• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Synonyms, homophones and language

.....I maintain that 'here is the data' is valid......

Of the intelligible comments you have made in this thread, this is about the only one I agree with. I believe this may be a difference in habit between English and American speakers. In English English, "here is the data" would be the only way of saying it. "Here are the data" would sound ridiculous.
 
The word god is a concept.

A synonym for word, is concept.

Apparently unbeknownst to you, words may be concepts.

You may be ignorant of the fact that neither the "word" 'god', nor the "concept" 'god' is a 'god'.

"Despising" the "concept" of a 'god' is not the same act as "despising" 'god'.

Prepositions are your friends; there is a difference betwxit definite and indefinite articles.
 
You can't use a string of synonyms to claim that the first and last words are also synonyms. If you look at the image you posted above, you'll see that 'put down' is given as a synonym of despise. Well, 'put down' is a synonym of euthanize. Does that mean that despise means mercy killing? No.

You apply the same weird Chinese whispers style of argumentation in your OP.
"Some people claim intelligent life was created by supernatural beings called gods. People can build artificial intelligence. People are gods."
That is false. Concepts are not equivalent just because they share one similar aspect.

:bigclap
 
Busted link. Try to pay more attention. Data remains the plural of datum.

In vernacular speech perhaps.


Do you? You fail. That is the "cite" of the land. (Cite is the same as lay isn't it?)




You have made your abuse of the English language central to your thesis.

Tell me, do hens cite eggs? Do you cite the table before dinner? Do you go to a bookies in order to cite a wager?

Do you really want us to cite down this issue?

How about moving on to the word "set"? Much more scope for linguistic fun there.

"Contest, group, and igniter."
 
(1)
I didn't say cite and site were synonyms.
I said instead, that they may both be used to convey the same information.
(ie both cite and site have 'lay' as synonyms')

No, they can't, despite your opinion, as several here have demonstrated.

What is significant is not that you made a simple error; what is significant is that you believe you must defend it. Move on to the other words you are misusing...


(2)
As I had long stated, claimed theistic God properties are reduced amidst empirical evidence.

The outcome is that scientifically unfounded properties are purged, while the empirical sequence remains, ergo the re-definition is made.

No.

Please consider the "Faithful Shep" category error.
 
(1)
Link repaired.
I maintain that 'here is the data' is valid, as data is a mass noun, as observed in the repaired link.

I see. You are of the opinion that your misuse of a word is trivial, when you can't be arsed. Convenient.

(2)
I maintain that post #216 addressed the cite/site non-issue.

Right, "Cite" (short for "citation") and "site" ("location") do not mean the same thing. Consider trying to use them interchangeable in a defense against a charge of intellectual property theft.

(3)
Please stay on the topic of the original post.

There are no such things as 'gods'. To claim that you believe that humans are 'gods' (of any kind), and that you are an "atheist" (look at the word: a-theist...please do your research) is to demonstrate that you believe a contradiction.
 
What makes this extended derail even sillier is that the issue is not that the two words are not fungible; the actual issues is that neither properly modifies the noun you are using...

"Glory!"


There's a nice knock-down argument for you!
 
"Contest, group, and igniter."

The drying of concrete, a staged movie or theatrical location (or site :D), a badgers home, tennis matches.

"Set" is likely the most prolific and versatile word in English in terms of meanings and usage. Even in computer science "set" has at least three distinct meanings.
Given our protagonist claims to actually be a computer scientist of some flavour, one would think he/she might have some appreciation for the nuance of the language.
 
(1)
I did not say site and cite were synonyms.

You probably have billions of neurons, so your mind ought to be able to reduce your question trivially.


(2)
Is it possible to remain on topic?
Or is your mental limit constitute criticizing my layman citeman bound posts here?

FTFY
Chapeau, monsieur, chapeau.
 
From the site you linked: a word or expression accepted as another name for something. (ie interchangeability)
Agreed. Do you thus accept that hens cite eggs in your citemans opinion?

Google definition: a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close. (ie interchangeability)
Fine line there. Is shut a synonym for <insert obscene word>?
 
I don't need visual aids. I know who Isaac Newton is.

How did Newton "blunder"? When Newton formulated his theory of gravity, it was neither updated in Einsteinian terms nor discarded, as Einstein didn't come along until 2 centuries later.

Newton didn't blunder. He came up with a model for gravity that was extraordinarily accurate for his time, which Einstein improved upon with general relativity, a couple of hundred years later.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post though. You didn't address any of it. Did you respond to the wrong post and mean to quote someone else? :confused:

(1)
I maintain my prior response, in post #154.


(2)
I tend to condense events into compact distributions.

Rather than elabourate as you did above, I merely summarized the scenario; that is, rather than state the events in timeline terms, I efficiently stated the outcome; Newton did blunder, as Newton's law of gravitation had been proven invalid/incomplete by Einstein, and updated appropriately.



(3)
I still maintain that gravity was updated in einsteinian terms.
Such is science's nature.


