Incomprehension

Post Reply New Topic

So far, I have seen incomprehension result from:

A. Lack of a common language. But I have had a long and fruitful and pleasant conversation with a Francophone who spoke almost NO English, I speaking almost no French, and for some subjects gestures can take you a long way.

B. Lack of shared culture - "How can a man own a tree?". But I have found it easier to talk to aliens than to many of my own culture.

C. Lack of similar mindset - not to mention anyone else, my brother and I cannot communicate. He is a theory affirming consensus trusting flatlander. I am a data oriented skeptical diver.

D. Deliberate encryption OR obtuseness. Do I need to document?

I have deliberately kept this list brief.

Always told my language students - NEVER say either "yes" or "no" until you are ABSOLUTELY certain what was said to you.

I agree that you have seen incomprehension result from all of these things.

Your compatibility with incomprehension is regularly displayed so that is no problem.

put the lotion in the basket, or he gets the hose again

subset alpha=A through D
E>subset alpha
E= (saving face with a dash of pride and a hint of ignorance)

I can understand A.B and C, but I think such thing would hardly exist in modern world, for the globolisation, etc. And especially for you if you are from 'western' and 'developed' countries.....

Why they can not preserve traditional cultures while globolising?

It is not bad if people from the world can share their thoughts. But the problem is that thoughts we can share is become narrower and narrower.

Typical popular western culture cloyed me so much.. No, I have never like them.

Samuel Huntington's famous sentence:

The essence of the west is the Magna Carta, not the Magna Mac.

But it is not the point...

Go back to the incomprehension, the cause of it to me is that the two people who are having conversation have not got similar experience( it don't need to be particularly similar) which can make they have similar ideas?

I can hardly talk with vulgar adults as with youths. Even when I was young. I was reading The Thorn Birds when I was 5. I was reading Standhal when I was 9 or 10.. I was reading Lolita and L'amant when I was 11(extreme examples applies, I hope you would not think it is too bold), when other dumb youths doing things that I may know but have no interest in. In the same year I was reading Lady Chatterley's Lover.... Just a few example and I have to try to mention books that 'westerners' would be familar with... I have not been reading novels for many years, anyway. I started reading philosophy and history when I was 13.

But the problem of nationality have never occured to me...

I hear you saying that you understand what I have stated.

IF I comprehend [which for one of causes A-D need not be so] what I THINK you might be intending is more often an outcome of incomprehension, though to be sure it may cause the next round of incomprehension. I would see it as a subset of D.

But what is it the lotion? That I am not comprehent.

metaphysics - it happens even with globalization. Often can happen within a smalklcountry, where those who speak Paa-Tuhk perfectly understand Po-Dlong, but the more numerous and prestigious Po-Dlong cannot follow a conversation in Paa-Tuhk.

Having dissimilar ideas as in B - where it is cultural - is relatively easy to overcome given goodwill. It is easy for me to grasp why Joshua sees a tree as communal property, and he can learn that to me it belongs to the individual.

But having dissimilar ideas as in C, where it has to do with deep mental structure - that is more difficult. For Nunny and Tooty to understand your reading list, or for you to understand my brother, I am thinking - I think you would come closer to understanding him than he could get to you, but there would still be enormous unmapped areas.

it could be seen as a subset of D, in that you are right, often i just think that it is the primary reason for much of the deliberate incomprehension, more of a sort of willfull ingorance i think, i have a hard time epxplaining the concept.

the whole first sentence was purely for the sake of being incomprehensive, and the stupid song is stuck in my head.

Ah - given "song" as a key I was able to trace it.

I do things like that.

------------

One GOOD example of incomprehension which fits in several categories:

I am minding my business in my office.

A knock at the door. I open.

There stands a literally little old lady, an utter stranger. She begins to harangue me in Albanian, of which at the time I knew little or nothing.

I respond [I will not attempt to analyze what was pure reflex] to speak back to her in Greek [of which I assumed she knew nothing].

Eventually she switched over to the prexy's Anglic and explained her business, and a DEGREE of comprehension ensued.

