View previous topic | View next topic

Moon Starer is an Anugram, not an Aptagram.

Page 4 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Alfred E Neuman
1159882.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:33 pm Reply with quote

Wordsmythologic wrote:
I'm mostly just trying to refocus the discussion toward anagrams, rather than the less-than-desirable tangents that have come up.


We're on the third page. The original topic is toast...

But you made your point, and it's there for anyone to read, and decide whether they agree with it or not. PDR can probably keep this up longer than you - for a start, he's not engaged his brain yet, and is typing roughly one word for your every ten or fifteen (no, I didn't count, I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong).

Edit: Shot myself in the foot. We're now on the fourth page.

 
Wordsmythologic
1159883.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:55 pm Reply with quote

Perhaps that's indication enough to let the topic rest then.

 
Zziggy
1159890.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:33 pm Reply with quote

If it's any consolation, a four-page argument with PDR over something essentially pointless is something of a rite of passage around here :P

 
PDR
1159905.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:33 pm Reply with quote

But we just said there were no rights in this place...

😊

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
1159908.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:37 pm Reply with quote

Well obviously that wasn't right.

 
CharliesDragon
1159923.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:23 pm Reply with quote

Zziggy wrote:
If it's any consolation, a four-page argument with PDR over something essentially pointless is something of a rite of passage around here :P


Only four pages? That's nothing! I had to do ten pages, barefoot, uphill, in the middle of winter!

WordM probably has be beat in eloquility, though. :P

 
PDR
1159925.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:32 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
Well obviously that wasn't right.


If it wasn't right then what's left?

PDR

 
PDR
1159926.  Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:55 pm Reply with quote

Wordsy - if you want to know what got up my nose and kicked this off, it would be this:

Quote:

Well, I maintain an abundant stockpile of skepticism towards all anecdotal claims, and with my reserves as full as they are, my doubts as to this claim are not allayed[...]


This is where you just jumped in with two jackbooted feet and called me a liar. Even if you hadn't previously known this (which is surprising because it's pretty widely known) a few seconds with Mr Google would soon confirm that surgeons choose not to be addressed as Doctor because they regard it as the inferior profession, but you couldn't be bothered and chose to call me a liar instead. That's rather impolite, especially for a newcomer.

You then accused me of using "dictionary definitions", rather than your own ones, for "astronomer" and "moon-starer". Given that the term "moon starer" isn't actually IN the dictionaries (and so has no such definition for me to be using) this was such an obviously ridiculous accusation that I concluded you were just deliberately being a prat. And from what ensued I'm not entirely sure that deduction was wrong. But perhaps we can draw a line under that and you can start again - this time without the gratuitous accusations...

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1159952.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:02 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Wordsy - if you want to know what got up my nose and kicked this off, it would be this:

Quote:

Well, I maintain an abundant stockpile of skepticism towards all anecdotal claims, and with my reserves as full as they are, my doubts as to this claim are not allayed[...]


This is where you just jumped in with two jackbooted feet and called me a liar. Even if you hadn't previously known this (which is surprising because it's pretty widely known) a few seconds with Mr Google would soon confirm that surgeons choose not to be addressed as Doctor because they regard it as the inferior profession, but you couldn't be bothered and chose to call me a liar instead. That's rather impolite, especially for a newcomer.

I never called you a liar. The words I used don't mean that. I chose my words with intent. I expressed doubt as to your anecdotal claim. That's not the same thing as asserting that you lied or that I knew as a fact that your claim was false. Doubt is different from refutation. I have doubts as to many things, like the effectiveness of alternative medicines, but that's not identical to a knowledge or claim that they all don't work, because they can certainly be proven to work and them become simply medicine, but until such time, my doubts remain unallayed. It's possible to hold doubt while not asserting something as false.

Also, I did use Google, and got no results, at all, to confirm what you said. Perhaps I didn't search terms exact enough to pull up whatever example you had in mind, but to say I "couldn't be bothered" is rather impolite, even for a long-timer.

PDR wrote:
You then accused me of using "dictionary definitions", rather than your own ones, for "astronomer" and "moon-starer". Given that the term "moon starer" isn't actually IN the dictionaries (and so has no such definition for me to be using) this was such an obviously ridiculous accusation that I concluded you were just deliberately being a prat.

My own definitions are the most basically general ones for each, and are more the quintessential meaning conveyed than actually something with which to define each phrase. They both connote celestial observers, in as general a sense as possible, without getting into fine detail of linguistic specificity. "Moon starer" isn't in a dictionary, but it doesn't need to be to mean something, but the words it comprises are in dictionaries, and you have repeatedly expressed that the phrase only means "people who look at the moon", which is a specific interpretation of yours, despite that it can serve perfectly reasonably well as having the same meaning as "stargazer", and express a general idea that "astronomer" also carries.

