![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 20:36:36
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-bgcheslimbrgr » 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:13:26
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-big1.htm
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/64350.html
http://www.bartleby.com/61/72/C0267200.html
The accepted standard meaning seems pretty clear cut. When an expression has a widely accepted meaning, it seems only fair to interpret it by that unless it is clearly not meant that way, don't you think?
Otherwise everyone would be speaking their own language and their own idiom, and meaningful conversation would be difficult at best.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 27, 2005, at 20:40:59
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-bgcheslimbrgr » 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:13:26
> 10derHeart,
> You wrote,[...teasing could be misunderstood...].
> The idiom, [...the big cheese...]can mean diffeent things as to how people concieve cheese. What if the person using the idiom was thinking of the cheese as Limburger?
> Lou
>That's interesting, Lou. I have no good answer for you. I don't remember ever thinking of Limburger cheese - ever in my life. When I use that expression, I honestly have no clue what variety of cheese it implies, or even what possible symbolism "cheese" itself has surrounding one being "in charge," etc.
"Food" for thought? (but not Limburger, please...I love cheese but am too scared to taste that one...;-))
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 20:51:21
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-fltbgchese » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 19:43:11
> Could you clarify what it would mean if the person {did not feel that way} and referred to the person as the big cheese?
Then I guess they would be being ironic or sarcastic. Though gentle joking might be somewhere in between... But with gentle joking the intent is friendly and respectful..
>And with that, could you clarify as to how one could know that they felt that way?
You could ask 'did you mean that to be mocking or sarcastic?'. Which may give them the chance to respond accordingly. It is a tricky matter to figure out peoples intentions (what they are trying to achieve by their use of language). Here the principle of charity is relevant: when in doubt try to assume the best.
>The accepted standard meaning seems pretty clear cut. When an expression has a widely accepted meaning, it seems only fair to interpret it by that unless it is clearly not meant that way, don't you think?Yup.
Principle of charity :-)>Otherwise everyone would be speaking their own language and their own idiom, and meaningful conversation would be difficult at best.
Indeed!
There are a couple of different things going on with language...
- There is word (lexical) meaning.
- There is sentance (syntactical) meaning.
- There is speakers meaning (what the speaker means by their words) - which is aka pragmatic meaning or meaning in context.The first two are standard meanings. We need to agree to use words with their standard meanings as best we can. If everybody used words with their own idiosyncratic use in mind then communication would indeed break down.
Wittgenstein famously argued that there could not be such a thing as an idiolect (a one-person language) without the backdrop of a common language. It would be impossible to develop an idiolect without reference to a common language.
But I won't burden you guys with the details :-)
I guess we just need to go with standard (ie literal word and sentance) meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Charity and co.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:09
In reply to Lou's reply to 10derHeart-bgcheslimbrgr » 10derHeart, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:13:26
> The idiom, [...the big cheese...]can mean diffeent things as to how people concieve cheese.
The speakers meaning would alter as different people would mean different things by their words.
The standard meaning would remain the same, however.
> What if the person using the idiom was thinking of the cheese as Limburger?
Is that a way of saying that the person using the idiom intended to convey an insult by using the expression? If so then the speakers meaning would be different from the standard meaning.
But we need to assume that what the speaker means by their words is the same as the standard meaning - unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-bgcheslimbrgr, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 20:36:36
Dinah,
Your first offered link at the end wrote that the idiom is not always considered complimentary and could be considered to have derisive undertones.
Not evryone thinks of idioms in all the same way. A poster here from France brought that up in the referrence to the idiom ,[....take with a grain of salt...]. I agree with that poster that it depends on how a person knows about what the idiom could be which they may have no knowlege of its origin or literary meaning. That is why I had requested that we make a determination as to acceptability hear for the use of idioms because people can understand the meaning of idioms in different ways. In this case, since we have a world-wide audiance, there could be people that perhaps think thsat the idiom in question is not complmentary. I do not favor the use of idioms in this mental-health setting because of the different possible interptreataions that others could think and the nature of the population of the community that we have to consider sensitivity.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 20:59:23
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to 10derHeart-bgcheslimbrgr, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 20:36:36
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 27, 2005, at 21:00:06
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:48
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:05:08
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:48
> Your first offered link at the end wrote that the idiom is not always considered complimentary and could be considered to have derisive undertones.