Although she was so slightly deaf and so impenetrable of mind - capable of hearing only what she wants to hear - that it was never great 2-wa communication.

If only the problem were as obvious as a difference in language. I find your adventures very frequently totally incomprehensive in the same language we commonly use here.

I agree.

Philologos, for a "linguist", you seem able to string together a series of words into "sentences" that make little to no sense whatsoever. And, for a "linguist", I find that you often misuse punctuation, sprinkle sentence fragments into your posts, and place subordinate clauses in such strange places that I feel as though I am running full speed into a brick wall when I read them.

And yet, you keep making threads that are incomprehensible and touting your prowess as a "linguist" - as if we should all bow to your super-grammar-powers.

Where do I even begin to suggest you should bow to me?

I am a linguist, reasonable set up in a number of languages and reasonably familiar with the basics of several language families, highly competent at deciphering a text, designing a practical orthography, working up a grammatical sketch, reconstructing a prototongue, etymologizing, analyzing various aspects of style, and several other good linguistic tasks. I assume that you have at least the same expertise in your chosen field, allowing for age and experience. Why bow?

I have said repeatedly that being an alpha-Linguist - which I dare claim to be - does not imply any great ability to communicate, in fact I am in Linguistics in part because I do not communicate, and this I have said repeatedly though you may not have the command of the Inglis Tong that would let you hear that.

I will - do - make and have made bold representations about the correct use of words, which you should believe not on my authority [I despise anyone who believes a thing because he is told it by an authority] but because when you check the data you will find I am correct.

Pause and a sip from the tumbler on the lectern.

Perhaps I perceive a degree of condescension in your posts from time to time, and, as such, it seems to me that you are trying to get others to recognize your "linguistic" abilities. This may not be your intent, but that is the problem with written communication. I imagine the tone of your "voice" to be somewhat rude and off-putting when I read your posts. If that was genuinely not your intention, then I will try to adjust your "voice" in my mind in the future.

And if a "linguist" does not have to be good at communicating, what does a "linguist" have to be good at?

My personal belief is that all "experts" in any field must be capable of proper, coherent communication. What good would it be if a mathematician was not able to share his findings with his peers in a way that is meaningful to them? Would Einstein's theory of relativity mattered if he were unable to articulate it?

Resuming after a refreshing drink:

It is unclear to me, since you give no examples, what aspects of my punctuation you find problematic. When my fingers do not hit the wrong keys - which happens to many of us even if you are somehow immune - my punctuation is pretty consistent. I believe I use the semivolon rather more than is quite a la mode in America these days - but then I am not OF these days, and I would think a semicolon or two would not mate a lot of bother.

Sentence fragments? Hey! There's one. Yes. Another. And another and so on, don't you know?

If I were writing professionally for formal publication, I of course would NOT permit many sentence fragments to come in. But in fiction and in informal correspondence, such as I conceive this to be - and frankly there are few here who get as formal as I do - one moves closer to the units and rhythms of oral communication, where the ratio of fragments to full sentences is quite high. One of the things I have in fact investigated.

But I have to thank you. You illustrate my point perfectly. "You seem able to string together a series of words into "sentences" that make little to no sense whatsoever.", sez you. And "You keep making threads that are incomprehensible." It is perfectly simple for an English speaker to find meaning and reason in Chomsky's infamous "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". But propositions that are clean and obvious to minds that parallel mine - NOT only my mind, mind you! - cannot be turned to get through the door of your mind. Think polarized lenses with light at the wrong rotation.

If it is any comfort, I have since my early years had the same problem reading people you would likely find clear. You are, after all, the majority. Which is why I do not lambaste the many prople who write what by me are poorly constructed sentences expressing incomprehensible or silly ideas.

It is quite evident that I and at least a few other "prople" (as you choose to refer to us) find your attempts to convey your thoughts not only strangely articulated but impenetrable in the light of comprehension. Whatever difficulties you may have with Chomsky are not relevant to your own most peculiar attempts at conveying your own concepts.