Commencement Of The Advancement Of Simple Language Methodologies

[StreetCowboy]

So what are we to use instead of hospitalise?

Hospitalated ?

Hospitatutionalised?

Much better, can you make it longer and get a prize????

A&Ed. In this case, would OP stand for OutPatient?

Personally, I am all in favour of vocabulic innovation. Too many of our words are old-fashioned and no longer stylish enough for discussion in the post-logical era.

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

[Moonrakers]

I take it that is your view, but you fail to provide any. not helpful and you don't explain how they do not 'do justice'

Hospitalise?

Not sure what your point is. Being from the land that invented English, we would say 'going to hospital' which i think describes the event.

That's just not right though.

'Hospitalise' means to put somebody into a hospital for treatment, not 'going to hospital'. It really is quite a difference. If you were to say 'going to hospital then your message can become really quite confusing. I'm sorry to say this but you really are demonstrating a very basic understanding of the English vocabulary.

The word hospitalise really is not from a particularly advanced section of vocabulary. It's a rather common word that everybody knows the meaning of (or so I thought). By your reasoning we shouldn't say 'accelerate', instead we should say 'speed up' or we shouldn't say 'assemble', we should say 'put together.

It's one thing to criticise some people's unnecessary and pretentious use of vocabulary when a much simpler single word will suffice. But it's another thing entirely to expect others to dumb down their vocabulary when the words they are using are probably the most basic single words they can use. One of the most amazing thing about the English language is the very fact that we can say so much of what we want to say with a single word, why destroy that? It's surely something that should be embraced, not resisted.

Your other examples like 'commence' are again very simple use of the language that should be easily understood by all readers and as Ian so rightly pointed out, sometimes it is necessary to use a synonym to help with the sentence structure. When writing a good sentence structure is very very important to maintain the readers interest and avoid any confusion.

Sharing a common language is all about being able to communicate with each other and if the other person understands clearly what is being said, then the purpose has been achieved perfectly and should not be changed in any way. If you are struggling to understand simple words like 'hospitalise' which have no simpler single words as an alternative then I'm afraid the fault lies with you, not the person saying it.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Moonrakers

[Moonrakers]

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

The thing with zaa is that even if/when you have managed to crack the code of whatever the bloody hell it is he is trying to say, you find that it really just wasn't worth the effort.

[StreetCowboy]

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

The thing with zaa is that even if/when you have managed to crack the code of whatever the bloody hell it is he is trying to say, you find that it really just wasn't worth the effort.

Or so you speculate. I assume he is on a holiday just now...

SC

[Moonrakers]

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

The thing with zaa is that even if/when you have managed to crack the code of whatever the bloody hell it is he is trying to say, you find that it really just wasn't worth the effort.

Or so you speculate. I assume he is on a holiday just now...

SC

You should see some of the stuff he posts in Bedlam.

The guy's not such the great thinker he makes himself out to be, rather he's just a bit of a nut job.

[happyrobert]

I thought "hospitalize" were those beautiful pair that nurse I dated a few months back had. That would be an adjective.

Otherwise, I believe many posters on TV should be--or maybe already are--institutionalized.

Do they allow the internet in the looney bin?

[andrewbkk]

You should see some of the stuff he posts in Bedlam.

The guy's not such the great thinker he makes himself out to be, rather he's just a bit of a nut job.

As I have written before on this forum, Khun ZZAA is actually a post-modernist philosohper.

His gratuitous yet eloquent use of polysyllabic diction is a testament to his profound understanding of the universal truth about life, matter and spirituality.

Edited June 1, 2011 by andrewbkk

[Moonrakers]

You should see some of the stuff he posts in Bedlam.

The guy's not such the great thinker he makes himself out to be, rather he's just a bit of a nut job.

As I have written before on this forum, Khun ZZAA is actually a post-modernist philosohper.

His gratuitous yet eloquent use of polysyllabic diction is a testament to his profound understanding of the universal truth about life, matter and spirituality.

Just as I said.

A bit of a nut job!

[andrewbkk]

You should see some of the stuff he posts in Bedlam.

The guy's not such the great thinker he makes himself out to be, rather he's just a bit of a nut job.

As I have written before on this forum, Khun ZZAA is actually a post-modernist philosohper.

His gratuitous yet eloquent use of polysyllabic diction is a testament to his profound understanding of the universal truth about life, matter and spirituality.

Just as I said.

A bit of a nut job!

I would question your use of the word "bit".

The word "complete" seems more apt.

Edited June 1, 2011 by andrewbkk

[StreetCowboy]

It doesn't seem right to criticise one of our greatest asensical philosophers when he is not here. He strikes me as very deep.

