The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Let's take a second, maybe two, and make it so that at least one of us has thought about what you've written.

Language and by extention punctuation are two non-existent constructs

that are not only constantly changing but also entirely dependant upon common-usage, something that is almost impossible to measure.

So then I reply:

This is not so. Language is a very real construct- a formalized catalog of symbols. Punctuation is merely an agreed upon method of how to put ideas (symbols) together. While it is true that this convention is almost completely reliant on common usage, we cannot abandon rules entirely in favor of "common usage" (read: ebonics) because the accepted rules are what maintain the library of symbols' meanings.

Grammar (and punctuation!) unifies the users of a language and prevents it from splintering into a thousand (or bajillion, as the case may be) regional dialects.

So therefore any attempt to disregard their usage is the very definition of Fail.

For the Cliffs Notes users among you I've bolded the relevant comment.

For my wonderfully insightful extension of the conversation I am rewarded with this gem:

It very much is so.

Language is only so real as the greatest works of fiction

it exists only in your head and the signifiers you place around it. So while you may see a fish in your head and think 'this is a fish' that doesn't actually make it a fish at all. There is no innate meaning in a fish that means that it is it is termed as a fish. There is no real link between the word Fish and the body of matter that is termed a fish.

Language is an abstract concept that creates meaning- a system that people have created out of thin air to make the world nice and orderly. Lying to themselves that the world makes sense when in actual fact it does no such thing.

But wait! I'm not claiming knowledge of the world. 😬 I'm asserting the importance of conventions in communication. Another for instance: If you call the color of this text "blue" but I call it "green" then we will begin to have fundamental (and perhaps fatal) misunderstandings.

Punctuation and grammar is merely a way to organise a system meant to organise the world, a system that has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.

GreenPeace: Let's go save those trees!
KKK member: And we've gotta kill the *******!
GP: go save that redwood forest!
KKK member: And lynch some darkies!
GP: wait what?

Shouldn't you be preaching this nonsense to the holier than thou crowd at your school or local starbucks?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Shouldn't you be preaching this nonsense to the holier than thou crowd at your school or local starbucks?

touche

This is blatantly false:
Language exists. Punctuation exists.

Where? Can you touch it? Can you feel it? Can it give oral sex in the back of your dads car that one time when you were drunk and wanted to know what it felt to go the other way?

The answer is no, of course. Like most things such as morality and its ilk, language is merely a human construct that we just made out of nothing. In fact we didn't even make those things, we just talk about them. They have no grounding in reality whatsoever.

I -I'm sorry, did you forget your thesis? I thought that language didn't exist?

Hmmm, you appear to be confused, or else to be making a poor attempt at humour. You see what I meant when I said 'that are not only constantly changing but also entirely dependant upon common-usage, something that is almost impossible to measure', was that language is essentially an entirely subjective force built around certain signifiers people have fed to them through conditioning in childhood yet that have no physical, concrete or logical links to the things the are meant to refer to.
But I can see how that might not have come across

The parallel structure implies that you are merely asserting the opposite of my thesis. It's great that we know our respective positions. Can you back yours up though?

Meaning is subjective remember. It not my fault you can't keep up with my superior intellect. And judging a text upon its implication is folly.

Here you continue to demonstrate a critical failure in abstract thought. Just because an idea is intangible does not mean it is non-existent.

So just because something cannot be seen, smelt, heard, touched, felt or otherwise measured, has been entirely made-up on the spot and exists only in the signifiers the written word create that in actual fact have no links to the world we live in it, that doesn't make it non-exisistent?

Huh.

(needless to say this is false logic as it is essentially the 'can't prove the 4sided triangle doesn't exist' kind)

And now you regail us your confusion between the subjective nature of language and the existence of a language at all. To cut to the chase: I don't care that my symbol for "FISH" has no direct relation to the amalgamation of carbon that is collinear with what I call an "arm."

