Posts by David Cauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thought you copyright cats might enjoy this.
The current redragtoabull.com project is highlighting and exploiting some tension between the street art camp and the mainstream art camp re copyright theft... both camps being guilty of moaning and gross self-importance...
-
That is one theory. It is not a fact. The existence of this theory does not make my reasoning specious.
To me it sounds like a bullshit theory, too. As I see it, the meaning of what an author writes is what they intended it to mean. They may have expressed it poorly for some particular audience, but that doesn't mean the audience get to claim the work and say it meant something other than what the author intended. That is like saying that Nietzsche was advocating Nazism, just because the Nazis willfully interpreted it that way.
No, it is not like saying that at all. If you'd understood what you'd read, you'd've realised that an appropriate reader is not justified in attributing Nazism to Nietzsche.
However, you were right on one score! It's not the existence of a theory that makes your reasoning specious.
-
Damnit, there is so much specious reasoning on display here it's difficult to know where to start.
How about when the writer is dead, or otherwise unavailable?
Then we're stuck with their ambiguity, whether they were grammatical or otherwise. I think the standard thing to do is try to find other references to the same ideas by the author.
A central tenet in theories of interpretation of literary works is that a literary work is autonomous - the author is not required to travel round with their books explaining what they meant.
According to hypothetical intentionalism, this means that explicit statements by the author as to what their work means are ruled out.
The meaning of a literary work is what an appropriate reader (one who is familiar with the literary tradition the work is part of, the social context of its creation, and relevant biographical information about the author) is justified in attributing to the author.
Note that this means the author's meaning might be different to the work's meaning, i.e. that an appropriate reader might be justified in attributing a meaning that is different to the author's actual meaning, and in that case the real meaning of the work is the reader's rather than the author's.
-
David, I don't want to wipe out languages, nor would that be a consequence of learning a new language.
Ben, the suggestion that learning a new language does not pose a threat to endangered languages is simply not true. In fact, the opposite is true. Probably the single biggest threat to most endangered languages is another more dominant language (e.g. English in northern Australia replacing Aboriginal languages, Spanish in the Andes replacing indigenous Andean languages, etc).
-
Ben, the idea of a single global language is monstrous. Right now, languages are dying out at a scarily high rate - one every two weeks. It's estimated that almost half of the 7000 languages spoken today are in danger of extinction. They are irreplaceable repositories of human thought, history, and knowledge, and to want to wipe them out in some misguided drive for efficiency beggars belief.
-
C.o.n.t.e.n.t. Read for content.
That's really funny.
-
Ill/I'll
Were/We're -
Okay, I'll bite.
I've obviously wrongly assessed my audience. I did not say the sign needed perfect grammar. I never mentioned grammar. I said the sign needed to be fit for purpose, and specifically mentioned that a minor spelling mistake would not make it unfit for its purpose.
Your Indonesia example is just strange. You made some bizarre comment about having to write in every language before as well, so I'll spell it out: A.u.d.i.e.n.c.e. Write for your audience. If they care about macrons, use macrons. It's in your interests to do so.
-
Ben, let's use your sign on the beach as a concrete example. What is the purpose of the sign? Why did someone go to the trouble of putting it up?
I think it reasonable to assume that they did so because they want people to (a) be aware that there are dangerous sharks in the vicinity and (b) take sensible precautions accordingly.
Therefore, to achieve those aims, they need to put up a sign that is clearly visible and that clearly states 'beware of sharks' in language that the vast majority of visitors to the beach will understand. They get a sign made that states 'Be ware of sharks'. Someone realises there's been a mistake. Thinking about their readers' needs, they conclude that the mistake is not going to affect the purpose of the sign. If it had been printed in 8-point white lettering on a white background, though, it would. The people who put the sign up would have no basis for saying to the families of shark victims, 'But they should've made the effort to read it.'
Thinking about your readers' needs is simply about ensuring that your writing fulfils its purpose for a particular audience in a particular context.
A friend of mine once said, 'Let's rub them out like a De Kooning.' He was saying this specifically to me, and knew that I'd know it was a reference to Rauschenberg's Erased De Kooning Drawing and so would get the joke. If he'd been trying to make a joke to someone ignorant of art history and had said the same thing, the purpose of the utterance would not have been fulfilled.
-
I disagree. A great deal of communication is about trying to understand the other person's intent. If it is not well conveyed, that's the writer's fault, sure, but if you deliberately refuse to make an effort, that's your fault.
Yes, I am asserting that the onus is entirely on the writer. The IRD example is a bit of a red herring because they've got State force to back them up if you don't make the effort to understand what they want. Most other writers don't.
Communication is almost always about persuasion. You write something because you want another person or people to know something and/or to do something. If you are not able (like IRD is) to compel me to know/do that thing, you will have to persuade me.
Why on Earth do you think other people should have to make an effort to know/do what you want? If you are too lazy and/or pigheaded to make yourself clear, why should I care enough to read what you've written, let alone do the job of working out what you mean for you?
Just to be clear, I'll repeat:
You wanting something from me puts no onus on me whatsoever.