SC

[Ulysses G.]

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

The thing with zaa is that even if/when you have managed to crack the code of whatever the bloody hell it is he is trying to say, you find that it really just wasn't worth the effort.

Exactly. In practically every post, he strings together a bunch of pompous, ten-dollar words into convoluted sentences that mean exactly nothing (even though he is very deep).

Edited June 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[StreetCowboy]

8>< SNIP NESTED QUOTES DELETED ><8

Exactly. In practically every post, he strings together a bunch of pompous, ten-dollar words into convoluted sentences that mean exactly nothing (even though he is very deep).

Deep as two short planks?

SC

[happyrobert]

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

The thing with zaa is that even if/when you have managed to crack the code of whatever the bloody hell it is he is trying to say, you find that it really just wasn't worth the effort.

Exactly. In practically every post, he strings together a bunch of pompous, ten-dollar words into convoluted sentences that mean exactly nothing (even though he is very deep).

I sorta like him, although his avatar is a bit frightening! He's always brief as opposed to many others who drone on trying to impress all of us ignorant useless eaters.

Reading posts by trisailer and gaccha, I found zzzzzza pales in comparison. With all the heavy tomes these guys claim to read, not sure how they have time to post so much.

[andrewbkk]

Reading posts by trisailer and gaccha, I found zzzzzza pales in comparison.

I have to agree.

Trisailer is that extraordinary gentleman who discusses his masturbation techniques with his male friends. He also talks about the "danger" of finding himself confronted by a group of schoolboys outside his local 7-11 store.

Best of all, he manages to convey these important points in no fewer than 3000 words.

Quite impressive, really.

Edited June 2, 2011 by andrewbkk

[StreetCowboy]

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

The thing with zaa is that even if/when you have managed to crack the code of whatever the bloody hell it is he is trying to say, you find that it really just wasn't worth the effort.

Exactly. In practically every post, he strings together a bunch of pompous, ten-dollar words into convoluted sentences that mean exactly nothing (even though he is very deep).

I sorta like him, although his avatar is a bit frightening! He's always brief as opposed to many others who drone on trying to impress all of us ignorant useless eaters.

Reading posts by trisailer and gaccha, I found zzzzzza pales in comparison. With all the heavy tomes these guys claim to read, not sure how they have time to post so much.

Brevity is the soul of wit

- Wilde

[msg362]

]

Hospitalated ?

Hospitatutionalised?

Much better, can you make it longer and get a prize????

A&Ed. In this case, would OP stand for OutPatient?

Personally, I am all in favour of vocabulic innovation. Too many of our words are old-fashioned and no longer stylish enough for discussion in the post-logical era.

I sometimes think that guys like you struggle to keep up with people who can think 'out-of-the-box'. ZZAA is a great example of an exbox post-logic thinker. Gravion, on the other hand, seems to be trying to climb back into the box, with some recent posts on the verge of intelligibility.

SC

SC

(

No one ( This is OP speaking and i'm not an outpatient, (were you born rude or did you practice?) is talking about inventing new words ( volcabulic innovation -pretentious) I'm on about using shorter words when possible for clarity. what is old fashioned about 'start' or 'use'?

[msg362]

I take it that is your view, but you fail to provide any. not helpful and you don't explain how they do not 'do justice'

Hospitalise?

Not sure what your point is. Being from the land that invented English, we would say 'going to hospital' which i think describes the event.

That's just not right though.

'Hospitalise' means to put somebody into a hospital for treatment, not 'going to hospital'. It really is quite a difference. If you were to say 'going to hospital then your message can become really quite confusing. I'm sorry to say this but you really are demonstrating a very basic understanding of the English vocabulary.

The word hospitalise really is not from a particularly advanced section of vocabulary. It's a rather common word that everybody knows the meaning of (or so I thought). By your reasoning we shouldn't say 'accelerate', instead we should say 'speed up' or we shouldn't say 'assemble', we should say 'put together.

It's one thing to criticise some people's unnecessary and pretentious use of vocabulary when a much simpler single word will suffice. But it's another thing entirely to expect others to dumb down their vocabulary when the words they are using are probably the most basic single words they can use. One of the most amazing thing about the English language is the very fact that we can say so much of what we want to say with a single word, why destroy that? It's surely something that should be embraced, not resisted.

Your other examples like 'commence' are again very simple use of the language that should be easily understood by all readers and as Ian so rightly pointed out, sometimes it is necessary to use a synonym to help with the sentence structure. When writing a good sentence structure is very very important to maintain the readers interest and avoid any confusion.

