Comments on: The History of Communication http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:48:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: BillTx http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-486924 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:58:38 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-486924 LOL WUT? Jk, great poem. LOL WUT? Jk, great poem.

]]> by: Richard http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485753 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:14:57 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485753 ah yes... that was me-- thanks! hey got to get back to watching Harry Potter with Japanese subtitles! ah yes… that was me—thanks!
hey got to get back to watching Harry Potter with Japanese subtitles!

]]> by: Stephen Tash http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485749 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:11:51 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485749 Well, maybe there are two Richard's, but the comment was from a Richard who asked questions at: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/02/stewart-alexander-speaks-out-against-proposed-economic-stimulus-package/ Well, maybe there are two Richard’s, but the comment was from a Richard who asked questions at: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/02/stewart-alexander-speaks-out-against-proposed-economic-stimulus-package/

]]> by: Richard http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485741 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:07:23 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485741 that's hilarious! Well, the important content was in my comment. that’s hilarious! Well, the important content was in my comment.

]]> by: Richard http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485740 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:06:23 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485740 ah, ok, i see now. But you must realize that the Biblical tie is very strong-- especially when you capitalize! I would reword it. :) You mentioned responding to another of my comments. I'm sorry, which one was it? the site i referred you to with the words has no relation to your poem...sorry if there was a miscom. ah, ok, i see now. But you must realize that the Biblical tie is very strong—especially when you capitalize! I would reword it. :)

You mentioned responding to another of my comments. I’m sorry, which one was it?

the site i referred you to with the words has no relation to your poem…sorry if there was a miscom.

]]> by: Stephen Tash http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485736 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:03:41 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485736 actually, that link says "Everything.com" "Nothing Found" "That's odd, nothing is there." actually, that link says “Everything.com” “Nothing Found” “That’s odd, nothing is there.”

]]> by: Stephen Tash http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485730 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:00:25 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485730 Oh, more specific, Alpha being the beginning, and Omega being the end. Not the everything, though seeing as that's used in reference to God being everything I can see where you may have gotten that. The beginning and end of language, the early grunts and the last aristocratic words are cryptic and obscure. And I figured that's what you were reading it as being when I looked it up. I had to think that collation didn't seem to fit and was worried it was a spelling issue with me. Oh, more specific, Alpha being the beginning, and Omega being the end. Not the everything, though seeing as that’s used in reference to God being everything I can see where you may have gotten that. The beginning and end of language, the early grunts and the last aristocratic words are cryptic and obscure.

And I figured that’s what you were reading it as being when I looked it up. I had to think that collation didn’t seem to fit and was worried it was a spelling issue with me.

]]> by: Richard http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485729 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:59:49 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485729 I came across this, thought you might like it: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=287753: The word naughty actually comes from naught, via an intermediate sense of "worthless". Ultimately they're all the same word, and the Old English is ná-wiht, that is "no wight". That's wight as in Tolkien's barrow-wights, a wight being an obsolete word for a creature. I came across this, thought you might like it:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=287753:
The word naughty actually comes from naught, via an intermediate sense of “worthless”. Ultimately they’re all the same word, and the Old English is ná-wiht, that is “no wight”. That’s wight as in Tolkien’s barrow-wights, a wight being an obsolete word for a creature.

]]> by: Richard http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485725 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:56:03 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485725 in the context i read it, "collation" referred to food...i think it was in a Goethe translation. It's the third or so down in the def. i think. in the context i read it, “collation” referred to food…i think it was in a Goethe translation. It’s the third or so down in the def. i think.

]]> by: Richard http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485722 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:54:11 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485722 as i mentioned, i realize it may be used as an adjective or a noun...just more common to be used as a noun. so you get what i mean about the Alpha and Omega line? isn't the entire premise of the poem that language without comprehension is meaningless, give or take? When you say, "The Alpha and Omega of utterance is cryptic obscurity" you are implying that the "everything" of language is cryptic obscurity! which seams to contradict your premise. Where am I going astray? as i mentioned, i realize it may be used as an adjective or a noun…just more common to be used as a noun.

so you get what i mean about the Alpha and Omega line?

isn’t the entire premise of the poem that language without comprehension is meaningless, give or take?

