been reviewed yet, it hasn't even been sold yet".

A phrase like this is used as a way of hammering home your point by piling up the facts with whomever you're debating with. The second statement is intended to be more dramatic than the first, but other this contrast, there is only a minor link between them.

For example, if I was talking about a new car due out on the market I could say "when not only hasn't it been driven yet, it hasn't even been built yet".

Does this make sense to you? If not, feel free to ask any questions you have.

[ Edited by HenryCase 27.08.2011 - 22:30 ]

> Yeah okay, why not.

Thanks.

> if I understand correctly the phrase in question is "when not only hasn't it been
> reviewed, but it hasn't been sold".

That's part of it, yes.

> This is a perfectly solid statement, [...] it does not contain a logical contradiction.

Of course it does not. Nobody suggested it would. The question is whether the following two statements:

(1) "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold" (#161)
(2) "Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly available." (#171)

do contradict *each other*. In my understanding of phrase 1 it paints "not having been sold" as one reason that the article about the device is not a review, logically rendering the device "having been sold" a prerequisite for an article on it to be a review. Now, phrase 2 says that an article on a device that is "not publicly available" and thus hasn't been sold (yet) can very well be a review. That's where I see the logical contradiction. Do you?

> If a native English speaker were to break it down, it would sound like "it hasn't
> been reviewed yet, it hasn't even been sold yet". A phrase like this is used as a
> way of hammering home your point by piling up the facts with whomever you're
> debating with. The second statement is intended to be more dramatic than the first

That's well understood, even by me. But that was not the question. My question is what semantic function "when" has in "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold" regarding the preceding "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed". In my understanding "when" can only have the same meaning like "because", "as" or "since" in this context. What's your opinion on this?

> Does this make sense to you?

Unfortunately not, as my question was about something entirely different.

> If not, feel free to ask any questions you have.

Done above.

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

The statements still do not contradict each other. It's commonplace for companies to send products out for review before they are sold to the general public, to build up a buzz around the device, though companies only do this when they're confident that the product they're selling will get a good review (whether though fair means or foul).

Quote:

This is clearly where you're getting confused. Let's take those three words and substitute them for when in turn so we can see what's going on:

The original:
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With 'because' in place of 'when':
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, because not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With 'as' in place of 'when':
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, as not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With 'since' in place of 'when':
"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, since not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

These three words change the meaning of the statements, they are not ones you can simply replace if you don't understand the use of when. The reason they change the meaning is that when is more versatile than you credit it for, it's not necessarily justification in absolute terms, but can also be a way to change the focus in a sentence. When in this context only loosely links the statements, you could skip it out entirely and get back the same meaning, like this:

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed - not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

The statement in question isn't one I would personally make, I don't think it's that strong a statement, but the question is not over whether it was convincing, but rather whether it made sense. It does make sense to a native English speaker.

One thing I'd point out that native English speakers listen to non native English speakers a lot, and often have to accommodate their less than perfect grasp of the language (for the most part we don't mind). With this increased practice in interpreting what someone is trying to say, you pick up on one key skill, which is that the word choice only tells you some of what is intended, the other part of understanding comes in understanding why they're saying it.

The reason you're failing is because you're too hung up on the word choice. If you broaden your view to try and understand the reason why it was said, there's no confusion. To paraphrase the sentence with the intention in mind, you could say "It's a mistake to say the product is reviewed, it clearly isn't ready yet".

Does this make sense now? Again, if not, ask any questions you have.

Thanks.

[ Edited by HenryCase 28.08.2011 - 10:16 ]

> It's commonplace for companies to send products out for review before they
> are sold to the general public, to build up a buzz around the device, though
> companies only do this when they're confident that the product they're selling
> will get a good review (whether though fair means or foul).

Fair enough (and Vecro_SP and I went through this already), but then how can it be "a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when [...] it hasn't been sold"? How can the fact that it hasn't been sold yet cause the article to be a non-review when reviews on not yet sold hardware are possible?

> These three words change the meaning of the statements, they are not ones you
> can simply replace if you don't understand the use of when.

Hence I said "in this context". I'm aware that most oftenly "when" can not be substituted by either of those three words.

> when is more versatile than you credit it for, it's not necessarily justification in
> absolute terms, but can also be a way to change the focus in a sentence. When
> in this context only loosely links the statements

Let's get to the point: Of what semantic nature is this "loose" link created by "when" in this phrase?

