4 ms·

No. It is describing adaptive aspects of some linguistic phenomena. chasing is suggesting that when a person starts to mumble, which they seemed to define as s

No. It is describing adaptive aspects of some linguistic phenomena. chasing is suggesting that when a person starts to mumble, which they seemed to define as speaking incoherently due to a variety of psychosocial circumstances- completely different from the article's definition- they are behaving irrationally and wasting time because the rational thing to do would be to directly and clearly state the reason, assuming the speaker is even aware of such a reason, that they began to mumble in the first place.

anigbrowl 12y ago
If the output isn't coherent or fails to articulate such that the listener doesn't understand the message, then it's hardly adaptive. And I think either definition above speaks to the incomprehensibility of mumbling. If I tell someone something and they grunt in acknowledgement because they're busy rather than enunciating a clear response, that's easy enough to understand. But when someone mumbles, it usually isn't comprehensible and they are just shifting the cognitive burden of guessing what was meant onto the listener. Most often I've come across this when people are not sure how to pronounce a word properly and mumble in embarrassment instead. I'd much rather someone say 'I'm not sure how to pronounce this...'; trying to figure out what they mean when they mumble is exasperating.
- dbbolton 12y ago
  I don't think you appreciate the different arguments being made here, and I'm not sure if you read the article past the title. >If the output isn't coherent or fails to articulate such that the listener doesn't understand the message, then it's hardly adaptive. Clipping, assimilation, etc. do not meet your criteria as they do not cause incomprehensibility. They may draw prescriptive criticism, but they do not deprive phrases of all conceivable meaning. Those are the types of phenomena that the article is discussing. More to the point, when I say "adaptive" I am talking about the evolution of language. The winds of change. It isn't always "good" in an objective sense, but it never leads to a breakdown of meaning. >incomprehensibility of mumbling. Think of the definition used by the article as "failure to enunciate" and it should make more sense. Perhaps it wasn't the best word choice, but I'm guessing it's reflective of social use. I don't know what else a layman might call "not enunciating", especially since there are several factors involved such as the examples above. The rest of your comment, as well as chasing's comment, seem to be hinged on the idea that there's only one definition of mumbling, which I just don't agree with, but I won't continue to argue against it either. If you have a better title for the article, I would direct it to the writer.

anigbrowl 12y ago

If the output isn't coherent or fails to articulate such that the listener doesn't understand the message, then it's hardly adaptive. And I think either definition above speaks to the incomprehensibility of mumbling. If I tell someone something and they grunt in acknowledgement because they're busy rather than enunciating a clear response, that's easy enough to understand. But when someone mumbles, it usually isn't comprehensible and they are just shifting the cognitive burden of guessing what was meant onto the listener. Most often I've come across this when people are not sure how to pronounce a word properly and mumble in embarrassment instead. I'd much rather someone say 'I'm not sure how to pronounce this...'; trying to figure out what they mean when they mumble is exasperating.

dbbolton 12y ago
I don't think you appreciate the different arguments being made here, and I'm not sure if you read the article past the title. >If the output isn't coherent or fails to articulate such that the listener doesn't understand the message, then it's hardly adaptive. Clipping, assimilation, etc. do not meet your criteria as they do not cause incomprehensibility. They may draw prescriptive criticism, but they do not deprive phrases of all conceivable meaning. Those are the types of phenomena that the article is discussing. More to the point, when I say "adaptive" I am talking about the evolution of language. The winds of change. It isn't always "good" in an objective sense, but it never leads to a breakdown of meaning. >incomprehensibility of mumbling. Think of the definition used by the article as "failure to enunciate" and it should make more sense. Perhaps it wasn't the best word choice, but I'm guessing it's reflective of social use. I don't know what else a layman might call "not enunciating", especially since there are several factors involved such as the examples above. The rest of your comment, as well as chasing's comment, seem to be hinged on the idea that there's only one definition of mumbling, which I just don't agree with, but I won't continue to argue against it either. If you have a better title for the article, I would direct it to the writer.