welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

11/13 Winter is coming
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Arioch wrote:
mouse wrote:
ok, i have no idea what on earth you are talking about now. where did the fox come in?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince

But the name and short extract would probably tell you nothing.
So why bother.

mouse wrote:
but you know, when you come right down to it.....i kinda gotta point out that i am a native english speaker, and you are not. so really, i think i have a better idea of the english definition of 'tamed' is. and it's not what you are trying to make it be.


I don not tell you what this word means in English, i explain you what it means in Russian and why "befriended" is probably closest concept yet still not the same. Well, probably that is not concept your language needs to express more or less often.


ok - i was sufficiently curious that i finally read "the little prince".

all i can say is, the fox's definition of 'tame' is what i would characterize as non-standard. and from everything else the fox said, i would say it did not in fact want to be tamed, it wanted love.

compare the fox's definition of how 'taming' feels, compared to how you feel towards a person you love. excited when you know you are about to see that person? things that formerly meant nothing now mean something, because you associate them with that person? and of course, you miss them and cry when they are gone. that's love, friend. that's not being tamed.

consider also the relationships between the prince and the fox and the prince and the pilot. in many ways, they are similar - the prince accustomed the pilot to his presence, the pilot grieves at his loss - just like the fox. the fox now has the wheat to remind him of the prince, and the pilot has the stars (and probably sheep). but the pilot never uses the word 'tame' in reference to the relationship - he uses the word 'friend'.

i don't know why saint-exupery used 'tame' instead of something else. i don't know if it is due a limited word-choice in french, or because french has different associations with the word than english does, or maybe just because he figures a fox wouldn't have or wouldn't want to speak the word 'love' - maybe 'tame' is the closest a fox can get. in any event, it's a choice made by the author/translator - not a definitive use of the word. it just happens to be (apparently) your only experience with it.

and yes, you have spent a lot of time in this thread insisting that 'tame' means what you think it means, not what i (and others) have told you it means. and whatever gibson thinks, 'tame' is not an appropriate word to use between two humans; it implies a relationship in which one is master and the other is demeaned. "the taming of the shrew" clearly involves humiliation of "the shrew' (even that characterization shows that people think badly of her). although you originally mentioned the word 'befriended', this is the first time you came out and said it was the closest to what you meant. you want to be careful of things like that on this forum - people are perfectly capable of remember what is said here, and will call you on it if you try to say you said something else.

and i really don't know what you mean by saying english doesn't need to express the concept of .... what? befriending? loving? needing? we have all those concepts, and even those words. i don't know whether you mean to or not, but when you say things like this, you sound dismissive and contemptuous of english, and by extension, english speakers. just because you (and sometimes even i) don't know the proper english word, doesn't mean english and the people who speak it don't have the concepts.

anyway, i have now finally read "the little prince". yay!


It's a good book, yo.


quoted to put your post at the top of the new page
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Succubus1982



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 919
Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:

i don't know whether you mean to or not, but when you say things like this, you sound dismissive and contemptuous of english, and by extension, english speakers. just because you (and sometimes even i) don't know the proper english word, doesn't mean english and the people who speak it don't have the concepts.


This demonstrates perfectly why I have an issue with Arioch's posts. It's not so much WHAT he posts, it's HOW he posts. He constantly builds up his own opinions whilst pouring shit on others from his pedestal and claiming english and those who speak it are stupid because they contrast with his views. That is why I feel annoyance when I see a post by Arioch, thankyou for so succinctly expressing it, I was not able to.