Most of the language can be used ironically or sarcastically. If we banned anything that 'could' be used that way then it would be the end of Babble, Lou. We wouldn't be able to write anymore.
:-(> Not evryone thinks of idioms in all the same way.
What someone thinks idioms mean (speakers meaning) can be different from what idioms actually mean (standard meaning). Sometimes there is more than one standard meaning. Charity again... Choose the meaning that is most charitable unless to do so would mean that you can't make much sense of the post.
If Babble is too different from the real world then it doesn't really do us any favours with respect to dealing with the real world.
The more restrictive it gets the less comfortable people feel to communicate freely.
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 21:10:24
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 20:58:48
Well, thank heavens for google!!!
It's relatively easy now to figure out the standard accepted meaning of phrases and idioms, whatever country you're from.
Go to google.com.
Type in the phrase or idiom in quotation marks ("bees knees" for example) and then the word etymology. So for example ["bees knees" etymology}. Google will bring you to any number of sites that devote themselves to the study of language and idiom. :)
Ain't technology grand?
And as Alexandra said, it's only charitable to assume that someone means what they said unless it's clear that it doesn't fit in context.
Hope that helped, Lou. (Plus the writer of the post made clear that she didn't mean Limberger, and I'm sure you accept her explanation as the truth.)
However, should someone call you "The Big Cheese", Lou, it would be fair enough for you to say that you've never been fond of the expression, and could they call you {insert acceptable synonym here} instead. If someone did that, I'd be polite enough to comply. I might not understand, but I'd be polite enough to comply. I'm sure most people would, aren't you?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:21:03
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-bgchese~alwyscomp » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:05:08
a_k,
You wrote,[...the more restrictive...the less comfortable...].
The restriction of speech, IMO, does not have to be less comfortable for the members here. I am all in favor of freedom of speech, but absolute freedom of speech I am not in favor of, in a mental-health community that has a diverse membership. I agree with Dr. Hsiung about his policy about offensive language or profanity to be unacceptable on a mental health forum. There are places for that type of speech, but I agree that this is not the place. I am in favor of a {well-defined} speech policy here and that is one reason that I am requesting from the administration a determination concerning the use of idioms here.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:33:23
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-themorresticthemorunco » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:21:03
> The restriction of speech, IMO, does not have to be less comfortable for the members here.
It doesn't have to be. But if one cares about trying not to step out of line then more rules = more things to have to worry about, and thus less comfort by extension.
> I am all in favor of freedom of speech, but absolute freedom of speech I am not in favor of,
Me neither. I don't mind if all those racists and Jew haters etc etc feel a bit uncomfortable about having their freedom of speech restricted here. Absolute freedom isn't what I meant to advocate.
>I am in favor of a {well-defined} speech policy here and that is one reason that I am requesting from the administration a determination concerning the use of idioms here.
Yup. But an awful lot of people use idioms, Lou.
Mostly they are genuine.
Mostly people comply with standard meaning.
Then there is a fuzziness with respect to what exactly counts as an idiom or not.
Would you want people to be blocked for repeatedly using idioms that aren't even intended as an insult or sarcastic?
Would you prefer it if people here speak formally?
I dare say those would be the consequences of banishing idioms altogether.Just because some people might seek out the worst possible interpretation and 'may possibly' be offended...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:48:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-themorresticthemorunco » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 21:33:23
a_k,
You wrote,[...would you want people blocked for..using idioms...?].
I would like a well-defined policy concerning the use of idioms.