> you could skip it out entirely and get back the same meaning, like this:
> "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has
> been reviewed - not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

With this I'm afraid we're at square one again. What's the semantic connection between the part preceding and the part succeeding the dash? There is one, isn't it?

> the question is not over whether it was convincing, but rather whether it
> made sense. It does make sense to a native English speaker.

For it to make any sense there must be a semantic connection between the parts. What is it?

> The reason you're failing is because you're too hung up on the word choice.

You're mistaken. I'm hung up on the word *meaning* (i.e. its semantic function) in the specific context.

> To paraphrase the sentence with the intention in mind, you could say
> "It's a mistake to say the product is reviewed, it clearly isn't ready yet".

We're going in circles, so I have to ask again: What is the implied semantic connection between the two parts of that sentence? What's the reasoning behind putting those two phrases into one sentence, separated by a comma? I mean it's certainly not like for instance "The sun is shining, a bratwurst contains large amounts of cholesterol.", is it?

> Does this make sense now?

Unfortunately not.

> Again, if not, ask any questions you have.

Again, done. See above :-)

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

You're taking the statements too far out of context, they were not made in the same post. Let me bold the key words for you in the second sentence:
" Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly available. No, it could not be based on looking at pictures, watching videos, or doing websearches."

What Velcro_SP is saying is that there is a chance that a proper review has happened, in essence saying there's a chance you might be right, but it does not take away from the essence of earlier sentence, which is saying we have no real proof the device is ready.

Quote:

Quote:

These quotes sum up where you're going wrong. A loose link does not mean unrelated. What's the semantic function of "however"? It links two statements but it does not imply anything more than another perspective to consider. The same with when in this context, it is not a 'when' saying something can't possibly be true because of this, but rather a 'when' saying 'look at it like this'.

Perhaps you're thinking 'that's not how I would use the word when', which is fine, but people don't have to talk exactly like you for you to understand them. Understanding context is as much about understanding the intentions of the author as it is about looking at the words being used. You're only seeing half the picture, if you looked at the other half I'm confident the words would make sense to you.

[ Edited by HenryCase 28.08.2011 - 11:30 ]

> You're taking the statements too far out of context, they
> were not made in the same post.

Yeah, I found that most people contradicting what they said before do so with some time passed in between. That's why the latter statement would usually be interpreted as an implied retraction of the former.

> Let me bold the key words for you in the second sentence:
> " Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly
> available. No, it could not be based on looking at
> pictures, watching videos, or doing websearches." What
> Velcro_SP is saying is that there is a chance that a
> proper review has happened, in essence saying there's a
> chance you might be right

You're massively mistaken here. The discussion at that point was not on the CherryPad 2 article anymore but on the meaning of the word "review" in general. So with that Velcro_SP is *not* saying that there is a chance that a proper review has happened, in essence saying there's a chance I might be right. You can clearly see that in the second sentence you quoted the pronoun "it" must refer to "a review in general", not to "the CherryPad 2 article" as "looking at pictures, watching videos, or doing websearches" is exactly what he says he thinks the CherryPad 2 article *is* based on in his other posts before and after, so it can not be a review as reviews must be based on real hardware.

> A loose link does not mean unrelated.

Yes, that's exactly why I gave my example sentence where the comma does imply a semantic connection between the phrases yet the phrases don't reveal any. With that I wanted to show that a comma (or dash, or semicolon) usually *does* imply a semantic connection between the phrases it separates.

> What's the semantic function of "however"? It links two
> statements but it does not imply anything more than
> another perspective to consider.

Exactly, the semantic function of "however" is to initiate a consideration of another perspective on the subject talked about in the phrase preceding "however".

> The same with when in this context

So you say that Vecro_SP's statement

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

is equal in meaning to

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, however it not only hasn't been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

...right? If yes, then I really wonder how saying that it hasn't been reviewed (phrase succeeding "however") could be *another* perspective than saying it's a mistake to claim it has been reviewed (phrase preceding "however"). Is it maybe that I don't get your concept of "another perspective" here?

> it is [...] rather a 'when' saying 'look at it like this'.

Okay, let's try it:

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, look at it like this: not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

This reads like he says I made a mistake calling the article a review and then goes on saying the article isn't a review and then mentioning something he later on in another posting says does not even have anything to do with the article being a review or not. Does that make sense to you?

> people don't have to talk exactly like you for you to
> understand them.