Well I do care. A requirement for something to be real is that it has possible to be proven that exists in a physical sense. Otherwise we just get into the realms of ideas, or meanings. Ideas don't exist (see Anselms hilarious ontological argument for an example) in the same way that a human does for example.
But I think we may have had some kind of misunderstanding. You are talking of something as being real in that you can see its effects. The meanings something has to people for example. Or how we are structuring blobs of colour into shapes in order to convey meaning to each other. I am speaking of the foundation for such things and how there are none. Like whether a a ruler is a ruler and not a regler (as I believe the word is in French). Is one the innately correct? No, neither is, because language has no innate basis. There is no reason why a ruler shouldn't be a gtyiytg (other than being a bloody toungue-twister). I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here.

but the point you've made is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.

No it isn't, because the point I was trying to make initially was the fallacy of trying to tell someone how you should utilise an imaginary construct that varies from person to person, place to place and time to time; a completely subjective force. It would be like me telling you you should like Jaina the most out of the Eu. No matter how many well-constructed arguments I make, all of them our baseless because they deal in opinion, something which exists only in your head. (hmm, not sure of that example but I'm tired and so screw it)

We are not dealing with the material the symbols represent, but how the symbols are arranged.

Dealt with above. There is no 'correct' way to structure language. If you want you could argue that it makes logical sense to arrange things in a certain way because the purpose of language is to convey meaning and if your method of doing so is inadequate then you might as well not bother, yet in most cases meaning is easy to convey, with only a few cases of stressing words or phrases otherwise, so those who do try to correct others even when this isn't the case are pretty much just being anal for the hell of it.

Thus, if I were to invent a new system (for instance: ;alkjsdkljasfiopuewqti is the root word meaning "matter" and all words consist of prefixes or suffixes to that root describing it (I am positing the unity of energy and matter) my argument would still be valid) I would still have to follow the conventions of the system I invented in order to maintain any coherence.

'Have to' is a strong word.

I don't care about the "basis in fact" (which is an entire topic in and of itself). I don't even care a little bit.

No offence, but that's a little stupid of you then. I mean, why disagree with a guy and then start talking about something completely different. I don't think I can be blamed for repeating my initial point when you haven't given your opinion on it. And why start another conversation in the first place when its clear I want to talk about my point?

I'm getting a little confused now.

Edit: In case you were wondering, yes, I am a Nihilist. Just so's you know.

qftwq. 😄

See, she gets it. And qftwq to you too ma'am.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
touche

Originally posted by Nephthys
Can it give oral sex in the back of your dads car that one time when you were drunk and wanted to know what it felt to go the other way?

Win.

Oh and DE, first time you've made a QFP 😉

Woot! clap

Originally posted by Nephthys
Woot! clap

language is essentially an entirely subjective force built around certain signifiers people have fed to them through conditioning in childhood yet that have no physical, concrete or logical links to the things the are meant to refer to.

So just because something cannot be seen, smelt, heard, touched, felt or otherwise measured, has been entirely made-up on the spot and exists only in the signifiers the written word create that in actual fact have no links to the world we live in it doesn't make it non-exisistent.

Huh.

While it is true that there is not a physical manifestation of English (except perhaps the collected writings of its users) it is not true that there is no English language. The common usage that you so boldly defended (😐) classifies "English" as a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing. Therefore, under the rules you've accepted by initiating conversation with me, English is a thing.

Semantics aside, I would have to ask what you are using to converse if not English. But that would be a word trap, which is unfair. So I wont.

needless to say this is false logic as it is essentially the 'can't prove the 4sided triangle doesn't exist' kind

I am taking a different track. I do not care one whit about what you are proving or disproving or verbally fellating in the back of a cartruck. Not one whit. I care about the way you are conveying meaning.

We have both agreed that the word "square" has a concrete definition. The definition is an arrow that points to the platonic idea of "square." The issue at hand is how important the vehicle you use to deliver that idea is. You called me out for telling people how to package their ideas. The link was an informative illustration about what is the correct way to wrap an idea: grammar and punctuation are methods of sending meaning:
Let's eat, Grandpa.
Let's eat Grandpa.
Those two sentences are very different, but only because of the punctuation used to specify the meaning.