(4)
Blunder may mean underestimate.
It appears that Newton's gravitation approximation is perhaps partially correct, so he blundered.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. I made the effort to collate your many redefinitions into a list. You ignored it. And your redefinition of "god" renders any god concept meaningless in your crank universe.

No thanks.

I know what reduce means.
I know what google states reduce means.
I have no idea what you think reduce means. What is it that YOU think reduce means? Not me, not google, YOU.


Except that they are on topic and not moved.

Once again, your quixotic redefinition of common terms is central to your main thesis. It follows that one should question the justification for these arbitrary redefinitions, since without justification, those redefinitions fail and your central pillar then falls.

(1)

Reduce definition: ". To put in a simpler or more systematic form; simplify or codify:"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reduce



(2)
You mentioned I redefined "many words", despite my reporting to you that I but merely redefined the word 'god'.

Apart from the supposed additional redefinition beyond god of 'reduce', what other word of the 'many' redefinition list persists?

Hint: Many definition: "a large number of".

Here is the url via 'many': http://www.dictionary.com/browse/many




(3)
As you see above, I had but merely redefined 'god'.
I await the supposed "list of many" words that you claimed I had redefined.



(4)
Please refrain from making worthless comments, that bear no relation to the topic.

Please stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
.......I still maintain that gravity was updated in einsteinian terms.......

Blunder may mean underestimate.It appears that Newton's gravitation approximation is perhaps partially correct, so he blundered.

Here we go again. Are you going to try to redefine your way out of every hole you dig for yourself?

Let me make a prediction. Einstein's work on gravity will see some enhancement, some addition, a tweak. Sometime, some additional work will be done to it. If you are around when that happens, will you say that Einstein blundered?

By your ridiculous notion of "blunder", the Wright brothers blundered because they used an internal combustion engine and wing warping rather than jet engines and ailerons. Words have meanings.
 
Here we go again. Are you going to try to redefine your way out of every hole you dig for yourself?

Let me make a prediction. Einstein's work on gravity will see some enhancement, some addition, a tweak. Sometime, some additional work will be done to it. If you are around when that happens, will you say that Einstein blundered?

By your ridiculous notion of "blunder", the Wright brothers blundered because they used an internal combustion engine and wing warping rather than jet engines and ailerons. Words have meanings.

Blunder definition:

OthSfpO.png



(1)
Blunder may mean 'to underestimate'.
A blunder may be an 'inaccuracy'.

So, I maintain that Newton blundered.


(2)
Albeit, 'gravity' was updated/enhanced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/hlZoTX2.jpg[/qimg]

(1)
I have now more than once, expressed that a blunder may be an underestimation. (See google)

So, Newton's model though accurate for some measure of analysis, was limited.

In other words, Newton's model is an underestimation.

NOTE: Limitations may constitute inaccuracies. And thus your image post above is grossly ironic.


(2)
Cite/site may both mean to lay or place something, and thus they are interchangeable, for some scenarios.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chinese whispers again.

Newton was neither inaccurate nor did he miscalculate.
 
Chinese whispers again.

Newton was neither inaccurate nor did he miscalculate.

(1) Newton blundered. Do you not comprehend that:

(1.a) Blunder can mean underestimation.
(1.b) Newton's mechanism for gravity was an underestimation of what currently stands.


(2.a) Limitation may constitute inaccuracies.
(2.b) Newton's mechanism for gravity was inaccurate due to (1.b) and (2)

Edited by Agatha: 
Do not discuss moderation outside the forum management feedback forum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did not 'redefine' blunder.
Blunder may mean underestimate:


You are ignoring all the other alternatives. While an underestimate may under some circumstances be a blunder, that doesn't mean that the word "blunder" doesn't have a meaning beyond that.

And you haven't established that Newton's alleged "blunder" was a underestimation.
 
You are ignoring all the other alternatives. While an underestimate may under some circumstances be a blunder, that doesn't mean that the word "blunder" doesn't have a meaning beyond that.

And you haven't established that Newton's alleged "blunder" was a underestimation.


(1)
Please refrain from redundancy (as is observable amidst your response).


(2)
It is clear that the alternatives are ignorable, for 'underestimation' is suitably applicable amidst Newton's scenario, and underestimation is an available synonym par blunder.


Such is the nature of words.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(1) Newton blundered. Do you not comprehend that:

(1.a) Blunder can mean underestimation.
(1.b) Newton's mechanism for gravity was an underestimation of what currently stands.


(2.a) Limitation may constitute inaccuracies.
(2.b) Newton's mechanism for gravity was inaccurate ...

Nature and Nature's Laws lay hid in Night
God said "Let Newton be", and all was light.
 
Last edited:
.......'underestimation' is suitably applicable amidst [sic] Newton's scenario, and underestimation is an available synonym par [sic] blunder.........

You chose two synonyms for blunder. Neither of which were a like-for-like replacement, but nonetheless, they were what you selected. They were "inaccurate" and "miscalculate". I rebutted those as descriptors of Newton's work on gravitation.

