When a question is the answer
- Thread starter Drone
- Start date
In all seriousness, Drone, you are welcome to nit-pedant-a-pick-a-dick about AQI to your heart's desire, but why? There's neither logic nor fun in it. My original statements that language is in constant flux and that your own mannerisms of speech would very likely be deemed to sound uneducated, strange, or irksome to English-speakers past are true. Upspeak, and the evolution of language in general causes no apparent hinderance to our humanity. Your bias, however minimal, is still bias though. And it's a lame-ass thing to be biased about. Clearly you value words, but you don't seem to be enjoying them. Superfluous, florid, bubbly, fat speech can be a delightful thing, but it feels like you created this thread just to justify your screen name.
You're making progress. Congratulations.
As I wasn't aware of the definition and derivation of the linguistic understanding of this trait, I think it would be hard to truthfully say I was nitpicking it. It may seem hard to believe, but I seriously was curious about other's exposure to and thoughts on the mannerism. I don't think I presented the introduction in a way that significantly varies from a lot of other threads and the actual questions I posed were done in a straightforward, non-value laden, or provocative way IMO. If by bias, you are referring to the visceral response to this feature of speech I mentioned, I can only reiterate that in my subsequent response I noted that encountering it would not alter my evaluation of the opinion or statement being propounded by the speaker and that I was simply interested in eliciting how others experienced it with no concern or attempt to find or encourage the articulation of a like impression. I guess if that represents bias in your estimation, well so be it. I wasn't necessarily expecting responses that would explain in some detail what is known of the phenomenon, which I do find helpful and edifying.
It seems clear that people weren't interested in simply sharing their experience of this trait. That's all right. I didn't do anything to elongate the discussion whatsoever. In fact, I made no further comment at all until I responded to your remarks. Likely, if it weren't for how you concluded them, I don't think anyone would have heard another peep from me until the thread ended. I have no idea how this represents droning on, especially when I said not a word about AQI, the malleability of language, or any other point about the subject afterwards. I should acknowledge your gift of prescience, knowing exactly how I would express myself in the past times you cited and how my mode of communication would be perceived. Although with such a capability, I don't know what your doing wasting your time here. Your powers of discernment did let you down though, in your estimation of my enjoyment of a well thought out vocabulary. In fact, my appreciation of using the words that I value is one of the primary reasons that I spend my time here.
Ultimately, I just have to question the rationale of my being characterized as I was using such spurious, incongruent, and incorrect assertions, especially dealing with what IMO was a rather innocuous thread, both in content and presentation.
And it only required four words to say so. Well done.
It is an innocuous thread and, thus far, it's gone no further than that. Some snotty, patronizing comments from you, some light ribbing from hux and me about your verbosity, and some topical tidbits thrown in. All well and good.
That being said, I understand that your lack of self-awareness is truly unparalleled -- as evidenced by the paragraph you used to assert that you'd done nothing to "elongate the discussion" -- but your puling about being mischaracterized is absurd, as you've been nothing but sarcastic and patronizing towards me since your first response to my first post. It doesn't bother me, but don't be a hypocrite.
It seems to me that the vast majority of replies in this thread have been on-topic, including hux's which, while obviously facetious, are also the most apt and concise responses to your observations in here. Personally, language is a topic I am fascinated by, and about which I have some relevant knowledge (though by no means expertise), especially wherein it intersects with neuropsychology, child development, and in the case of AQI, feminism -- that's why I'm "wasting my time" here. Also because hux was really making me laugh.
So the conversation isn't going your way, too bad: that's the nature of conversations and language -- that's what makes them interesting.
Similar threads