That's true as a general statement. However the sentence we're discussing is a nice example where the difference in usage of a small word does lead to a gross misunderstanding of the meaning. I've been interpreting "when" in this context as initiating a justification of what preceded that word, whereas you say it's similar in semantic function to "however" or "look at it like this" in Velcro_SP's sentence.

> Understanding context is as much about understanding the
> intentions of the author as it is about looking at the
> words being used.

True, as your misinterpretation of what Velcro_SP was referring to in the first paragraph of posting #171 is a good example for ;-)

> You're only seeing half the picture, if you looked at the
> other half I'm confident the words would make sense to you.

So what was Velcro_SP's intention in writing the sentence in question (if it's not the intention I read from it, that is)? I still don't get it since "however" or "look at it like this" don't semantically work for me there as shown above. As it seems to work for you I'm afraid we don't get any further at this point. Thanks for sharing your view anyway.

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:

Nope. The 'however' example was merely presenting you with a thought exercise so you could appreciate what I meant by 'loose connection', I was not stating it was a word you could use as a direct replacement.

I'm currently feeling too happy to go through the tedium of multi-quote replies. I've done what I need to in this thread now, you asked for a native English speaker's perspective, I gave you this.

Just as a general piece of advice, if you want to enhance your English skills, try to think like a native speaker. Whilst the skill in speaking a language comes from using it to express yourself as accurately as possible, the skill in listening to others speak a language is different. Simply put, the more advanced you are at listening to someone speaking a language, the more you can adjust for their mistakes and still understand what they're saying. Something for you to consider in the future.

Anyway, enough of my rambling, got some tasty food to look forward to, no time to chat.

See ya.

> Nope. The 'however' example was merely presenting you with a
> thought exercise

Okay, so this was a misunderstanding from my side that I thought you were still referring to Velcro_SP's sentence there. Point taken.

> so you could appreciate what I meant by 'loose connection',
> I was not stating it was a word you could use as a direct
> replacement.

I don't consider linking two statements in order to provide another perspective to consider a "loose connection" at all. To my mind it's a strong semantic connection. That's probably the cause of the misunderstanding from my side as to my mind that example is too far apart from the case we're discussing.

> I've done what I need to in this thread now, you asked for
> a native English speaker's perspective, I gave you this.

True, thanks again for you taking your time for this, even if it didn't help me in any way with why I wanted a native English speaker to give his opinion.

> if you want to enhance your English skills, try to think
> like a native speaker.

Thinking like a native speaker requires knowing (not just assuming) the different meanings the words can carry in the different contexts they're used. With that we're at square one again because it doesn't make sense to me semantically how in Velcro_SP's sentence the word "when" can mean something like "look at it like this" like you suggested, as I explained.
Besides, a non-native speaker trying to think like a native speaker always ends up as a non-native speaker thinking like he believes a native speaker thinks. Spot the difference?

> the more advanced you are at listening to someone speaking
> a language, the more you can adjust for their mistakes and
> still understand what they're saying.

You as a native English speaker now say that Velcro_SP might have made a *mistake* in his sentence? If yes, that would be a complete new idea you're suggesting here (as well as a contradiction to what you before said you thought about the sentence). I mean he would have clarified in his reply to me if he did, wouldn't he? Or is this just a general "thought exercise" again that has no connection to what this discussion is about specifically?

> Something for you to consider in the future.

You mean it's better to assume a mistake than to assume he actually meant what he wrote? And you mean in a case with statements that seem to contradict each other it's better to assume a mistake in either than to assume he underwent a (mostly positive) thought process which made him change his opinion and implicitly retract the former statement? If yes, then I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
I mean it was two and a half days that passed between the two statements, which I consider enough time to undergo a positive thought process. If it was two and a half minutes instead then it would be obvious that one of the statements must have a mistake in it (but I still wouldn't know which one of the two statements).

@Andreas_Wolf
Quote:
Why did you ask for the opinion of a native speaker? Did you want the true perspective of a native speaker or did you just want someone to back you up?

Quote:
Here we go again. Look, I've explained before, Velcro_SP didn't word what he wanted to say perfectly (in my opinion), yet I understood what Velcro_SP was trying to say. The 'mistakes' are just a little roughness with the words, the key thing that the message was clear enough.

Quote:
In your fantasy he retracted the former statement, in reality he entertained the idea that you may be correct, that is not the same thing.

