tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post2392981087795068698..comments2023-05-04T10:37:41.344-04:00Comments on The Stone Giant Ponders: Eff That NoiseStone Gianthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17194423703147272715noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-65104922887253534482013-08-22T21:32:10.205-04:002013-08-22T21:32:10.205-04:00Some thoughts...
pertinax, tenax, et protenus
pers...Some thoughts...<br /><em>pertinax, tenax, et protenus</em><br />persistent, tenacious, and onward<br /><br /><em>omni obstantia anathema sunt</em><br />all obstacles are anathema<br /> Stone Gianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17194423703147272715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-83914354141990880352013-08-21T16:57:50.340-04:002013-08-21T16:57:50.340-04:00Oh, and for the record, Google translate says: Ped...Oh, and for the record, Google translate says: <em>Pedicabo impedimenta!</em><br /><br />I'm not to keen on trusting Google Translate though.Stone Gianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17194423703147272715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-22503969463616430522013-08-21T16:14:09.482-04:002013-08-21T16:14:09.482-04:00See my response (manuscript) below. Also, since y...See my response (manuscript) below. Also, since you found the article interesting, would you mind voting for “Interesting”?Stone Gianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17194423703147272715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-26549718871361639072013-08-21T16:06:14.399-04:002013-08-21T16:06:14.399-04:00»What exactly are we looking make an exception for...<em><b>»</b>What exactly are we looking make an exception for?</em><br />There is a rule in grammar that says that every complete sentence must have a subject and a verb. In cases where they don't, the subject or verb is implied. The example, “Go to Hell” is allowed because the subject <em>You</em> is implied. The sentence, “I?” is allowed because the verb <em>do</em> is implied. If either the subject or verb is missing, the sentence is considered a fragment and is generally not acceptable in writing. (The state of current literary affairs, however, seems to be that anything goes and nobody cares. I rebel somewhat against that, and strive to meet the rules. Have I attained? By no means.)<br />In the article above, I contend that there may be some sentences that have no subject at all and that they should <em>not</em> be considered fragments because the subject is enigmatic. That is the exception I seek.<br /><br /><em><b>»</b>I think your friend was simply cursing the tree. Lol. In which case<br />frack, is a curse word.</em><br />In my opinion, frack is always a curse word. It is a wonderfully nuanced and flexible curse word. If you read the Wiki article I referenced in my first link, you will see how wonderfully flexible it is. It is one of the few words (and perhaps the only curse word) which can comprise an entire sentence. The article gives the example, “Fracking fracker's fracked!” So, this article is not so much about the word, but about the sentence structure in which it was placed by my friend. <em>To wit:</em> “Frack that tree!”<br /><br /><em><b>»</b>How does it differ from being the negative of bless you? Or bless that tree. Bless that dude? Blessed are the poor in spirit...</em><br />Embodied in those few lines, you have solved the entire problem. But, because I'm long-winded, I'm going to walk you through the solution as I discovered it.<br /><br />My first reaction was that there is no difference. They are, in fact, opposite kinds of phrases. Then, I decided, that there was an implied subject <em>God</em>. That is, the phrases could be rewritten as: “God bless that tree.” or “God bless that dude.” I was prepared to hedge against those who would claim that they have a different god or that they don't mean any god at all, when I realized that “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” is the key. Subject of that sentence is the poor in spirit. The verb is a conjugation of <em>to be</em>. It is simply reversed in structure. The poor in spirit are blessed, is a perfectly legitimate sentence.<br />Applying this line of thinking back to your first two sentences allows me to rephrase them as “That dude/tree is blessed.” or “Dude/Tree be blessed.” When phrased that way, clearly the subject is the tree. The verb is <em>to be</em>.<br /><br />So, pulling back one more layer gives me the sentence, “That tree is fracked.” or “Tree, be fracked!” AKA (as you may have indicated in your comment) “Curse that tree!” I'm not so sure that an exception is needed anymore. The sentence is a statement of identity, associating the tree with frackedness. In Old English lingo, one might have said, “Fracked be that tree!” and this article would never have happened.<br /><br />Thanks Ben for clearing this up. I think the self-effacing remark in your comment is inaccurate. You know quite a bit, and are perhaps more of a grammar wonk than you suspect or care to admit.<br /><br /><em>Venimus, Vidimus, Deus vicit</em>Stone Gianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17194423703147272715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-11303753681054784402013-08-21T14:21:05.321-04:002013-08-21T14:21:05.321-04:00How does it differ from being the negative of bles...How does it differ from being the negative of bless you? Or bless that tree. Bless that dude?<br />Blessed are the poor in spirit...<br />Very interesting article...<br />What exactly are we looking make an exception for?<br />I think your friend was simply cursing the tree. Lol.<br />In which case frack, is a curse word.<br />But, what do I know, I am neither of the two types you requested feedback from.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17450739594819199895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-76809714435885896192013-08-19T11:05:45.466-04:002013-08-19T11:05:45.466-04:00If I understand you correctly, it seems as though ...If I understand you correctly, it seems as though Latin and German are actually better suited for conveying the sentiment behind the phrase. Your German example seems to imply that they have a culture that allows for a zeitgeist implication. "I demand that the whole world act as if that tree is not even there." (Not surprising considering <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlATOHGj9EY" rel="nofollow">this funny video</a> you sent me.) This is great news! It means that the Latin motto will be better than an english version. Now I will hound you incessantly for the translation. To which you will probably say, "Frack your motto!" (See <a href="http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokestatemottos.htm" rel="nofollow">New Jersey's motto</a>.)<br /><br />I look forward to your Latin translation. :-)Stone Gianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17194423703147272715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-34743834288338642042013-08-19T08:30:07.748-04:002013-08-19T08:30:07.748-04:00I think we're talking about the Imperative Moo...I think we're talking about the Imperative Mood here. It is an interesting grammar case (and I'm really poor at grammar). The only reason I really know about it is from my time in Latin and German, which has a bit of a richer Imperative Mood than in English. In English, the 'Frack you' construct has the implied subject and the command voice which makes it more offensive as less than a request and more of a directive (or imperative). The imperative mood drops the polite structure of a request. In German or Latin, and probably others where the verb conjugation also embeds the subject of the verb, the imperative can be even more direct - distinguishing the subject while still having the short command voice structure. The 'damn the torpedoes' example is understood by context to mean 'all of us as a group', while in German or Latin, you could use the form of 'damn' to imply the large collection of people as a subject. <br /><br />Language cases are interesting, and they make my head spin. The sense of time (past, present, future tense) would seem to be universal, but not all languages distinguish those time-based tenses. For example, Japanese has no proper future tense. They have essentially a past and non-past tense, with a verb ending similar to the English -ing to denote ongoing activity. (-te if my brief Japanese study is still correct). They also lack plural forms of nouns. For a pronoun example 'ware (wah-rey)' is a formal version of 'I', but it is doubled as 'ware ware' to denote a person speaking for a group (many of I). <br /><br />It seems obvious that a language structure gives you an insight into the way a culture thinks. But when you study another language, the truth of that is really impressive.Todd Wileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09007060797506710208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-812284835552160092.post-91728053915195937642013-08-18T09:16:26.534-04:002013-08-18T09:16:26.534-04:00Frack this article!Frack this article!Stone Gianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17194423703147272715noreply@blogger.com