If I was to make the policy I would have the following:
A. Idioms toward a person or group would not be acceptable
B. Idioms that question another persons character would not be acceptable
C. Idioms that say for another person to do something would not be acceptable.
D. idioms that could be interpreted as uncomplimentery would be unacceptable
E. Other good and just reasons for unacceptability
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 22:12:53
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-weldefndidio » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 21:48:31
a_k,
Some spacific examples could be:
These are OK
A. it's still rock-n-roll to me
B. you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
And these would not be OK:
A. Take evrything Dr. Hsiung says with a grain of salt
B. Dinah is the big cheese here.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 22:44:06
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 22:12:53
But Lou. Calling me the big cheese wouldn't be uncivil. Merely inaccurate. And I, and others I'm sure, would be willing to point out that Dr. Bob is the big cheese.
It isn't uncivil to be inaccurate.
And I think Dr. Bob says something equivilant to "take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt" in the intro to the board. He doesn't use those exact words, but the words he uses mean the same thing.
Why don't we just let Dr. Bob determine incivility on a case by case basis, using context.
Posted by Spoc on March 27, 2005, at 23:32:43
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 22:12:53
> a_k,
> Some spacific examples could be:
> These are OK
> A. it's still rock-n-roll to me
> B. you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
> LouHi,
I think A] could frequently be used sarcastically, in a case where someone is indicating to another that they may THINK what they are saying is different or new, but it's really all the same, "...still rock and roll to me!"
And that B] could often be used sarcastically, in answer to something like "What are your qualifications to advise/comment on this?" "Well, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!"
Posted by rainbowbrite on March 27, 2005, at 23:50:51
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls, posted by Spoc on March 27, 2005, at 23:32:43
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 23:52:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 22:44:06
I think Lou's point is more that he would like to see idioms banned so that their use would count as uncivil. But Spoc is right - even the 'acceptable' idioms have inappropriate usages. In fact - the whole bloody language does so unless you want to stop people Babbling altogether...
Posted by gardenergirl on March 28, 2005, at 0:45:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 23:52:15
Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 0:51:56
In reply to To quote a wise woman...deep breaths, alex... (nm), posted by gardenergirl on March 28, 2005, at 0:45:57
Thanks gg.
I am ok.
:-)Really.
I just like that one because it goes through the civility checker well enough.
And I find that amusing.
Heh heh.
B*llshit.
Heh heh.
I am ok.
I will take deeeeeeep breaths :-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:35:17
In reply to Lou's request to the administration-defam?, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2005, at 7:02:01
> I am requesting that you write a determination as to if the following is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
I do think it's acceptable.
Dinah, thanks for those links!
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2005, at 9:46:50
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k-spcfcexmpls, posted by Spoc on March 27, 2005, at 23:32:43
Posted by 10derHeart on March 28, 2005, at 11:02:19
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:35:17
> > I am requesting that you write a determination as to if the following is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
>
> I do think it's acceptable.
>
> Dinah, thanks for those links!
>
> BobI'm glad. But I will probably refrain from referring to you in that way in the future. But it was/is kind of an interesting thread....
Posted by Spoc on March 28, 2005, at 11:36:45
In reply to Re: swooping - or staying? (nm) » Spoc, posted by AuntieMel on March 28, 2005, at 9:46:50
Hee hee... the "swoop" was unintentional, so I reckon (like always, anywhere) any "stay" would be too! ;^)
Hope to only read *occasionally*, and only reply to that which I KNOW I can keep concise... HA! As if such a thing exists for me.
...ooooh ooooh ohhhh!! Here's another swoop that I fought back yesterday! A little something created by Slinky that I used to love to plagiarize:
()_()
(*;*)
(__)@
(")(")Happy belated bunny day!
(AAHHH.... Appeased for the moment! ;)
Posted by Spoc on March 28, 2005, at 11:42:32
In reply to Re: Lou's request, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:35:17
Posted by Mark H. on March 28, 2005, at 16:07:51
In reply to Re:Ok know yer glad 2 C me but'll keep it Admin ;) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 28, 2005, at 11:42:32
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.