Honestly, I'm done with this conversation, you clearly aren't willing to listen to anyone else's point of view that doesn't fall in line with your own. Carry on doing what you do, but I won't reply to this thread again, even if you try to bait me to do so.

[ Edited by HenryCase 28.08.2011 - 18:23 ]

> Why did you ask for the opinion of a native speaker?

To get to know whether my understanding of the meaning of the word "when" in Velcro_SP's sentence is wrong or correct.

> Did you want the true perspective of a native speaker or
> did you just want someone to back you up?

Wait, first you were saying that my understanding is wrong (effectively backing up Velcro_SP's usage of the word), only to suddenly reveal in your previous posting that you think his usage of the word is what might be wrong. What is this "true perspective" that you as a native English speaker think you gave to me at the end of the day? I had hoped to get a clear opinion, not more contradictions.
My take on this is that you either contradicted your previous statements or underwent a positive thought process like I assumed Velcro_SP did. I sincerely hope it's the latter.

> Velcro_SP didn't word what he wanted to say perfectly (in my opinion)

...your opinion you just revealed to me only in your previous posting, not before, when you said it was my understanding that was wrong.

> yet I understood what Velcro_SP was trying to say.

That's good for you. I thought I understood as well (him having undergone a positive thought process with an implicit retraction of the former statement as a result, that is), until he said I was wrong with that assumption.

> The 'mistakes' are just a little roughness with the words

The difference in meaning between "as", "since" and "because" on the one hand (as has been my understanding of his usage of "when") and "look at it like this" (as was your presented opinion of what this word means in his sentence) is not just a little rough in my book. It's something entirely different semantically.

> the message was clear enough.

Yeah, that's what I thought as well, until he gave his reply.

> In your fantasy he retracted the former statement

Exactly, that's what he said. This doesn't change the fact that this was my original assumption though. As it stands now, I'm not any wiser because if the latter statement is not a retraction of the former (as he said and you say as well) then to my mind there're those two conflicting statements again -> square one (did we ever move from there?).

> in reality he entertained the idea that you may be correct

Correct regarding what exactly? That there're statements in the CherryPad 2 article which hint at it being a review (i.e. based on access to a physical device) and which he chose to simply ignore even when explicitly confronted with them by me? To be honest, I don't know what in reality went on in his mind as mind reading is not one of my skills. I see only what he writes here. You seem to have this skill, else you wouldn't know what idea he entertained inside his mind, would you?
Anyway, this has zilch to do with the question I wanted the opinion of another native English speaker on, i.e. whether his two statements are contradictory or not.

> that is not the same thing.

Exactly. His stance on the nature of the CherryPad 2 article you just addressed for no obvious reason and the question whether he uttered contradictory statements are two different things.

> you clearly aren't willing to listen to anyone else's
> point of view that doesn't fall in line with your own.

Again, what point of view of yours exactly? Your point of view where Velcro_SP's usage of the word "when" is correct and my understanding of it is wrong? Or your later point of view where he might have made a mistake in the usage of this word? Or any other point of view you didn't reveal yet?

> I won't reply to this thread again

You were of no help in answering my question and performed a volte-face with regard to your presented opinion (which is not bad per se, just of no help to me), so you surely won't be missed by me. But nonetheless thanks again for even posting in this thread.

> even if you try to bait me to do so.

I'm just replying in a most truthful way to your points you made to me. You can call that baiting, but I don't care.

The use and understanding of the English language is not always black and white, nor is it always logical. The meaning of one word in a sentence cannot always be dissected, in the way it appears A_W is attempting to do, to justify his opinion of Velcro_SP's statements.

As a Native English speaker, I understand Velcro_SP's statements and objections to A_W's opinion about his statements and their meanings, without any difficulty. I also understand how reading Velcro_SP's statements could be taken the wrong way by not only a non-native English speaker, but even many native English speakers.

Much can be mistaken between spoken and written English. I can't write about the same being true for any other languages, as I only speak a very limited vocabulary in a second language and do not understand the structure and grammar of that second language to comment on the possibility, or lack thereof, that mistakes are common between spoken words meaning and the same words when written.

