Re: 'Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray' - questions

On Jun 30, 11:11 pm, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:44:26 -0700, moviePig wrote:

... 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.

Which sentence is correct, according to you?

Two and three is five.
Two and three are six.


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.

Would you give an example of what I materially misrepresented?


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*.

Trotsky thought that 'software' "had one [acceptable] meaning", in the
present context. Although eliminating alternative meanings as
nonsensical (and thus unaccaptable) may have required some thought by
readers, it does appear he was right.

But even if some reader found *two* legitimate interpretations for
'software' as used, that still doesn't make Trotsky wrong, but merely
vague ...i.e., exactly the same as he would be if that unfortunate
reader had discovered only the *wrong* *one* of the two
interpretations, and thus wandered off happily in possession of an
incorrect fact. (The point being that neither well-intentioned
readers nor failures in translation determine whether a writer's
correct.)


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.

Not obviously, to me. Since, by 'everyone', I wasn't including ***
Cheney (obviously), I thought it meaningful that your disagreement
omitted one of the thread's four participants.


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.

It's not sentences that are correct or incorrect, but.merely their
interpretations; sentences are but scratches on a page. Trotsky had a
"fact" in mind, and wrote a sentence *he* interpreted as representing
it... though he and we are *always* at the mercy of others'
interpretations and contexts. Now, the current consensus of three
does suggest that he successfully bridged the gulf ...but, regardless,
in order to assert that he's 'incorrect', you'll have to address the
original fact he had in mind. This, btw, is why courteous
disagreements often begin with, "If I understand you..." (Fwiw, if
you're merely complaining that his sentence has stylistic flaws,
that'll have trouble gaining traction, especially on Usenet.)

Quite separately, though, you seem to persist that Trotsky's
(momentary) meaning for 'software' (i.e., prerecorded discs) has *no*
validating independent precedent despite our citing of just such
usage. ...or that, although there is such precedent, Trotsky can't
allude to it. ...or that, if he does stretch forth and allude to it,
he must also provide a thick trail of bread crumbs guaranteed to leave
absolutely *no* reader behind. This is a puzzling sort of threshold,
which I'm not sure *any* writing could survive...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

.