:
(pardon the typing about 12 feet away from the screen, and completely can’t see the screen hahaa!! but it sucks.. hope it's gettable)
:
*been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. surfin the web in a new way recently… it’s super intriguing
:
seinfeld episode: Season __ Episode __, talking about turn-taking, husband has rights to the first “God Bless You” wwhen his wife sneezes, George said it first, that was, and that was socially the wrong thing to do. Elain says “Gazumtight|!”to acknowledge the situation occured previously.
:
is the hhhuh (chi-symbol in IPA) still present in only certain spainish dialects because of residue from arabic? mozaarabic?
:
every interaction is a transaction: success or failure. look at this conversation:
-Person A do I sense sum hostility? seems like we got snakes slitherin around. oh wait.. I BEEN sayin that. u aint foolin nobody mayn
-Person B ?!
-Person A whas good
was there success? no. Person A can clarify, change the subject (which he did), or (because we’re on the internet) not respond at all (for a number of reasons, here).
when u speak about something, that createds a context you can refer to later, with or without confusion. speaking to people on different social networks and different means (text, email fb, twitter), you can create many more contexts that are referrable later. This might lead for some confusion of referendce later, but still this creates maximum opportunities for closer bonds with others.
(pardon the typing about 12 feet away from the screen, and completely can’t see the screen hahaa!! but it sucks.. hope it's gettable)
:
*been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. surfin the web in a new way recently… it’s super intriguing
:
seinfeld episode: Season __ Episode __, talking about turn-taking, husband has rights to the first “God Bless You” wwhen his wife sneezes, George said it first, that was, and that was socially the wrong thing to do. Elain says “Gazumtight|!”to acknowledge the situation occured previously.
:
is the hhhuh (chi-symbol in IPA) still present in only certain spainish dialects because of residue from arabic? mozaarabic?
:
every interaction is a transaction: success or failure. look at this conversation:
-Person A do I sense sum hostility? seems like we got snakes slitherin around. oh wait.. I BEEN sayin that. u aint foolin nobody mayn
-Person B ?!
-Person A whas good
was there success? no. Person A can clarify, change the subject (which he did), or (because we’re on the internet) not respond at all (for a number of reasons, here).
when u speak about something, that createds a context you can refer to later, with or without confusion. speaking to people on different social networks and different means (text, email fb, twitter), you can create many more contexts that are referrable later. This might lead for some confusion of referendce later, but still this creates maximum opportunities for closer bonds with others.
:
uk office-
“is there a nbame for this? what you’re doing?” he uses two questions to specify exactly what he means. almost a 1.5x emphasis on the semantics of what he was saying. “what the hell are you saying?” is what he was really saying, but he said does there exist a thing of what you are doing?”. is there some beauty mto this? or is it a way of avoiding what you are saying by asking it differently? and so, does your style of saying it actually change the message? stylistics? i think so.
or does this style of speech just soudn culturally different to me? is it his lower middle class inner suburb (?) english ? pragmatics? where is the line between pragmatics and stylistics?
:
glasses (skymall?) that have a camera in the middle of the eyes, tha tsees perfectly while u smoke hookah. and with an internet connectino u could stremam that view
:
onda: agarrar la onda. loc. Entender. || buena onda. loc. Bueno, amable, divertido, interesante. || estaralguien en la onda. loc. Estar en consonancia con los demás. || írsele a alguien la onda. loc. Distraerse, olvidársele lo que iba a decir o lo que tenía que hacer. || ¿qué onda? loc. ¿Qué pasa, qué hacemos? ||sacar a alguien de onda. loc. Distraerlo, hacerle olvidar lo que iba a decir o a hacer.
:
uk office-
“is there a nbame for this? what you’re doing?” he uses two questions to specify exactly what he means. almost a 1.5x emphasis on the semantics of what he was saying. “what the hell are you saying?” is what he was really saying, but he said does there exist a thing of what you are doing?”. is there some beauty mto this? or is it a way of avoiding what you are saying by asking it differently? and so, does your style of saying it actually change the message? stylistics? i think so.
or does this style of speech just soudn culturally different to me? is it his lower middle class inner suburb (?) english ? pragmatics? where is the line between pragmatics and stylistics?
:
glasses (skymall?) that have a camera in the middle of the eyes, tha tsees perfectly while u smoke hookah. and with an internet connectino u could stremam that view
:
onda: agarrar la onda. loc. Entender. || buena onda. loc. Bueno, amable, divertido, interesante. || estaralguien en la onda. loc. Estar en consonancia con los demás. || írsele a alguien la onda. loc. Distraerse, olvidársele lo que iba a decir o lo que tenía que hacer. || ¿qué onda? loc. ¿Qué pasa, qué hacemos? ||sacar a alguien de onda. loc. Distraerlo, hacerle olvidar lo que iba a decir o a hacer.
:
relative linguistics - einsten “if u put ur hand on a hot place for a second it seems like an hourm, if u see a pretty girl for an hour it seems like a second” . a branch of linguistics that takes into acccount all contexts, factor, rules, and contextual axioms/variables.
:
can we not predict the pragmatic state of societies in the past, creating a new realm of sociolinguistics and typology? the pragmatic development of speech, or pragmatic evolution of a language? how much speculation would be involved in this?
linguistics changes due to pragmatic variation and societal measures/issues in current society can attest for (possibly) the same types of changes in the past. been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. would these reflect the same changes that will happen in our future?
:
We know:
-past societies’ culture, history, location, and most importantly, language
-we can try and predict their pragmatics
-the linguistic changes of past languages
We also know
-present-day societies’ pragmatics
-hence, can we predict the linguistic changes?
:
The President used to be “THE Commander in Chief” and now he is “OUR Commander in Chief”. He can now declare war and is the only one who can do so. Hmm..... Have we defied our leader?
:
can we not predict the pragmatic state of societies in the past, creating a new realm of sociolinguistics and typology? the pragmatic development of speech, or pragmatic evolution of a language? how much speculation would be involved in this?
linguistics changes due to pragmatic variation and societal measures/issues in current society can attest for (possibly) the same types of changes in the past. been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. would these reflect the same changes that will happen in our future?
:
We know:
-past societies’ culture, history, location, and most importantly, language
-we can try and predict their pragmatics
-the linguistic changes of past languages
We also know
-present-day societies’ pragmatics
-hence, can we predict the linguistic changes?
:
The President used to be “THE Commander in Chief” and now he is “OUR Commander in Chief”. He can now declare war and is the only one who can do so. Hmm..... Have we defied our leader?
No comments:
Post a Comment