You then went on, in a later post, to list "underestimate" as a synonym for "miscalculate", (neatly ignoring that over-estimate would also be in the same list if it weren't obscured by a huge green arrow).

So your logic is that underestimate is synonymous with miscalculate which is itself synonymous with blunder. Hence my response "Chinese whispers". Pass this logic through 5 or 6 phases and no doubt we can have blunder synonymous with "penetrate" or "parachute jump".

If you want a sensible conversation with English speakers you will need to try to use the same meanings of words that everyone else uses, otherwise the conversation becomes about the words you mis-use, rather than any content (is there any content?). Par and amidst are mis-used in your quote above, for instance, with the effect of clouding your intent rather than illuminating it. Unless, of course, that was your intent all along.
 
Last edited:
You can't simply replace words with partial synonyms and expect the meaning to remain clear. Context matters.

One jar't commonly succeed talks along fractional equivalents also forecast the implication facing wait sunny. Background signifies.
 
You chose two synonyms for blunder. Neither of which were a like-for-like replacement, but nonetheless, they were what you selected. They were "inaccurate" and "miscalculate". I rebutted those as descriptors of Newton's work on gravitation.

You then went on, in a later post, to list "underestimate" as a synonym for "miscalculate", (neatly ignoring that over-estimate would also be in the same list if it weren't obscured by a huge green arrow).

So your logic is that underestimate is synonymous with miscalculate which is itself synonymous with blunder. Hence my response "Chinese whispers". Pass this logic through 5 or 6 phases and no doubt we can have blunder synonymous with "penetrate" or "parachute jump".

If you want a sensible conversation with English speakers you will need to try to use the same meanings of words that everyone else uses, otherwise the conversation becomes about the words you mis-use, rather than any content (is there any content?). Par and amidst are mis-used in your quote above, for instance, with the effect of clouding your intent rather than illuminating it. Unless, of course, that was your intent all along.


(1)
Albeit, one may avoid embarrassment by simply googling a word, rather than first stipulating what a word may not mean.

[IMGw=640]http://i.imgur.com/oySvQvM.png[/IMGw]

As observed in the above image, despite my reporting a proper synonym, you wrote as if my report was nil.

In summary, blunder may mean verb. underestimate/miscalculate or noun. inaccuracy.

Such a word sequence may construe limitations in computation, a reality you appear to still be ignoring, or failing to understand.





(2)
Words may have multifarious synonyms.
Some synonyms may or may not apply to multifarious scenarios.
It is no fault of mine whence one fails to map words betwixt scenarios;
[ie I cannot coerce one to not apply a non-applicable synonym, where applicable synonyms are available]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll just point out he has this exact 'argument' in multiple places, Even down to the word betwixt.

I salute you all for your valor.
 
An emotional preference for certain gods over others does not follow from the premise that atheists despise gods.

Perhaps he could have meant that atheists are biased when they are among (actual) gods, because they do not like the concept. But that only makes sense if those atheists accept his definition where normal people are redefined as gods. But that premise is precisely what we're objecting to, so it's a non sequitur to look for reasons why might reject what follows from it.
^^this^^
 
(1) Newton blundered. Do you not comprehend that:
NO! A blunder is a miscalculation occurring despite the blunderer's ability to do the calculation correctly.
Newton was incapable of understanding gravity in the Einstein model. Newton was perfectly correct in the frame of reference in which he could operate.

There is yet more detail that Einstein did not discover. Would you claim that Einstein has blundered?
 
PGJ, are you sure you can interchange synonyms?

Absolutely so long as one is free to select which synonyms are valid, which definitions are valid and can wholesale make crap up. Then anything works. Maybe. At least until one decides that it is inconvenient. Or one has had a toke too many. Or a beer too many. Or hey man this is heavy. Whatever bakes your noodle.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan FeedingOmnipotentBedpan,
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding the use of synonyms:

Note that synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the aperture in the iris of the eye is not synonymous with student. Such like, he expired means the same as he died, yet my passport has expired cannot be replaced by my passport has died.

Please take a moment to reflect on the possibility that you may have been making this error in exchanging synonyms without regard to their respective meanings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym
 
(1) Newton blundered. Do you not comprehend that:

(1.a) Blunder can mean underestimation.
(1.b) Newton's mechanism for gravity was an underestimation of what currently stands.


(2.a) Limitation may constitute inaccuracies.
(2.b) Newton's mechanism for gravity was inaccurate due to (1.b) and (2)
No. A blunder is an avoidable mistake.

It is not a mistake to follow a sound methodology to arrive at a reasonable approximation. Newton did not make a mistake when he approximated gravity to the degree possible to him at the time. Later improvements in technique, leading to greater accuracy and revealing Newton's estimate as being relatively low (compared to more accurate estimates made later), does not mean that Newton's estimate was a mistake, let alone an avoidable mistake.

Your use of the term "blunder" unjustly casts aspersions on Newton's work, and improperly questions the effectiveness of his method and the accuracy of his estimates.
 
Back
Top Bottom