Sharing a common language is all about being able to communicate with each other and if the other person understands clearly what is being said, then the purpose has been achieved perfectly and should not be changed in any way. If you are struggling to understand simple words like 'hospitalise' which have no simpler single words as an alternative then I'm afraid the fault lies with you, not the person saying it.

[msg362]

Hospitalise?

Not sure what your point is. Being from the land that invented English, we would say 'going to hospital' which i think describes the event.

That's just not right though.

'Hospitalise' means to put somebody into a hospital for treatment, not 'going to hospital'. It really is quite a difference. If you were to say 'going to hospital then your message can become really quite confusing. I'm sorry to say this but you really are demonstrating a very basic understanding of the English vocabulary.

The word hospitalise really is not from a particularly advanced section of vocabulary. It's a rather common word that everybody knows the meaning of (or so I thought). By your reasoning we shouldn't say 'accelerate', instead we should say 'speed up' or we shouldn't say 'assemble', we should say 'put together.

It's one thing to criticise some people's unnecessary and pretentious use of vocabulary when a much simpler single word will suffice. But it's another thing entirely to expect others to dumb down their vocabulary when the words they are using are probably the most basic single words they can use. One of the most amazing thing about the English language is the very fact that we can say so much of what we want to say with a single word, why destroy that? It's surely something that should be embraced, not resisted.

Your other examples like 'commence' are again very simple use of the language that should be easily understood by all readers and as Ian so rightly pointed out, sometimes it is necessary to use a synonym to help with the sentence structure. When writing a good sentence structure is very very important to maintain the readers interest and avoid any confusion.

Sharing a common language is all about being able to communicate with each other and if the other person understands clearly what is being said, then the purpose has been achieved perfectly and should not be changed in any way. If you are struggling to understand simple words like 'hospitalise' which have no simpler single words as an alternative then I'm afraid the fault lies with you, not the person saying it.

Point taken better to say 'going into hospital, my mistake. You clearly don't understand my point about 'hospitalise. Think about it and stop being patronising

I'm not saying not to vary verbs, but in simple sentences, better to use a short word rather than a long one. Where exactly did I ask people to 'dumb down'?

You do like the sight of your own writing don't you?

I don't struggle to understand 'hospitalise' It's just we who invented the English language tend not to use it.You are really arrogant and seem just to misunderstand ( or maybe you really don't understand, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) so that you can show how clever you are

[msg362]

I'm sorry I started this thread, I just wanted it as a light hearted silly amusement. Some, however need to show how educated/ intelligent/erudite ( Arrogant? conceited?/patronising? unpleasant?) they are and find the need to try to put others down. No names. no pack drill but I think you know who I am talking about.

So I suggest we finalise this ongoing thread at this moment in time and start ( sorry commence!) to think out of the box.

Cheers

[happyrobert]

Well, I for one understood your point, but since it's the end of this thread, and since the lock on my door is broken and I can only go to dinner by going out the window, I shall now defenestrate myself.

[msg362]

Well, I for one understood your point, but since it's the end of this thread, and since the lock on my door is broken and I can only go to dinner by going out the window, I shall now defenestrate myself.

Tried it once, didn't like it

[andrewbkk]

Well, I for one understood your point, but since it's the end of this thread, and since the lock on my door is broken and I can only go to dinner by going out the window, I shall now defenestrate myself.

I had a really spicy curry last night. My stomach feels terrible. I think I need to go and defenestrate.

[Ulysses G.]

The use of pretentious language in writing is defined as much by stylistic elements employed by the writer as it is by the specific vocabulary chosen with purpose to convey a sanctimonious and supercilious sense of superiority. Generally, to evoke the more precise sense of pretentiousness, as opposed to a genuine level of scholarly difficulty necessary to adequately communicate abstract and deeply penetrating analysis and thought, there will be a subtle hint of insecurity present in the writer's tone underneath the flamboyant verbosity that reveals clear strains of overcompensation for underlying feelings of inadequacy that are slyly hinted at in the noticeable similarity between the words "pretentious" and "pretend" (which have no basis in actual linguistic structure, however). Complex as the differentiation between pretentiousness and true erudition may be, the simplest definition is "you know it when you see it."

[Mugg]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious...

I hate that word!

Yes it sounds quite atrocious. What would happen if you said that loud enough?

[msg362]

The use of pretentious language in writing is defined as much by stylistic elements employed by the writer as it is by the specific vocabulary chosen with purpose to convey a sanctimonious and supercilious sense of superiority. Generally, to evoke the more precise sense of pretentiousness, as opposed to a genuine level of scholarly difficulty necessary to adequately communicate abstract and deeply penetrating analysis and thought, there will be a subtle hint of insecurity present in the writer's tone underneath the flamboyant verbosity that reveals clear strains of overcompensation for underlying feelings of inadequacy that are slyly hinted at in the noticeable similarity between the words "pretentious" and "pretend" (which have no basis in actual linguistic structure, however). Complex as the differentiation between pretentiousness and true erudition may be, the simplest definition is "you know it when you see it."

