Re: 'Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray' - questions

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:44:26 -0700, moviePig wrote:

On Jun 30, 9:03 am, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:48:50 -0700, moviePig wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:03 pm, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:12:29 -0700, moviePig wrote:
If we ware
to judge comhunitacom shillps onle one wat hos entendred, fan he'b de hosp
en eh mace oph ietnosdepojifdas, wwodsoh't we?

An excellent example statement, whose sense entirely eludes me. Shall
I therefore declare it 'incorrect'?

Is there any situation where you'd seriously consider that sentence to be
correct? If you had to grade an essay that had nothing but sentences like
that, would you be forced to give the essay a good grade, since you could
neither understand it nor rule it incorrect?

Neither 'correct' nor 'incorrect' ...either of which would imply that
I believed I'd understood it.

Understanding has (almost) nothing to do with it. There's things like
grammar and spelling that determine whether a sentence is correct or not.
That sentence, as written, is incorrect, regardless of what the "meaning"
of the sentence is.

The point, of that sentence was writing incorrectly understanding
difficult. Nothing intent has to do with is a good sentence or not.


Of course, Trotsky might argue that, within a BluRay-vs.-HdDvd thread,
he stated, "...let's not [assume] DVDs are here to stay [because]
software is almost wholly unnecessary at this point...",

He *might*, but he couldn't, because he didn't write the sentence you
quote.

You don't think what I wrote quite fairly distills Trotsky's actual
text?

No.

and that all the necessary contextual elements were therefore indeed
front and center ...or at least within a stone's throw.

The "necessary contextual elements" are *not* "front and center." The word
"software" is missing completely any immediately preceding qualifiers, as
all the other examples you've given had. Since this was the first usage of
the word "software" in the *thread*, there was no established context for
the usage of that word, and trotsky provided none either.

Right. Trotsky assumed I'd infer from the context what meaning of
'software' he was using...

....which has no bearing on whether the sentence, as written, was correct.

just as he might also have offhandedly
referred nearby to 'digital compression', unconcerned I might think of
hitting my thumb with a hammer...

If you can give an example of "digital compression" ever being used to
refer to a hammer hitting a thumb, you may have a point. As it is,
"digital compression" has one accepting meaning, while "software" refers to
a multitude of things, so specificity is much more important, especially
since he was referring to another form of software as well.

For example, if I wrote "I found a video of a hammer hitting a finger
online, the digital compression is severe," that sentence would be
considered vaguely worded, since you can't tell if I'm talking about the
digital compression of the *video*, or digital compression of the *thumb*.

And (again) he might
cite as supporting evidence the fact that *everyone* understood
him ...

Only you and I have stated that we understood what he *meant*.

Derek Janssen, too, if I'm not mistaken..

Obviously I meant "You, I, and Derek." Stop trying to substitute your own
preferred context as the "authoritative" one.

However, I
*again* must stress that just because one can decipher what he *meant*
doesn't make what he *wrote* correct.

Right. But, if we *can't* decipher it (or can do so only
uncertainly), then we can't say that it's incorrect.

Of *course* we can. Either trotsky meant what he wrote, and thus provided
a self-contradictory situation where a form of software obsoletes *all*
software, including itself, or what trotsky wrote incorrectly stated what
he meant. It doesn't matter that we *know* what he meant to say, since in
either situation, the sentence, as written, is incorrect.

-Jay
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... That sentence, as written, is incorrect, regardless of what the "meaning" ... and trotsky provided none either. ... But even if some reader found *two* legitimate interpretations for ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... usually we label such a failed statement (i.e., ... context is too lacking or arcane) as 'incorrect', ... suggest he's effectively substituting his own preferred context as the ... and trotsky provided none either. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... context is too lacking or arcane) as 'incorrect', ... suggest he's effectively substituting his own preferred context as the ... Of course, Trotsky might argue that, within a BluRay-vs.-HdDvd thread, ... Since this was the first usage of ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
Quantcast