It's not that I think 'Hey Arioch is posting something I disagree with so Imma hate on him randomly for no purpose just because I can' as Arioch himself seems to believe. It's because in this thread and this topic (but also other comments he's made in the past on other topics have always had a condescending tone) he acts like he is King and the rest of us are farmbred idiots if we don't agree with his narrowminded viewpoint. Even going so far as to say we have no place on the thread and should 'stop reading' because we don't agree with him. Then wonders why people retalliate and tell him to 'eff off' himself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arioch



Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since Succubus is eager to prove i am bruto only ever seeking a chance to "abuse and rape a woman" and justify it, yet it was too painful for her to come with exact quotations, i scanned where i used word "tame" and made a list of posts and excerpts from them:

Arioch, Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:31 am wrote:

I do not.
I take "to tame" along "Le Petit Prince" lines, to make someone trust you and need you but generally valuing the object to be what it is, rather to break it and recreate to your needs.

....
Did this guy change the personality of those wild birds, domesticated them, made them "good" from "evil" or like that? No.
But he made them accept him, trust him, like him and probably kind of need him. That is what i call "to tame". If you dislike the verb, you can suggest another one.


Arioch Nov 16, 2012 10:47 am wrote:
but the concept [of making accustomed to hands] still remains. If you gave up "tame" word for a clone of "break", then you'd pass this original meaning to some another word, which one?


Arioch Nov 17, 2012 1:32 am wrote:
mouse wrote:
do you see where one might find it insulting to say one has been 'tamed'?


You made a point. Still the action remains, how to express the concept i told above ?

By "action" i meant "question" above. Wrong word in the heat of the night flame.

Arioch Nov 17, 2012 4:08 am wrote:
The "tamed" being would trust you, like you, see you as needed part of its environment, miss you if you're apart.

The quotes above are because referenced is not the English word but the missed in English concept from Russian language.

Arioch Nov 17, 2012 4:26 am wrote:
There is inequality, for sure. But in the lines that tamer is (in this moment, in this interaction) more active, more strong, more all-sufficient, and the tamed being is getting kind of unstable, it starts to lack what it was fine without before. It is a voluntary weakness, that it puts upon itself at you desire. It did not needed you, but now it does. It had nothing to lose yet, but now it can lose your company. It trusted you enough to make itself vulnerable. You should be worth it.

Here i did not used quotes while still described the Russian concept. My bad. I did not expected that i had to protect my words against being ripped out of context.

Arioch Nov 17, 2012 5:08 am wrote:
I do not tell you what this word means in English, i explain you what it means in Russian and why "befriended" is probably closest concept yet still not the same. Well, probably that is not concept your language needs to express more or less often.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Succubus1982



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 919
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You truly are pathetic Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arioch



Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
and i really don't know what you mean by saying english doesn't need to express the concept of .... what? befriending? loving? needing? we have all those concepts, and even those words


Not exact quoting. I said "does not need often"
When person need to think of the concept or convey it frequently - they snd up with a word for it. It might be professional slang, overriding the sense of the otherwise generic word. Or it might be incorporated word of different language. But now one would repeat several words like "non-equal befriending mixed with dependency and love" if he needs to say it often.

Either there appears a word for concisely express this concept in its entirety, or that concept is excluded from regular talks except for special occasions when multi-word complex definition are worth constructing, articulating and recognizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity


I wanted to add more thing but was attracted at another thread.

All languages have different priorities what to spend word on.

For example i know of a music title, "In the middle of nowhere", which i consider very beautiful one. Yet... it cannot be translated into Russian. Our concept of "nowhere" is rather reduced and there is not way to translate it, without going into long lecturing. Which would never be okay for music title.

Between every languages there are cases where one language has the concept as first-class citizen, and another does not. That is a regular situation.


Last edited by Arioch on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arioch



Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Succubus1982 wrote:
You truly are pathetic Rolling Eyes


So you found the quote where i told that it is oky to break women and only them ? you claimed you would easily find it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Succubus1982



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 919
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again you fall back on semantics. Even if you claim you meant it broadly to mean 'people', women are still part of people. Unless you claim they are not, since you seem to liken them to pieces of meat. Also since your comments originally referred to Fyoosh and Pebbles who are female, yes it is about women. But you ignore those little facts and keep spouting off about how innocent you are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arioch



Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If three hours ago, when i catch your lies, you told "yes, yes, persons - and women too" i might have believed you.