[StreetCowboy]

The use of pretentious language in writing is defined as much by stylistic elements employed by the writer as it is by the specific vocabulary chosen with purpose to convey a sanctimonious and supercilious sense of superiority. Generally, to evoke the more precise sense of pretentiousness, as opposed to a genuine level of scholarly difficulty necessary to adequately communicate abstract and deeply penetrating analysis and thought, there will be a subtle hint of insecurity present in the writer's tone underneath the flamboyant verbosity that reveals clear strains of overcompensation for underlying feelings of inadequacy that are slyly hinted at in the noticeable similarity between the words "pretentious" and "pretend" (which have no basis in actual linguistic structure, however). Complex as the differentiation between pretentiousness and true erudition may be, the simplest definition is "you know it when you see it."

Could you illustrate that, for the benefit of the semi-literate amongst us?

SC

[andrewbkk]

The use of pretentious language in writing is defined as much by stylistic elements employed by the writer as it is by the specific vocabulary chosen with purpose to convey a sanctimonious and supercilious sense of superiority. Generally, to evoke the more precise sense of pretentiousness, as opposed to a genuine level of scholarly difficulty necessary to adequately communicate abstract and deeply penetrating analysis and thought, there will be a subtle hint of insecurity present in the writer's tone underneath the flamboyant verbosity that reveals clear strains of overcompensation for underlying feelings of inadequacy that are slyly hinted at in the noticeable similarity between the words "pretentious" and "pretend" (which have no basis in actual linguistic structure, however). Complex as the differentiation between pretentiousness and true erudition may be, the simplest definition is "you know it when you see it."

This is nothing more than corroborative evidence and circumstantial detail designed to lend credence and artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing theory.

Edited June 5, 2011 by andrewbkk

[StreetCowboy]

The use of pretentious language in writing is defined as much by stylistic elements employed by the writer as it is by the specific vocabulary chosen with purpose to convey a sanctimonious and supercilious sense of superiority. Generally, to evoke the more precise sense of pretentiousness, as opposed to a genuine level of scholarly difficulty necessary to adequately communicate abstract and deeply penetrating analysis and thought, there will be a subtle hint of insecurity present in the writer's tone underneath the flamboyant verbosity that reveals clear strains of overcompensation for underlying feelings of inadequacy that are slyly hinted at in the noticeable similarity between the words "pretentious" and "pretend" (which have no basis in actual linguistic structure, however). Complex as the differentiation between pretentiousness and true erudition may be, the simplest definition is "you know it when you see it."

This is nothing more than corroborative evidence and circumstantial detail designed to lend credence and artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing theory.

People who can't tell pretension from erudition probably can't differentiate shoe-menders from boot-makers.

To them, its all old cobblers.

SC

[onionluke]

The use of pretentious language in writing is defined as much by stylistic elements employed by the writer as it is by the specific vocabulary chosen with purpose to convey a sanctimonious and supercilious sense of superiority. Generally, to evoke the more precise sense of pretentiousness, as opposed to a genuine level of scholarly difficulty necessary to adequately communicate abstract and deeply penetrating analysis and thought, there will be a subtle hint of insecurity present in the writer's tone underneath the flamboyant verbosity that reveals clear strains of overcompensation for underlying feelings of inadequacy that are slyly hinted at in the noticeable similarity between the words "pretentious" and "pretend" (which have no basis in actual linguistic structure, however). Complex as the differentiation between pretentiousness and true erudition may be, the simplest definition is "you know it when you see it."

This is nothing more than corroborative evidence and circumstantial detail designed to lend credence and artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing theory.

People who can't tell pretension from erudition probably can't differentiate shoe-menders from boot-makers.

To them, its all old cobblers.

SC

Forsothe , Daly i shant as thee cobbler mendythe mine sacryde bootes , ynd oft to yonder olde shoppe i will convey,a pynte of porter fyr to buye , and myne spyryts temper with the yvyry draughte.

[andrewbkk]

People who can't tell pretension from erudition probably can't differentiate shoe-menders from boot-makers.

To them, its all old cobblers.

Everything here on Thaivisa is cobblers.

Ultimately, the only thing that matters is how many beers you have in the fridge.

I'm sad to say that I currently only have two. I'll need to resolve this issue later.