The Passion of the Christ -- ** SPOILERS **

  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
dekanos wrote:

Again, if I say, "I ate. I got a Big Mac," this does not mean that procuring the hamburger occured after eating. No reasonable individual would insist that it does.


I can't count the number of times that my parents went out to eat, and/then/also got something to bring home for me.

But that's quite different from insisting that it MUST be interpreted in that fashion. It CAN be interepreted that way, but not necessarily so.

Do you understand that distinction yet?
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I do but you obviously don't, since you would call me an "unreasonable individual" if I thought that the "procuring [of] the haburger occured after eating".


Riddle me this, riddle me that.
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

IH8Purple wrote:
dekanos wrote:
You might infer that, but that would be a false inference. A reasonable indivdual would NOT infer that all your eating occured before all your drinking. Rather, a reasonable individual would simply infer that you ate AND drank, without insisiting on any particular order to these events.


A reasonable reader would never ASSUME event happened in the order other than that of which they were given.


A reasonable reader would not assume ANYTHING about the order of events, except where supported by the context or logical necessity.

If I say, "We ate, drank and made merry," would an intelligent reader assume that these events occured in that specifici sequence? Or would an intelligent, reasonable individual simply assume that these actions all took place, possibly at the same time?

Look, I've provided several examples which show that this imaginary grammatical rule of yours does not exist. Why don't you cite some textbook on English grammar which demonstrates that it does?


By way of response, I'd also like to point you to this article by Yale linguistics professor Laurence R. Horn, which amply shows that your claim is incorrect. Remember, this is a linguistics professor at work, and in his article, he argues that the mere enumeration of events without an overt connective does not necessarily imply a specific sequence. Indeed, he goes out of his way to stress that the sequence is ambiguous in such cases.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1215
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:
"We ate, drank and made merry,"


umm if you put AND in there, you are making a list, and I can assuse that you ate, drank, and made merry at the same time
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Dekanos, when trying to prove a point please make sure you stick to the original one.

The original one was compromised of three separate sentences, where the third sentence started with 'then'.

Ready, set, go.
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
I do but you obviously don't, since you would call me an "unreasonable individual" if I thought that the "procuring [of] the haburger occured after eating".


If you assume that it NECESSARILY occured that way, then yes, you are being unreasonable.

Again, let me explain this. The fact that the procurement of the Big Mac COULD have occured after eating does not mean that it NECESSARILY happened that way, as your imaginary grammatical rule would imply. Your statement is a special case of the "hasty generalization" logical fallacy (described here.

Remember, your claim isn't simply that a listing of events COULD be interpreted to imply sequentiality. Rather, your claim is that they MUST be interpreted that way, except where a different order is specifically given. Ergo, merely arguing that the Big Mac COULD have been procured after eating odes not support your claim.
  • b_heyer
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 4581
  • Loc: Maryland

Post 3+ Months Ago

So what your telling me is if I was telling you that "I went out to eat. I got a Big Mac." and you assumed I had a big mac to eat, but I knew I actually ate, then got a big mac to bring home with me, and insisted that was how it was, you'de tell me I was being unreasonable?
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
Dekanos, when trying to prove a point please make sure you stick to the original one.

The original one was compromised of three separate sentences, where the third sentence started with 'then'.


The second and third sentences were connected by "then." The first and second -- the ones under dispute -- were not. ERGO, your objection is irrelevant.

Try again. Why don't you start by digging up those textbooks I asked for? Or why not tell us why we should believe you, instead of that Yale linguistics professor whose writing I cited?
  • dekanos
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • dekanos
  • Posts: 49

Post 3+ Months Ago

b_heyer wrote:
So what your telling me is if I was telling you that "I went out to eat. I got a Big Mac." and you assumed I had a big mac to eat, but I knew I actually ate, then got a big mac to bring home with me, and insisted that was how it was, you'de tell me I was being unreasonable?


Listen. Very. Closely.

I'm saying that the scenario which you painted is a POSSIBLE interpretation. As the person uttering these sentences, you are free to testify to the actual sequence of events.

I'm saying it would be unreasonable to insist that your wording MUsT NECESSARILY imply that the events ("eating" and "getting") happened in that specific sequence, as your imaginary grammatical rule insists they must have done.

Again, there's a big difference between saying that a statement CAN be intepreted in a certain way, and that it MUST be. To defend your claim, you must demonstrate that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. So far, you have done no such thing.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1215
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

dekanos wrote:
Try again. Why don't you start by digging up those textbooks I asked for? Or why not tell us why we should believe you, instead of that Yale linguistics professor whose writing I cited?


Funney that, although I did not get a chacne to read through the 44 pages, due to your inability to not focus attention to where your piont was, however, from what I read, I did notice that he brought alot of attention to taking things at face value, in the order they are given
  • grinch2171
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6801
  • Loc: Martinsburg, WV

Post 3+ Months Ago

Funny how this started off as a conversation about the movie and turned into a debate about grammar.

Anyway, I want to see the movie, some non-religous friends went to see it and said they were moved by it. I guess watching a man being beaten for 2 hours and then crucified would get to you.

I hope I used the word then correctly.
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

grinch2171 wrote:
Funny how this started off as a conversation about the movie and turned into a debate about grammar.

Anyway, I want to see the movie, some non-religous friends went to see it and said they were moved by it. I guess watching a man being beaten for 2 hours and then crucified would get to you.

I hope I used the word then correctly.


i've had the same thought, but I was having too much fun watching the conversation develop. :lol:

mark
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1215
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

allgoodpeople wrote:
i've had the same thought, but I was having too much fun watching the conversation develop. :lol:


Watching it?? you STARTED it

allgoodpeople wrote:
dekanos wrote:
** SPOILERS ***

He dies. Gets nailed to a cross.

Then he comes back.


actually, he gets nailed to a cross, then he dies, then he comes back.

mark
  • allgoodpeople
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 379
  • Loc: here

Post 3+ Months Ago

ok, that's true. guilty as charged :twisted: :lol:
  • PluTunium
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 812
  • Loc: Touring the USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hey, lets NOT get off-topic again!

The movie.
I want to go see this movie very badly. I am just waiting for the perfect time. Everyone I know liked it. One of my christian friends totally gave his entire life to jesus after watching this movie. I think he's pretty amazing for doing that.
  • AnthonyF
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 28

Post 3+ Months Ago

Plautunium - He gave his entire life already?

Its only been out a week.
  • PluTunium
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 812
  • Loc: Touring the USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

He was already a solid christian.. but now it's all about jesus for him. nothing else.
  • IH8Purple
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1215
  • Loc: Somewhere on Google Earth

Post 3+ Months Ago

I became more religous after the movie came out, just look at my sig. I also got a new, more religous, theory on snow removel: "what God gives God will take away, untill then drive over it" and if that is what the movie jsut coming out makes me do I can't imagine what seeing it will do
  • Troubadour
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 137
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Post 3+ Months Ago

IH8Purple wrote:
What is it rated?


15+ in Australia.
Though most who have seen it (the Public in Oz) reckon it should be 18+
  • suzie
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1134
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

grinch2171,
Quote:
Funny how this started off as a conversation about the movie and turned into a debate about grammar.
I thought that too, just wanted to see how far this would go lololol i fully expected this topic to suddenly become "closed" :D

*On topic* i will watch the movie--on DVD i hope..yea i know it will be a long wait lol
:D
suzie.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 50 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.