> The meaning of one word in a sentence cannot always be dissected

This doesn't change the fact that each and every word in a sentence has a specific meaning, put into it at the time of writing by the author, who uses language to encode a certain mental concept or combinations thereof. Thus, every word of Velcro_SP's sentence

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

has a meaning put into it by him, including the word "when". Now if we try to decode the semantic function of this word, which in this sentence obviously connects two other mental concepts into a larger one, we can of course only interpret as for knowing for sure we'd have had to read his mind at the time he conceived that sentence. So reading and trying to make sense of what's written is always an act of interpretation. My interpretation of the usage of the word "when" in Velcro_SP's sentence has been that it is meant by him to initiate a justification of what precedes that word. With this interpretation there *is* a logical contradiction to what he wrote 2.5 days later, I think even you don't deny that. That's why I interpreted his latter statement as an implicit retraction of the former, caused by a positive thought process, in order to avoid a state of cognitive dissonance. He then said it was not meant as a retraction by him but left me in the dark regarding the meaning of his former statement.
Of course my interpretation of the meaning of the word "when" in this sentence could be far off of the mental concept Velcro_SP attempted to put into it, making it hard for me to decode his message. So I sought for the opinion of a native English speaker for the simple fact that native speakers of the same language usually have a better understanding of which mental concepts are usually put into certain words in specific contexts than non-native speakers. Of course there's also no definite *knowing* in that because language is arbitrary, and the fact alone that Velcro_SP is US-American could make it hard for native English speakers from other parts of the world to give a meaningful opinion as language can't be kept from diversifying when it develops in separate locations.
Nonetheless, HenryCase was kind enough to step forward and give his opinion on the matter (#177). First he said in his opinion my interpretation of "when" in this context as initiating a justification of what precedes that word was wrong and that he understands it as meaning "look at it like this". When I said that this kind of semantic connection between the two phrases doesn't make sense to me he suddenly changed his presented opinion and said that there might be a "mistake" in what Velcro_SP wrote (#183) and even later that "Velcro_SP didn't word what he wanted to say perfectly" (#185). HenryCase didn't get any more specific with that, though. So in the end I think you can see how this didn't help me at all with my question.
My question still stands: What semantic concept could Velcro_SP have attempted to put into the word "when" so that the sentence doesn't lead to a logical contradiction to what he wrote 2.5 days later? What's your opinion on this as a native English speaker, amigadave?

> in the way it appears A_W is attempting to do

I'm afraid you have not understood what I'm attempting to do. Please read above so that you can see what it really is about.

> to justify his opinion of Velcro_SP's statements.

It's not about justification but about the attempt to decode the meaning of a certain sentence in a way that we can get an idea of the mental concept that the author had in mind when writing that sentence. Can you help here, amigadave?

> As a Native English speaker, I understand Velcro_SP's statements [...] and
> their meanings, without any difficulty.

That's fantastic, you might be just the right person to help me here. So what is it you understand of the following sentence?

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

Could you please paraphrase that sentence in a way that resembles your understanding of it using as less original words as possible?

> I also understand how reading Velcro_SP's statements could be taken the
> wrong way by [...] even many native English speakers.

Interesting. Could you please give examples of such wrong understandings of Velcro_SP's sentence in question? I'm really eager to know the ambiguities that could be seen in this sentence from the view of a native English speaker like you.

> Much can be mistaken between spoken and written English.

Yes, of course, but as it's all written English here on MZ this couldn't be the cause for any misunderstanding here, could it?

Andreas_Wolf wrote:

"> Much can be mistaken between spoken and written English.

Yes, of course, but as it's all written English here on MZ this couldn't be the cause for any misunderstanding here, could it?"

I will try to tackle the rest of your large post later, but will address the above statement now.

Many, if not most people write forum postings in the same style and wording as they would speak to another person, but in writing you do not have the advantage of hearing the inflections of tone in the words, nor seeing the appearance of a persons actions and facial expressions, so I do not agree with you that because all communication on this forum is written, that mistakes cannot occur between two persons understanding of what is being communicated.

In fact, I will go one step further and state that I have never experienced anyone other than yourself that expresses themselves so exactly and carefully in forum postings and analyzes other forum postings so literally and critically to find fault in them, or skew their meaning to suit your understanding, or for your entertainment.

This, as you no doubt have noticed in the past, is a great source of annoyance to some, including myself, who frequent this forum. In my experience, most forum posters come here for casual entertainment and news and do not wish to be criticized and analyzed for every word they type, and so are not so careful in the way that they type every sentence of every forum posting they write.

Edit: I would guess that some members and guests to this forum might even be reluctant to post any messages here and choose just to lurk, to avoid such constant and annoying criticism of their postings. So please think about the possible results of your actions before you begin such critical investigations (or attacks) on other people's postings.

