3 ms·

Are you writing your comments in a different language and then translating them before you post?

mdp2021 4y ago
No Cipater. But probably the language I use is not the language you intend: I use language actively, not patterns. Nonetheless, the vastest majority of the language instances I "deal with" are in English... Or anyway a few more post-Latin and post-Germanic languages - but I do not think the expression would change in other """dialects""". I know that there is 'la bagnole' and there 'el coche', and for terms I would pick the one that seems appropriate irregardless - but the logic is unchanged.
- Cipater 4y ago
  If your objective is to make it harder for folks to parse what you're saying then you're succeeding. But you're not a "troll" so I don't think that is your aim. If language is a system of communication, you are not using it actively; quite the opposite in fact. Which leads me to ask, why do you choose to express yourself this way? For the fun of it? Do you speak this way too? I'm really curious. Your comments almost seem AI generated.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > If your objective is to make it harder for folks I know (at lest presume) you wrote it that way just rhetorically, but: no, of course that's not the objective. :) It's just that - rushed hence imperfect formulations aside, that can also happen of course - if a relatively complex idea is to be expressed, its form will follow. When I wrote «actively», it means that I craft the expressions - if you wish, that I check and vet and adjust the expression, until I find it well constructed. (And yes, this also means that implicitly I do verify whether it is understandable - but implying, "by somebody who actually intends to do their part in understanding it".) James Joyce once got furious against some editing of his work, (rightfully) stating that "he chose those expressions very intentionally" - that is an "active use of language", adopting some effort, in a conscious process. Yes I do speak this way too. :) I have been told that to listen to me requires extra concentration - but that was by professors during oral exams... ...so actually, it's "/may/ require": it depends on the expressed idea really. I guess that certainly you would not find all of my posts "hard to read". Probably, "not all lunches are soft and buttery Big Macs" - sometimes "you have to chew" (because such is the material).
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Hi again Cipater. It seems I replied to your post while you were editing it. (And by the way: apologies for said reply, which I now re-read and is full of typos and imperfections. Time constraints, rushing, culpable omission of re-reading it properly...) I express myself that way because I use what I believe is the proper process in composing, and that is the outcome. I "think, evaluate, consider, formulate, hone": you formulate and judge in cycle (and that is valid for the structure, the ideas, the nodes which are the terms and should be as "right" as possible...). It's how one should be supposed to think... (And in fact, it's not a formal process: it's natural.) In a way, you formulate the expression as if you sculpted. Of course I am just guessing what you find "strange", because, as you surely understand, to me it is not. The "result" you indicate could also be a consequence of the fact that I read a relatively large amount of literature since the earliest age. In some ways to be defined, that must have an impact. About communication, as said, it is a work shared by both parts: you express something and the part of your interlocutor is to put the right effort into understanding it or just postpone. Otherwise, the "common" part fails. Your duty is to be understandable. If the other one did not perform its own processing, the shared object would remain "communicated" (by the first) yet not "made common". Of course, more on a practical interpretation, the problem of the /targeted/ form of expression is not trivial (in the sense that there is little to do about it): the "ideal sculpture" is for the general, untargeted communication - and it will be inadequate for some. These will require explanations, which you cannot anticipate in full, and will want to add upon being requested clarifications - the intended reader does not want to be bothered with redundant (to them) «With 'term1', what is meant...» (and you do not want to write the equivalent of a legal document per post). About aspects of my comments reminding of AI: I do not know why some of you see them that way (apart from the inexcusable case of that which does not understand and _consequently_ decides "it must be nonsense" - remarkable paradox). Current AI is depthless (in content grasp), and I have quite strong grounds to say that here it's the opposite (meaning that the consideration is "conceptual" and reflective). One guess (of those most relevant) is that some individuals are not used to identify complex structures outside the strict realm in their work (note that I have read posts in HN of people that say "they do their job for the money" - you will not "export" what you dislike). By the way: just minutes ago I was awarded a «That is exceptionally well articulated, fully on your side» from a co-member at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31121890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31121890 . As you see, this way of expression is the "rule" (on this side), but while some show occasionally to be confused others do appreciate it, further to subscribing to it.

mdp2021 4y ago

No Cipater. But probably the language I use is not the language you intend: I use language actively, not patterns. Nonetheless, the vastest majority of the language instances I "deal with" are in English... Or anyway a few more post-Latin and post-Germanic languages - but I do not think the expression would change in other """dialects""". I know that there is 'la bagnole' and there 'el coche', and for terms I would pick the one that seems appropriate irregardless - but the logic is unchanged.

