Tips? How to tell the English they are barbarian?

Dear Gropar,

Why did you come to England? Obviously not for our easy but mostly fat and louche women. Not for our religious beliefs because we haven't any. Not to broaden your intellect because we haven't any. I must assume that this is the only place in Europe where you can get a good connection? Is it possible that someone TOLD you to come here? Either way there are some nicer places to live like the far North of Scotland... a sort of Siberia for those that like to exercise their brains.

 

Did i ever say how much i like corn flakes for breakfast? Manoce, any new suggestion?

 

I'd rather have a BJ after waking up...

 

i'd rather have a J&B

 

you drunken bitch.... i'll tell dad!

 

chivato!! btw, you have 666 posts... uhhh, burn, witch/bitch!!!

 

lol, i hadn't even noticed!

 

In England, would one find the following?:
A Dutch speaking guy in cowboy clothes driving a Massey Ferguson Tractor with a little Plastic Nativity Scene up there on the dashboard thingie?
Five French speaking Siekh MPs voting in a NONconfidence vote in Parliament and casting their lot with Seperatists?
The correct forms to fill out in order to get a permit for a tax excemption on the purchace whale gutting equipment?
Automobiles purchased online and delivered to the purchaser by helicopter...?
Deer as big as house trailers?
Eagles fishing in the local creek considered pests.

 

Is this politics again?

 

you can find that anywhere, biles. world's a joke!!

 

My point ezackly.

Still, is it true, the English eat offal?

 

For the connection indeed! It is great transportation hub.

The North of Scotland is very nice! I would gladly move there if my supervisor allowed me.

PS:
Intellect: it is not true that you dont have any in England!

- There is alot of other immigrants here, ha-ha!

 

But i wouldnt say you have less intelectual people than in my country, say.

 

I'm not a Communist, although I am an idealist and believe in the well-being of all Really I posted the link as an example of "dense" and nearly inscrutable prose, while I personally prefer clear and concise texts that explain things in the vernacular.

I confess I was thinking about conversations I'd had during the day about this book, conversations that were quite pro and con.

For example, consider the direct and sometimes blunt prose of normal persons such as ourselves, versus the indirect and intellectually satisfied prose of "officially philosophical" texts. Which is the more valid? Ours, rather, especially because we can understand it

 

But that article wasnt on high language, was it?

I personally enjoy alot the language when I am reading a good "professional" book in humanities. Not Literature though!
After all, professional language was developed because certain notions or nuances were simply inexistant before. I express as someone caught in the woods. The master of language has much greater freedom and precision of mind.

IMHO it all depends on the author. As my mother says for mathematical papers: good mathematicians write everything so that it looks most simple and obvious, the stupid ones usually produce papers where ideas are buried in long calculations and complicated constructions and you get headaches until you understand whats the purpose of the whole thing. But the former express simple -by- using (and often - creating) professional jargon.


PS: in fact in english is very difficult to find texts on high language, I think. East-european intellectuals, on the other hand, have too great seduction to it. Check out my attempt for translation of this newspaper article:
http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25278

PPS: and check out Bileses interp on the bottom! It is great! Suitable for a theatre text!

 

Hmmmm...

I don't agree.

Recently I've seen a growing tendancy in authors using adjectives and adverbs not to elaborate on their true meaning or to further define it, but rather to bomb the audience. There's one thing in being precise, but there's a whole other thing in adding all sorts of useless bells and whistles while it can be just as easily explained without 'm.

Frankly, most words are made for ease of use. Instead of saying "a reservoir for holding water" you say a glass, etc. To continue the parallel, what I've read in some of the courses I get is overkill, "a singlesidedly defined homogeneous material which we must design keeping statistical fluidynamics and hydrostatics in mind".

Sure, adjectives are useful, but there's no point in placing one at each word. It's almost derogatory to the reader. There's no need to oversimplify, but there's also no need to complicate matters. In fact, I think it's an art to get across a complex message in a few well thought upon - yet simple - words. Sadly enough I can't say I master that art

To conclude; here's a quote from another great mathematician:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.
(Einstein)

<Z>

 

It depends on the audience Articles like that are meant for select audiences, and not for the average person. You are descended from a family of intellectuals and are schooled in such language, but most of us (myself included) encountered such language and prose only at the university level; that is (speaking for myself here), I certainly didn't hear such language spoken or concepts related at my family dinners

Very true. Anyway, you express yourself remarkably well in English!

And here you're addressing what I hit upon above: intended audience and purpose of communication, and we're saying the same thing, so I spoke/wrote too soon

My favorite poet is Mayakovskii, because his voice said so much in such a powerful style, like a hammer!

Come to our liberal US universities and you'll find tons of high language. Language whose complexity is in inverse proportion to its content But you know most of us Americans are pragmatists and frown upon ideas from Derida and Foucault

Biles has an interesting style, so I always read his posts. He reminds me of Kerouac somehow! He's got some kind of Beat style going on, and that's a good thing

 

He-he, that is what I meant that the article wasnt on high language - it didnt contain a single reference to a prominent thinker!

But no, my family is all natural scientists (maths and chemistry). far from that.
but what I remember from family dinners is mainly picking on university politics and its internal power intrigues!

 

Absolutely agree with ya, Zem. There ... totally didn't use any adjectives in that! But no seriously, I hate those long-winded, pseudo-intellectual, overly eloquent texts written by authors who obviously get a massive boner from intimidating us mere mortals with their superior wit. They seriously give me the willies. Just make me wanna reach out and smack them in the face. Arrgghh, what are you trying to say, fucktard?!

 

ah, textbooks are notorious! ok, in certain subjects (such as engineering, geography, biology and many others) things by themselves are too simple and they are trying to make the discipline look "scientific" by inventing scary terms!
i remember how horrible it was in school!

But I think we are talking about different things (again).