How do you know for sure that people will invariably get the meaning wrong.
Where is the scientific evidence to support this as that seems to be the only thing that some will accept.
Grumpy people on CTC Forum
ianr1950 wrote:How do you know for sure that people will invariably get the meaning wrong.
Where is the scientific evidence to support this as that seems to be the only thing that some will accept.
They get it wrong because the only way to read between the lines is to understand the person writing, or not writing in this case.
When I write a reply on a forum, I do not think how I can say something in between what I actually write, so how can someone else understand what I don't write if I haven't a clue what I don't write in between what I do.
I'm a very literal person. I can't "read between the lines". I just don't understand.
I can't do cryptic crosswords.
If you want to say something to me - say it straight. No ambiguities, no carefully couched euphemisms, no beating around the bush.
If anybody misunderstands me, it's my lack of vocab that has done it.
I can't do cryptic crosswords.
If you want to say something to me - say it straight. No ambiguities, no carefully couched euphemisms, no beating around the bush.
If anybody misunderstands me, it's my lack of vocab that has done it.
Mick F. Cornwall
david143 wrote:When I write a reply on a forum, I do not think how I can say something in between what I actually write, so how can someone else understand what I don't write if I haven't a clue what I don't write in between what I do.
For example, from a completely unrelated thread:-
gaz wrote:appolo wrote:Ha Ha!
Nice reply. I'd have chosen "Ner, ner, ner, ner, ner" myself but the imagery of the wiggling fingers on the end of the nose gets lost in translation.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
gaz wrote:david143 wrote:When I write a reply on a forum, I do not think how I can say something in between what I actually write, so how can someone else understand what I don't write if I haven't a clue what I don't write in between what I do.
For example, from a completely unrelated thread:-gaz wrote:appolo wrote:Ha Ha!
Nice reply. I'd have chosen "Ner, ner, ner, ner, ner" myself but the imagery of the wiggling fingers on the end of the nose gets lost in translation.
I take Ha Ha to mean laughing, so similar to using an Emoticon to show feeling. I have no idea what Ner ner ner is though, or how it relates to laughing, or to picking your nose.
david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:I've found over a period of time that you get to find out those who can read between the lines and those who can't and those that don't want to.
Yes, and those that do read between the lines shouldn't because they invariably get it wrong.
if there's scope to read between the lines then it hasnt been written clearly. Too much bull####, too much quoting of law/academic text, too much showing off with the eloquent English & too ambiguous. MickF has it right. Be clear, to the point - say what you mean so we all know, whether we are non-linguists or Bill shakespeares.
pigman wrote:david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:I've found over a period of time that you get to find out those who can read between the lines and those who can't and those that don't want to.
Yes, and those that do read between the lines shouldn't because they invariably get it wrong.
if there's scope to read between the lines then it hasnt been written clearly. Too much bull####, too much quoting of law/academic text, too much showing off with the eloquent English & too ambiguous. MickF has it right. Be clear, to the point - say what you mean so we all know, whether we are non-linguists or Bill shakespeares.
Too much bull would indicate there is nothing to read in between the line.
Law/academic text quotes would indicate there is nothing to read
Showing off would indicate nobody should read between the lines
Basically, in every case where it is thought there is something to read between the lines on a forum, there is nothing.
I see those that look for meaning between the lines in a forum like those that are happy to call piles art.
david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:How do you know for sure that people will invariably get the meaning wrong.
Where is the scientific evidence to support this as that seems to be the only thing that some will accept.
They get it wrong because the only way to read between the lines is to understand the person writing, or not writing in this case.
When I write a reply on a forum, I do not think how I can say something in between what I actually write, so how can someone else understand what I don't write if I haven't a clue what I don't write in between what I do.
I don't understand what you mean.
ianr1950 wrote:david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:How do you know for sure that people will invariably get the meaning wrong.
Where is the scientific evidence to support this as that seems to be the only thing that some will accept.
They get it wrong because the only way to read between the lines is to understand the person writing, or not writing in this case.
When I write a reply on a forum, I do not think how I can say something in between what I actually write, so how can someone else understand what I don't write if I haven't a clue what I don't write in between what I do.
I don't understand what you mean.
If I don't know what I have written between the lines how can anyone else claim to?
ianr1950 wrote:david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:How do you know for sure that people will invariably get the meaning wrong.
Where is the scientific evidence to support this as that seems to be the only thing that some will accept.
They get it wrong because the only way to read between the lines is to understand the person writing, or not writing in this case.
When I write a reply on a forum, I do not think how I can say something in between what I actually write, so how can someone else understand what I don't write if I haven't a clue what I don't write in between what I do.
I don't understand what you mean.
I read that as "I do understand, but I'm being clever"
kwackers wrote:ianr1950 wrote:david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:How do you know for sure that people will invariably get the meaning wrong.
Where is the scientific evidence to support this as that seems to be the only thing that some will accept.
They get it wrong because the only way to read between the lines is to understand the person writing, or not writing in this case.
When I write a reply on a forum, I do not think how I can say something in between what I actually write, so how can someone else understand what I don't write if I haven't a clue what I don't write in between what I do.
I don't understand what you mean.
I read that as "I do understand, but I'm being clever"
and you could also be wrong. Unless it is written, you can't know, you can only ass/u/me.
david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:we could also be right.
It is still an assumption. Unless written you can not know. If we all based replies on assumptions we would get nowhere at all, and nobody would be able to understand what was going on.
Good grammar can improve meaning, but English is a relatively poor language when it comes to interpretation. To use it properly and in a manner defining absolutely what you mean would probably bore the pants of anyone reading it.
I suggest we accept meaning is open to interpretation and just try (within reason) to make our meaning clear (even if it does sometimes mean repeating the same point several times each written slightly differently).
We could go back to French - a few hundred years ago only peasants spoke English, anyone who was anyone spoke French.
Although given my knowledge of French amounts to the following phrases (in English) "My bike is very fast" and "you are very beautiful" I'm not sure if it would help.
kwackers wrote:david143 wrote:ianr1950 wrote:we could also be right.
It is still an assumption. Unless written you can not know. If we all based replies on assumptions we would get nowhere at all, and nobody would be able to understand what was going on.
I suggest we accept meaning is open to interpretation and just try (within reason) to make our meaning clear (even if it does sometimes mean repeating the same point several times each written slightly differently).
As long as we are only trying to interpret the words written, and not thinking that no means yes, as in the example of the assumption.