Cipater 4y ago
If your objective is to make it harder for folks to parse what you're saying then you're succeeding. But you're not a "troll" so I don't think that is your aim. If language is a system of communication, you are not using it actively; quite the opposite in fact. Which leads me to ask, why do you choose to express yourself this way? For the fun of it? Do you speak this way too? I'm really curious. Your comments almost seem AI generated.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > If your objective is to make it harder for folks I know (at lest presume) you wrote it that way just rhetorically, but: no, of course that's not the objective. :) It's just that - rushed hence imperfect formulations aside, that can also happen of course - if a relatively complex idea is to be expressed, its form will follow. When I wrote «actively», it means that I craft the expressions - if you wish, that I check and vet and adjust the expression, until I find it well constructed. (And yes, this also means that implicitly I do verify whether it is understandable - but implying, "by somebody who actually intends to do their part in understanding it".) James Joyce once got furious against some editing of his work, (rightfully) stating that "he chose those expressions very intentionally" - that is an "active use of language", adopting some effort, in a conscious process. Yes I do speak this way too. :) I have been told that to listen to me requires extra concentration - but that was by professors during oral exams... ...so actually, it's "/may/ require": it depends on the expressed idea really. I guess that certainly you would not find all of my posts "hard to read". Probably, "not all lunches are soft and buttery Big Macs" - sometimes "you have to chew" (because such is the material).
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Hi again Cipater. It seems I replied to your post while you were editing it. (And by the way: apologies for said reply, which I now re-read and is full of typos and imperfections. Time constraints, rushing, culpable omission of re-reading it properly...) I express myself that way because I use what I believe is the proper process in composing, and that is the outcome. I "think, evaluate, consider, formulate, hone": you formulate and judge in cycle (and that is valid for the structure, the ideas, the nodes which are the terms and should be as "right" as possible...). It's how one should be supposed to think... (And in fact, it's not a formal process: it's natural.) In a way, you formulate the expression as if you sculpted. Of course I am just guessing what you find "strange", because, as you surely understand, to me it is not. The "result" you indicate could also be a consequence of the fact that I read a relatively large amount of literature since the earliest age. In some ways to be defined, that must have an impact. About communication, as said, it is a work shared by both parts: you express something and the part of your interlocutor is to put the right effort into understanding it or just postpone. Otherwise, the "common" part fails. Your duty is to be understandable. If the other one did not perform its own processing, the shared object would remain "communicated" (by the first) yet not "made common". Of course, more on a practical interpretation, the problem of the /targeted/ form of expression is not trivial (in the sense that there is little to do about it): the "ideal sculpture" is for the general, untargeted communication - and it will be inadequate for some. These will require explanations, which you cannot anticipate in full, and will want to add upon being requested clarifications - the intended reader does not want to be bothered with redundant (to them) «With 'term1', what is meant...» (and you do not want to write the equivalent of a legal document per post). About aspects of my comments reminding of AI: I do not know why some of you see them that way (apart from the inexcusable case of that which does not understand and _consequently_ decides "it must be nonsense" - remarkable paradox). Current AI is depthless (in content grasp), and I have quite strong grounds to say that here it's the opposite (meaning that the consideration is "conceptual" and reflective). One guess (of those most relevant) is that some individuals are not used to identify complex structures outside the strict realm in their work (note that I have read posts in HN of people that say "they do their job for the money" - you will not "export" what you dislike). By the way: just minutes ago I was awarded a «That is exceptionally well articulated, fully on your side» from a co-member at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31121890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31121890 . As you see, this way of expression is the "rule" (on this side), but while some show occasionally to be confused others do appreciate it, further to subscribing to it.