I think you see what I am saying, so I'll move on.
...

Well I do care. A requirement for something to be real is that it has possible to be proven that exists in a physical sense. Otherwise we just get into the realms of ideas, or meanings. Ideas don't exist (see Anselms hilarious ontological argument for an example) in the same way that a human does for example.

But I think we may have had some kind of misunderstanding. You are talking of something as being real in that you can see its effects. The meanings something has to people for example. Or how we are structuring blobs of colour into shapes in order to convey meaning to each other. I am speaking of the foundation for such things and how there are none. Like whether a a ruler is a ruler and not a regler (as I believe the word is in French). Is one the innately correct? No, neither is, because language has no innate basis. There is no reason why a ruler shouldn't be a gtyiytg (other than being a bloody toungue-twister). I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here.

You've decided to use English "blobs of color." This means that the context of your symbols is at least partly contingent upon my knowledge of those symbols. I've never said that English is the correct language. I've said only that there is a correct English language.

Common usage must confine itself to within a standard deviation (defined as "whatever the hell kind of English the listener is willing to tolerate"😉 of proper English or else lapse into a different language.

<snip>
a completely subjective force.

Dealt with above. There is no 'correct' way to structure language. If you want you could argue that it makes logical sense to arrange things in a certain way because the purpose of language is to convey meaning and if your method of doing so is inadequate then you might as well not bother, yet in most cases meaning is easy to convey, with only a few cases of stressing words or phrases otherwise, so those who do try to correct others even when this isn't the case are pretty much just being anal for the hell of it.

And, once again, it is very true that there is a "right" version of English and a wrong one.

No offence, but that's a little stupid of you then. I mean, why disagree with a guy and then start talking about something completely different. I don't think I can be blamed for repeating my initial point when you haven't given your opinion on it. And why start another conversation in the first place when its clear I want to talk about my point?

RE:Edit: I'm not entirely sure what being a N.ist (goddammit I h8 that word) has to do with the utility of grammar in terms of communicative ability?

PS: does qftwq mean "quoted for tsuccessfully (the "t" is silent) wtrolling (as is the "w"😉 qNemesis?

PPS: Mandatory disclaimer for posts advocating proper English (that necessarily have at least one error):
my bad on any mistakes!

I am taking a different track. I do not care one whit about what you are proving or disproving or verbally fellating in the back of a cartruck. Not one whit.

Then why are you arguing with me? We're not even having the same argument for Christ sake! Can't you just agree that I'm right when I say meaning and language isn't factual and I'll say you were right that language and punctuation make things a hell of a lot easier to communicate. We can pass 'round some peeps then pat each other on the back in comraderly fasion.

Peeps?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Then why are you arguing with me? We're not even having the same argument for Christ sake! Can't you just agree that I'm right when I say meaning and language isn't factual and I'll say you were right that language and punctuation make things a hell of a lot easier to communicate. We can pass 'round some peeps then pat each other on the back in comraderly fasion.

Spoiler:
yes

Queen Frightens The Welsh Queers?

Like Mock The Week.

Only if you tell me what qftwq means.

Ahh, the term qftwq is one steeped in mystery my friend. I dare not describe it too you lest the sheer win should manifest itself as a cyborg-ninja-pirate-dragon-vampire halfway through my sinuses and end my sad lonely life. Why many a time have I seen men, the best and brightest of a generation, make that same mistake and go down faster than a drunk chick at a kegger.

Spoiler:
It involves soft cheese, lube and Kate Beckinsale. Just telling you that made Hugh Jackman appear in my arm.

Some guy over in the game section's talking about TFU2.

With Stakiller in it.

....... 😐

Why does George Lucas hate us?

No-one care? Or are you all freaking out?

Kate Beckinsale...

MILF.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Kate Beckinsale...

MILF.

Fvck yes.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Kate Beckinsale...

MILF.

She's a mom? I had no clue.