But you keep claiming that i only "tamed" women and only them.

Yoor memory of what i really said is biased. In a bad way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Succubus1982



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 919
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said 'ONLY women' I said you said you agreed with taming women. You're the one who keeps throwing 'ONLY' in there. The reason I stated women was because we were discussing women being raped therefore my saying that women should be tamed in your opinion is relevant and basically true. You DO think that women should be tamed. That is not a lie. You just apparently also think men should be tamed. But that doesn't excuse the fact you think women should be tamed which is why I mentioned it to Willem. Because it was fucking relevant. But anyway as I said I'm done trying to explain it to you because even if you do grasp what I'm trying to say you will never in a million years admit to anything that could tarnish your supposedly spotless reputation and will instead simply ramble bullshit for the rest of the night which I have no time or interest in reading. Do yourself a favour and just stop replying man. Chalk it up to the fact that you can't win this one and move the fuck on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17205
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arioch wrote:
But now one would repeat several words like "non-equal befriending mixed with dependency and love" if he needs to say it often.


ah. NON-EQUAL befriending. that is a different concept, and 'tame' probably comes closest.

the "non-equal" is crucial, and it is why people are offended when you use the word "tame" to apply to a human. when you say "nana tamed fyoosh" or "li'l e (or whoever) tamed pebbles", you are saying that nana is the master of fyoosh, and li'l e is the master of pebbles. they are not equals with the one they taught to love and depend on them. they do not love and depend on fyoosh and pebbles, because they are somehow lesser. non-equal.

this is feeling like deja vu. didn't we discuss inequality master/servant things before? because it is the root of english-speaker's objection to using 'tame' in the context of people. we consider all people are equal. or at least, should be treated that way.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Succubus1982



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 919
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Arioch wrote:
But now one would repeat several words like "non-equal befriending mixed with dependency and love" if he needs to say it often.


ah. NON-EQUAL befriending. that is a different concept, and 'tame' probably comes closest.

the "non-equal" is crucial, and it is why people are offended when you use the word "tame" to apply to a human. when you say "nana tamed fyoosh" or "li'l e (or whoever) tamed pebbles", you are saying that nana is the master of fyoosh, and li'l e is the master of pebbles. they are not equals with the one they taught to love and depend on them. they do not love and depend on fyoosh and pebbles, because they are somehow lesser. non-equal.

this is feeling like deja vu. didn't we discuss inequality master/servant things before? because it is the root of english-speaker's objection to using 'tame' in the context of people. we consider all people are equal. or at least, should be treated that way.


Ah but Arioch doesn't! He conciders them dogs or pieces of meat depending on which gender they are and therefore where they fit into his complicated puzzle of blame and innocence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17205
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

now, now - give him a chance. given his scattered use of pronouns, i'm not entirely sure he is aware that there are two genders - note the times he has referred to a female as 'he' or 'it'.

i am really interested to know where and how he is learning english. it's such a fascinating blend of uncommon words used offhandedly, and (more) common words used outrageously.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheJabawack



Joined: 05 Jul 2012
Posts: 84
Location: Caught somewhere in time

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
now, now - give him a chance. given his scattered use of pronouns, i'm not entirely sure he is aware that there are two genders - note the times he has referred to a female as 'he' or 'it'.

i am really interested to know where and how he is learning english. it's such a fascinating blend of uncommon words used offhandedly, and (more) common words used outrageously.


I have learned it on the internet, mostly (here in Italy the english we learn at school is a joke). I started reading fanfiction years ago and it sort of grew from there. Had I tried to "talk" with someone on a forum in the first couple of years I think I may have sounded like Arioch.

Just a tought.
_________________
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure;
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space;
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17205
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh dear....if he's learning from fanfic....


oh....


dear.......
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9520

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Give it up, arioch. You are genuinely not in any shape to realistically express yourself on controversial issues like this and you are also very poor at trying to defend yourself to the extent that you will just dig yourself in further.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group