[ Edited by amigadave 29.08.2011 - 09:57 ]

> I will try to tackle the rest of your large post later

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it, hoping it's not just a hollow promise.

> Many, if not most people write forum postings in the same
> style and wording as they would speak to another person,
> but in writing you do not have the advantage of hearing the
> inflections of tone in the words, nor seeing the appearance
> of a persons actions and facial expressions

Exactly. That's why forum postings are always written language, not spoken language. The mental processes involved in speaking vs. writing are not the same. Even when some people write in a style that seems to resemble spoken language it is not spoken language and it does not work like spoken language.

> so I do not agree with you that because all communication
> on this forum is written, that mistakes cannot occur
> between two persons understanding of what is being communicated.

You misunderstood what I said. I said that misunderstandings "between spoken and written English" (as you put it) can not be the cause of misunderstandings in a pure notational medium like MZ because there just *is no way* to actually have an oral dialogue here on MZ (let alone a visual one). I did *not* say what you now say you disagree with, i.e. that "mistakes cannot occur between two persons understanding of what is being communicated" in a notational medium. In fact, I've been saying the exact opposite all along.

> I have never experienced anyone other than yourself that expresses
> themselves so exactly and carefully in forum postings

Thanks, much appreciated. I try hard to put emphasis on communicating in a clear and unambigous way, which helps very much reducing the occurrences of misunderstandings most of the time.

> This, as you no doubt have noticed in the past, is a great
> source of annoyance to some, including myself

This, as you no doubt have noticed in the past, I don't mind.

> In my experience, most forum posters [...] do not wish to
> be criticized

Yes, that's my experience as well. Lack of critical faculty seems to be widespread, unfortunately.

> and so are not so careful in the way that they type

Yes, again an experience I share with you.

> I would guess that some members [...] to this forum might
> even be reluctant to post any messages here

I'm very confident that this is the case. There are even members who claim they don't use MZ because they don't like me interlinking threads here. As you see, there's obviously no motivation foolish enough to not get presented as a rationale ;-)

> to avoid such constant and annoying criticism of their postings.

It's really the way you look at it. Criticism can be depreciated as an annoyance or even attack, but it can also be used as a means to improve. There's even a third approach how to deal with criticism -- simply ignoring it. Everybody makes his own choice how to handle criticism.
And before you say that I don't appreciate criticism myself (just in case) have a look at how this very discussion started in posting #157 et sequentes where I posted links to some articles and Velcro_SP criticized me for calling those articles "reviews". You can clearly see that I took heed of his criticism in a genuine way.

> please think about the possible results of your actions
> before you begin such critical investigations (or attacks)
> on other people's postings.

First off, let me clarify that I've never *attacked* here on MZ, never ever. There are people here on MZ who like to call me names and spit foul language towards me, as you surely know. And even then I don't reply using their low level. That should tell you something, really. As for the rest, I'll definitely continue being critical of other people's postings as being critical is kind of a life motto for me and I believe that world would be a much better place if people were more critical in general. That sounds solemn now, doesn't it? ;-)

Your opinion of yourself is greatly inflated and undeserved.

> Your opinion of yourself is greatly inflated and undeserved.

I can accept that this is your opinion of me. Anyway, I'm still looking forward to you trying to tackle the rest of my large post (as you said), and more importantly, answering my genuine questions. To make it easier for you I reiterate them:

What semantic concept could Velcro_SP have attempted to put into the word "when" so that the sentence doesn't lead to a logical contradiction to what he wrote 2.5 days later? What's your opinion on this as a native English speaker, amigadave?
It's not about justification but about the attempt to decode the meaning of a certain sentence in a way that we can get an idea of the mental concept that the author had in mind when writing that sentence. Can you help here, amigadave?
What is it you understand of the following sentence? "It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold". Could you please paraphrase that sentence in a way that resembles your understanding of it using as less original words as possible?
Could you please give examples of such wrong understandings of Velcro_SP's sentence in question? I'm really eager to know the ambiguities that could be seen in this sentence from the view of a native English speaker like you.

Thanks in advance.

|||




[ Edited by Velcro_SP 22.10.2011 - 19:17 ]

> You misquoted me at #162, and after that you intentionally misquoted me
> at #178, #182, #188, and #192.

I'm convinced I did neither.

