Seven Different Meanings...

I saw this on Facebook, Pintrest, something, who knows, I am always browsing and looking for neat stuff...

The sentence:

"I never said she stole my money."

Has seven different meanings when a different word is emphasised...

I know you will try it, well, I hope...

But, in the text environment, this is not always so, we cant see how the person writing the words feels if they do not include smilies, and makeing certain words bold, or italics...

So, take your time when reading the posts of others, see what they are trying to say, and, if still in doubt, PM them, ask...

I do still...

You know what happens when we assume...

Great advise master Jestor...

Well, I think people should stop criticizing me for using too many smiles:P Oh, I used one again...

perhaps i use to few? :S


oh wait... nvm :woohoo:

This is blowing my mind.

I remember being shown this way back in grade school when being taught to write. But the example they used was "I love you". Here I am, an aspiring author 15+ years later and I still remember the teacher writing this up on the board. But the point was to be clear and concise in the choice of your written words, punctuation, and context because of how easily it is for the end reader to hear the words in their own voice, their own mind set, their own experiences.

*I* love you. No one loves you as much as I.
I *LOVE* you. With all my heart, mind and soul
I love *YOU*. And only you. There is no other.

WTB a sacrasm font...

This reminds me of Noam Chomsky's theory that the way we speak, whatever language, is an expression of a deeper set of grammatical structures. This is a "Universal Grammar" that everyone has and is what causes us to read sentences several ways despite a set word order or word endings etc; everyone has the same basic syntax structure regardless of semantics or sound.

Hence why we should be careful when we read, sentence syntax is not something we think about consciously.

I think it's quite interesting though sometimes to consider the possibility of the meaning that was not intended; can shed light on a different viewpoint neither of you considered.

I think how someone responds to a question or statement, no matter what the writters intent is, may say a lot more about responder then what their words convey.

There is generally some disintegration of meaning between encoder and receiver, regardless of the medium.

Yet, words and their order are very important. And this, even before we get into discursive meaning-making devices.

Universal grammar is a fascinating theory : “An innate component of the human mind that yields a particular language through interaction with presented experience,a device that converts experience into a system of knowledge attained: knowledge of one or another language.” ~ Chomsky (1986)

And there are complexities. Take, for example, the passive voice. It is not so simple as simply inverting the subject and the complement. There are five different passive voices in English, denoting the degree and nature of agent involvement :

I'm not going to go into complicated grammar here, but here is one example :

* A was hit by B. - circumstancial
* A got hit by B. - happenstance (A received an intended or unintended action wrought by B )
* A got himself hit by B. - agent involvement : A was a 'participant' ; he did something to elicit that response from B


Then there are those which do not describe actions, but states :

* B was tired of A. -
* B got tired of A. -

... and I don't remember the explanations for these. Anyway, you all can look them up ---