Re: NIP arrived.
- From: "Christian McArdle" <cmcardle75@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:29:19 +0100
> So do you not agree that if people said what they actually meant there
would
> be less confusion which would result in less waste of effort and
resources?
If everyone doubled the size of their sentences and explained every single
word every time they used it, instead of relying of clearly understood and
obvious contextual symbols, then there would indeed be great waste of effort
and resources. The problem is that you can't have a separate word for every
single subtely nuanced meaning.
The inuit may have several hundred words for snow, but we don't need several
hundred for road (although there are probably about 30!) depending on what
is intended to be included in the particular case.
> Quite, they are merely there for emphasis, but you do agree that the road
> only becomes dangerous when traffic starts to use it?
Yes. That is a perfectly reasonable statement, excluding silly cases, such
as the ability to fall other on it and hurt oneself. The "dangerous"
modifier applies due to the fact that the road has traffic on it. If you
remove the traffic, then you remove the danger and the road is no longer
dangerous.
Christian.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Mark Foster
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Adrian
- Re: NIP arrived.
- References:
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Brimstone
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Adrian
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Christian McArdle
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Brimstone
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Christian McArdle
- Re: NIP arrived.
- From: Brimstone
- Re: NIP arrived.
- Prev by Date: Re: NIP arrived.
- Next by Date: Re: Is this common?
- Previous by thread: Re: NIP arrived.
- Next by thread: Re: NIP arrived.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|