But as I have your attention again I ask those yet unanswered questions once more:

Do you think the author believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or do you think he believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad?
In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?
Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?
If my conclusion that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author is wrong then what do you believe how this part was written without access to a physical device as you say? Would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 22.10.2011 - 19:16 ]

> Did you actually read my remark and author that entire comment about three
> minutes after I clicked "Submit," or did you author part of it first and then later add
> to it and somehow bypass the "Edited by" text that MZ inserts on normal users who
> edit their remarks?

I don't see the relevance of that for anything discussed so far.

> Your debating tactic of asking a bunch of crap questions has become transparent
> from overuse

If you answered those "crap" questions I wouldn't see the need to reiterate them, obviously.

> I'm going to ignore it

So you're not going to doff your ignorance. Pity.

> and so should everyone else.

I'm still hoping for amigadave's answers he said he'd try to give me.

> I noticed the one question where you said "please," and we'll see about that one.

Haha, now I see where you're coming from. Pathetic.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 21.10.2011 - 11:49 ]

> you appear to me to intentionally make heavy use of questions as a debate tool

That's correct. I believe that straight questions are a good means to get clear answers in a debate, provided they're not ignored that is.

> to control the dialogue

No, raising question for me is a "tool" to get answers, not to "control" anything.

> that questions such as [...] get far astray from the lighthearted and
> positive interaction MorphOS fans like me used to come here for.

No problem. If my questions are not "lighthearted" and "positive" enough for your liking you can always choose to not answer them. I cannot force anybody to not ignore anything I write here anyway. But that doesn't mean that I'll stop longing for the answers to those questions, and it doesn't even necessarily mean that I stop reiterating them.

> As to semantic conceptualizing of "when" I don't think you'll find it listed under
> the various definitions and synonyms at English dictionaries and thesauruses
> as equating to "because,"

Correct. If I did I wouldn't have asked here, obviously.

> I welcome you to link to a online dictionary or thesaurus that does so.
> Or scan and post the page of whatever you've got there.

Errm, how should I link something I was not able to find?

> Or furnish a scholastic article that explains how context (as you referred to in #180)
> somehow can override what is expressed [...] by the person making the remark.

I'm glad you're directly getting to the point here. What is it that you as "the person making the remark" wanted to express by the usage of "when" in that sentence? Of what semantic nature is the link created by "when" between the two phrases? Or put another way: What's the semantic connection between the part preceding and the part succeeding the word "when" in your sentence?

> It is also difficult for me to gauge the author's agreement or disagreement
> with my sentiment about the tenuous connection between Cherrypal and
> the device illustrated in the specs and pictures it released

Thanks for eventually addressing one of my four questions. Of course you do not have to have an opinion on this at all. You can always choose to not take sides, like I did before.

> I don't understand the relevance of this at all.

I think that to know whether the author of the article believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or rather believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad could help me to identify the nature of that article which is filed under "reviews" but you say you believe is not a review.

> You were very polite with the one question

Sorry for this. It wasn't intentional and won't happen again ;-)

> this is not going anywhere positive.

That's okay for me. I'm not looking for positivity but for answers.

> I corrected the mistaken remark about "reviews" you posted and you
> acknowledged it graciously.

You may remember that regarding the CherryPad 2 article I said I was still undecided as to whether my remark was mistaken or not. My stance on this has not changed so far.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 21.10.2011 - 11:46 ]

> it might be of interest to HenryCase and amigadave as well as me to know
> if your comments in the dialogue we've had here have undergone changes
> without time-stamping.

They have not.

> you already said you weren't going to take my word for this

I said I'm not going to take your word for what the word "when" in such sentence constructions means usually. I'm now asking you for the mental concept you attempted to put into this word when writing your sentence, which could be just about anything in theory.

> why don't you just take HenryCase's at #177

Because in #177 he didn't even address my question. That's why I explained to him in #178 what my question was.

> or a dictionary such as MacMillan (it's the first entry).

1c ("used when someone knows or says at what time something happens, or in what situation it happens") more specifically, right? Going by that,

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

just means that I made the alleged substantial mistake (of informing MZ readers that the CherryPad 2 had been reviewed) at a time the CherryPad 2 had not been reviewed and had not been sold, right? If so, I still don't understand what the point that it has not been sold has to do with anything, as reviews do not depend on the reviewed device being sold or not.

> Your portrayal of it as making a causal connection seems more downplayed looking
> back at the thread than I originally took it for.

I'm not sure I understand. Could you please rephrase?