When you say, “The Alpha and Omega of utterance is cryptic obscurity” you are implying that the “everything” of language is cryptic obscurity! which seams to contradict your premise.
Where am I going astray?

]]> by: Stephen Tash http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485721 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:53:44 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485721 btw, I did respond to your other comment and brought it to Stewart Alexander's attention as well. btw, I did respond to your other comment and brought it to Stewart Alexander’s attention as well.

]]> by: Stephen Tash http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485719 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:52:36 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485719 and I was expecting poetry on that page, but other than "collation" which in it's first definition is collating, as in putting papers in order, an office term, should not be used as I'm trying to say :) and I was expecting poetry on that page, but other than “collation” which in it’s first definition is collating, as in putting papers in order, an office term, should not be used as I’m trying to say :)

]]> by: Stephen Tash http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485716 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:47:45 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485716 The alpha and omega line is more the beginning of the conclusion. It was my first non-rhyming poem ever, and I feel guilty writing them because they're so much easier. As for the line suggestion, it would seem to be the opposite of the intended meaning, that most people who read that far have no idea what that line means anyways :P As for nought: naught also nought (nôt) Pronunciation Key n. 1. Nonexistence; nothingness. 2. The figure 0; a cipher; a zero. pron. Nothing: All their work was for naught. adj. 1. Nonexistent. 2. Insignificant. so it does have an adjective as well, as I used thesaurus.com to look up these words :P I wanted the most obscure words with that meaning. But thank you for the feedback, glad you enjoyed the poem. The alpha and omega line is more the beginning of the conclusion. It was my first non-rhyming poem ever, and I feel guilty writing them because they’re so much easier. As for the line suggestion, it would seem to be the opposite of the intended meaning, that most people who read that far have no idea what that line means anyways :P

As for nought:

naught also nought (nôt) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Nonexistence; nothingness.
2. The figure 0; a cipher; a zero.

pron. Nothing: All their work was for naught.

adj.
1. Nonexistent.
2. Insignificant.

so it does have an adjective as well, as I used thesaurus.com to look up these words :P I wanted the most obscure words with that meaning.

But thank you for the feedback, glad you enjoyed the poem.

]]> by: Richard http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485705 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:34:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/08/the-history-of-communication/#comment-485705 Nice. It's really not all that difficult to comprehend :0 I like the evolution of the poem though; it's very fluid. Allow me a little constructive criticism ( I, like every other other schmo, write poetry): The line "The Alpha and Omega of utterance is cryptic obscurity\" didn't seem to cohere with the idea you were expressing before it: you're telling the story of men, saying that the linguistic elitists ultimately and ironically turn aphasic through their own vain ambitions for enlightenment and exclusionary erudition. So it seems the line should read something like, "The Alpha and the Omega of utterance is lucid perspicuity," or something. Second, you kept using "naught" as an adjective...which is OK I guess... but it is usually used as a noun; as in, "all my efforts came to naught." Nice work! Check this out: http://blogusablog.com/my-words Nice. It’s really not all that difficult to comprehend :0
I like the evolution of the poem though; it’s very fluid.

Allow me a little constructive criticism ( I, like every other other schmo, write poetry):
The line “The Alpha and Omega of utterance is cryptic obscurity”
didn’t seem to cohere with the idea you were expressing before it: you’re telling the story of men, saying that the linguistic elitists ultimately and ironically turn aphasic through their own vain ambitions for enlightenment and exclusionary erudition. So it seems the line should read something like,
“The Alpha and the Omega of utterance is lucid perspicuity,” or something.

Second, you kept using “naught” as an adjective…which is OK I guess… but it is usually used as a noun; as in, “all my efforts came to naught.”

Nice work!
Check this out: http://blogusablog.com/my-words

]]>