The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed!

[Rick Johnson]

On Jan 25, 6:20 pm, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Rick Johnson

> > """I was frightened that the finals might be difficult this year,
> > however to my surprise, they were not."""
>
> > In this case the writer does not *precisely* quantify the difficulty
> > of his final exams, however, we can infer that the difficulty level
> > falls somewhere between easy-peasy and devilishly-difficult -- WITHOUT
> > resorting to a language perversion!
>
> That is not what I infer from that sentence.  I take from it that the
> writer expected the finals to be difficult, and they turned out to be
> the opposite (i.e. "easy").  If you thought that that sentence clearly
> implied that the finals were "between easy and difficult", then your
> writing skills stink.

My writing skills are not in question here, however your reading and
comprehension skills should be. How could you possibly know for sure,
beyond any reasonable doubt, that the writer was suggesting the final
exam was "easy"? In fact, the writer never even mentioned the word
"easy" at all! The writer only stated that the test was NOT
*difficult*. How does "not difficult" extrapolate to "easy". The only
fact you can be sure of is that the difficulty of the exam is
somewhere in range between "easy-peasy" and "devilishly-difficult".
You seem to see the world in only black and white now, whereas earlier
you could see all sorts of gray shades in the "supposed" quantity of
"pretty".

> > Listen, you try to make an argument that "pretty" somehow quantifies
> > the "difficulty of an easy task". Okay, if "pretty" is a quantifier,
> > then what EXACTLY is it's quantity, exactly? You see, you've gained
> > nothing by using "pretty".
>
> It is a qualifier, not a quantifier,

Oh i see, NOW it's a qualifier! So what is "easy" qualified for?

 1. A zero interest loan?
 2. A sweepstakes?

or maybe you meant "qualified as"

 1. a traffic cop?
 2. a clumsy ship captain?

or maybe you meant "has authority to qualify",

clown: "In the name of the people and things of Hell, I dub thee...
Spawn, general of Hell's armies. Arise, Your Crispness! Arise, Duke of
Deep-Fried! Sultan of Sizzling! Emir of Ooey-Gooey!"

*[Thought Exercise]*
Take a word like "applause". Let's say we want to quantify the level
of applause to some variable degree of precision. We could say:
"roaring applause", even though the base definition of "roaring" is a
sound an animal creates. You see "roaring" can make the transformation
whilst "pretty" cannot. Why? Because the base definition of roaring
refers to "magnitude of sound". In that sense, an applause can roar.
But the applause can never be "pretty loud" because pretty is 1) not a
quantifier 2) cannot make the transformation to quantify sound.
"Pretty" is not a quantifier, it's an observation, or an opinion if
you like.

> just like "very" and "somewhat",
> which you have previously advocated.  Tell me, if something is "very
> easy", EXACTLY how easy is it?  Or do you gain nothing by using those
> words either?
>
> > So you have no capacity to reason on your own without outside
> > influence? I feel horrible for you. All of the classical philosophers
> > would have gulped poison like some college student at an all night
> > kegger if they knew the shameful outcome of our wasted centuries of
> > evolution.
>
> No, actually what I have demonstrated by going to a dictionary is the
> capacity to cite external evidence that bolsters my conclusions,
> rather than simply insisting that everything I say is obviously true.
> Are you able to do that as well?  Or are you so egotistical that you
> believe you don't need to?

Obviously i have (like many before me) stood on the shoulders of
giants to reach the cookie jar of knowledge. I make no allusions
otherwise.