jane,

are you trying to convince me I'm as well

off not winning the Lotto?

I saw graffiti in a bathroom stall once that said "I stink therefore I am"

Lighten up everybody already it the holidays.

Happy new year!!!

jane,

Sweetpickle (imported) wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:21 pm are you trying to convince me I'm as well

off not winning the Lotto?

In the 1997 movie, Amistad, there is a place where the U.S. President appealed the local court decision to free the would be slaves to the U. S. Supreme Court. The attorney who thought he had won the case, on learning of the appeal, attemped to tell Cinque that the attorney (Baldwin) should have told Cinque something to the effect that there might be yet another trial. The translator who understood both English and Mendi informed the attorney that there was no word equivalent for "should" in Mendi, because a person either does something or does not do it.

I have never been able to understand the English language construct, "should have" because "should" always refers to the future, while "have" always refers to the past, and future is never the past, nor does the future exist in the past.

Two of the autism-based questions of my field research methodology involves asking people if they ever made a mistake they shouldn't have made, and asking people if they ever made a mistake they could have avoided. The "could have" question jumbles the past and future much as the "shouldn't have" one does.

While very close to 98% of the people I have asked those questions have answered to the effect that they made mistakes they shouldn't have made and could have avoided, no one has ever been actually able to truthfully describe even one mistake actually made along with truthfully describing any achievable way the mistake actually made could actually have been avoided through any actually achievable process.

So, as for the Lotto question...

No, I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else, about anything.

As to whether you will be as well of winning as not winning the Lotto, a little reflection on the so-called Butterfly Effect informs me that there is no way to tell, and no usefully accurate way to make a guess. The 1998 movie, "Waking Ned Devine" may be illustrative of the possible risk of winning the Lotto.

If anyone can demolish the core finding of my thesis and dissertation, the UIC URL having been already cited, I would welcome learning of the method of demolishment. All I guess it would take to demolish my thesis would be the demonstrating of the happening of one accident that was actually avoidable when it happened, the accident being demonstrated as actually avoidable by its having been actually avoided. How does one actually demonstrate the actual happening of something that does not actually happen?

Yeah, I dig that Schrödinger cat story. Enough to (perhaps?) have solved the supposed paradox... That is another story for another time. (Hint: the solution is akin to the solution of Bertrand Russell's "Barber Paradox" with respect to hazards of not recognizing the fallacy of equivocation?)

Mandler1 (imported) wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:52 pm I saw graffiti in a bathroom stall once that said "I stink therefore I am"

Lighten up everybody already it the holidays.

Happy new year!!!

Lighten up?

Is not being seriously flippant and flippantly serious the essence of lightness?

While my work may be serious, I am not my work.

Seriously?

Does that lighten up my flippantly serious flippancy enough?

Oh, sorry, I am elderly, and elderly folks can get confused about what time it is, after more years have gone by than can be remembered.

It just came to my awareness that the day before New Years Eve is not April First.

janekane (imported) wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:58 pm I have never been able to understand the English language construct, "should have" because "should" always refers to the future, while "have" always refers to the past, and future is never the past, nor does the future exist in the past.

That is because you are confusing aspect (how an situation is accomplished) with tense (the time in which the situation occurs). English have marks the perfect aspect, the completion of a situation; in such cases, the tense only marks the time of the relevance of the completion, not its actual occurrence. The sentence I have read Darwin merely states that the reading is completed and is currently relevant for the speaker; the completion may have occurred a minute ago, a week ago, or ten years ago. In the sentence After I had read Darwin, I understood evolution in a new light. implies that the completion is relevant to and prior to another past situation, namely my understanding of evolution. The sentence He should have proofread his response. contains a modality, should and a perfect aspect, implying as native speakers of English recognize, that the completion of proofreading is an imaginary situation (technically irreal) contingent upon an unfulfilled condition.

Technically English recognizes only two tenses, the past ( Obama won when the votes were counted referring to a situation in a definite past) and the non-past (Everybody wins when good men are elected) referring to an indefinite time not defnitely in the past. In addition to using the non-past for a future situation ( Ynez bakes ham for New Year's) other futures are expressed by various irreal modalities: Ynez will bake ham for New Year's (The volitive, Ynez is almost totally in control of the situation and it is largely her decision to bake the ham), Ynez ought to bake ham for New Year's? (The obligatory, there is an outside compulsion and Ynez concedes some control of the situation to that influence, Ynez shall bake ham for New Year's? (The exhortative, Ynez is still in control of the situation, but recognizes a strong outside influence), and Ynez must bake ham for New Year's (The mandatory, the situation is entirely under the control of outside influences and Ynez has little say in the matter).

The irreal also comprises the potential (Ynez can bake ham for New Year's in which Ynez's culinary potential has not been yet been realized) and the permissive (Ynez may bake ham for New Year's in which Ynez's behavior remains indeterminate from the speaker's viewpoint.

Si «je pense donc je suis» est vrai, est «je baise donc je suis une bite, intrinsèquement vrai?

Since I do not understand French and I am no longer sure that I understand the inner workings of English, I am now completely lost in the midst of this discussion. --FLO--

Uncle Flo (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:25 am Since I do not understand French and I am no longer sure that I understand the inner workings of English, I am now completely lost in the midst of this discussion. --FLO--

You and me both, Flo.

Mac

Dr. Abraham A. Low, a neuropsychiatrist at the University of Illinois at the Medical Center some sixty years ago remarked to the effect that knowing that you don't know can be a secure thought.

He also commented, "If my patients had patience, I would not have patients." (That works only when read aloud...)

Whereas I did study English, Latin, German, and Spanish during my school days, I cannot truthfully claim to be fluent in any word-based language.

I do have a very non-secret tool when someone tosses French my way (my daughter has studied French).

www.translate.google.com

Wherewith:

Lamortde (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:02 am Si «je pense donc je suis» est vrai, est «je baise donc je suis une bite, intrinsèquement vrai?

Becomes, in English:

If "I think therefore I am" is true, "I kiss so I'm a dick, intrinsically true?

only Google Translate seems to me to have somewhat messed up; I have a hunch that:

If "I think therefore I am" is true, is, "I kiss so I'm a dick," intrinsically true?

may be a "better translation." If I am wrong about that, Lamortde, or anyone else, please correct my wrongness.

I have toyed with translate.google.com from time to time.

Start with a sentence in one language, say, English, and translate it into another language into another language into another language into another language into another language into English and compare the original English sentence with the final one.

Sometimes, when I have done that, the plausible meanings of the original and final English versions contradict one another.

What if we are all lost, whether or not we are aware of being lost?

How would we find us?

As for Lamortde's French question, my view is, "Sí, más o menos."

If I do not actually understand any word-based language, does it matter which word-based language I use?

I think that we all should have left this as a joke.

It is kinda cute as a joke.

However, it requires a fine mind (which we see amply demonstrated here) to appreciate the subtleties of the joke.

So please, laugh and find two more jokes for us to giggle and snicker and chortle at.