?

Log in

No account? Create an account
We can't have nice things; we can only have representations of nice things. - Lindsey Kuper [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Lindsey Kuper

[ website | composition.al ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

We can't have nice things; we can only have representations of nice things. [Feb. 23rd, 2009|07:11 pm]
Lindsey Kuper
Poll #1354408 Again with the questions!

Second time in as many weeks where I've asked, "Is so-and-so a thus-and-such?" and been told, "No. So-and-so is a representation of a thus-and-such."

They're being overliteralist jerks on the order of "'Can you hand me the Kleenex?' 'Yes, I can.'"
5(33.3%)
They're just trying to help you learn.
3(20.0%)
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: billings
2009-02-24 12:37 am (UTC)
In the world of semantics, pedantry is king.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: circumstances
2009-02-24 12:42 am (UTC)
Thanks for allowing me select both. :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2009-02-24 01:02 am (UTC)
You're welcome!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: oniugnip
2009-02-24 12:51 am (UTC)
So many exciting combinations of trying to do things, actually doing things, and being things!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2009-02-24 01:02 am (UTC)
CAN HAS
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: oniugnip
2009-02-24 01:17 am (UTC)
Trying to remember the stacking verb construction that jes5199 and I recognize but sounds weird to other people ... do you happen to recall?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2009-02-24 01:18 am (UTC)
Was it "might could"?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stereotype441
2009-02-24 01:55 am (UTC)
Ah, yes. The good old double modal. I wish those were part of my dialect. Occasionally I try to train myself to use them, but it never sticks.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2009-02-24 07:19 am (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Alex's mom said "used to would've been" once. It was awesome.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jes5199
2009-02-24 07:45 pm (UTC)
my dad learned. it only took him 25 years of total immersion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: oniugnip
2009-02-24 02:07 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jes5199
2009-02-24 08:01 pm (UTC)
I might could organize my journal archives. No, I really probably can't.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mediaboy
2009-02-24 07:03 am (UTC)
You need to read Anathem. Now.

Yes, it does pertain to this post.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2009-02-24 07:16 am (UTC)
Oh, God, he came out with another one? I was already way behind.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mediaboy
2009-02-24 03:41 pm (UTC)
I didn't make it through the Baroque cycle. This one's standalone and a much faster read.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pmb
2009-02-24 04:15 pm (UTC)
It should be pointed out that EVERYTHING is a much faster read than the Baroque Cycle.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2009-02-25 09:23 pm (UTC)
I posit that Infinite Jest is only a somewhat faster read than the Baroque Cycle.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pmb
2009-02-25 10:11 pm (UTC)
Infinite Jest took me 6 months of off-and-on reading. The Baroque Cycle is currently unbounded (I'm not done) but it's been a few years so far.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2009-02-25 09:24 pm (UTC)
Thank you. That was awesome.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)