PDR wrote:
And from what ensued I'm not entirely sure that deduction was wrong. But perhaps we can draw a line under that and you can start again - this time without the gratuitous accusations...

I've made no gratuitous accusations as of yet, though I am sorry for the misinterpretation that arose from expressing my doubts. You've accused me of needing psychological help, and now of deliberately being a prat, among many far more inconsiderate things than calling you a liar, which, again, is not something I've done.

 
PDR
1159961.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:44 am Reply with quote

Wordsmythologic wrote:

I never called you a liar. The words I used don't mean that. I chose my words with intent. I expressed doubt as to your anecdotal claim. That's not the same thing as asserting that you lied or that I knew as a fact that your claim was false.


Well, I maintain an abundant stockpile of scepticism towards retrospective wordchopping of this nature.

Quote:

Also, I did use Google, and got no results, at all, to confirm what you said. Perhaps I didn't search terms exact enough to pull up whatever example you had in mind, but to say I "couldn't be bothered" is rather impolite, even for a long-timer.


Really?? Typing "surgeon doctor mister" into google gives a long list, the first three of which confirm this point even on the search results page abstract. The entry for "Surgeon" on Wiki has as its second substantive paragraph an treatise on titles, whose second sentence reads:

"The title Mister became a badge of honour, and today, in many Commonwealth countries, a qualified doctor who, after at least four years' training, obtains a surgical qualification"

So forgive me if I maintain an abundant stockpile of scepticism towards the claim that you googled it in any meaningful manner.

Quote:

"Moon starer" isn't in a dictionary, but it doesn't need to be to mean something, but the words it comprises are in dictionaries, and you have repeatedly expressed that the phrase only means "people who look at the moon", which is a specific interpretation of yours,


As you agree it isn't in the dictionary you will agree that there is no general usage which would change the meaning of the words as written. Therefore taking the term "moon starer" to mean "one who stares at the moon" would not be a "specific interpretation of mine" - it would be the meaning of the words as written. You may wish to extend this meaning to include all celestial bodies for your own purpose (it's a free, or at least relatively affordable, world), but if you then base anything on your extended rather than "as written" definition the argument becomes circular.

Specifically - "moon starers" (people who observe/study moons) would be a subset of "astronomers" (people who observe/study all celestial bodies) and as such the two terms cannot have identical meanings. If you say "I define moon starer as having an identical meaning to astronomer therefore the two terms are identical" that is a circular argument when used to support the idea that "moon starer" is an anugram (rather than an aptagram or even just an anagram) of "astronomer". The terms are related but not identical, therefore Sandi was absolutely correct in suggesting that these terms were aptagrams. They only become anugrams. If you assign a special meaning (which is not evident in the words or present in documented common usage) in order to CREATE the anugram relationship then that is a circular argument.

And therefore the statement that Sandi made a mistake (as you alledged in your first sentence in your original post) was incorrect. This circularity of argument was made immediately clear from the first three responses you got to your post - pretty well everything you've added trying to justify your position was superfluous verbiage that failed to refute (or even discuss, let alone address) this point.

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
1160001.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:06 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Wordsy - if you want to know what got up my nose and kicked this off, it would be this:


Well, that and your tendency towards being a grumpy old fart anyway :-)

I feel better qualified than most to identify grumpy old farts - as the saying goes, it takes one to know one.

 
PDR
1160004.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:16 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
PDR wrote:
Wordsy - if you want to know what got up my nose and kicked this off, it would be this:


Well, that and your tendency towards being a grumpy old fart anyway :-)


True enough, but under the disabilities discrimination act (and the forum Diversity Policy) I have an absolute right to fart grumpily regardless of age, and it would be unlawful for anyone to discriminate against me in any way as a result of it.

PROUD TO BE GRUMPY!

GRUMP LOUDLY FOR A BETTER SOCIETY!

MY GRANDPARENTS FOUGHT WARS FOR THE RIGHT TO GRUMP AND NO SELF-APPOINTED HAPPY PERSON CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!!!

PDR

 
'yorz
1160005.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:22 am Reply with quote

It's time again for your medication.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1160006.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:23 am Reply with quote

All that, and a good solid "Bah, humbug!".

 
Wordsmythologic
1160007.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:24 am Reply with quote

So I'm going to say right at the get go what you called circular logic is not even actually an instance of circular logic, and I'll get to that, later. If you don't want to read this whole thing, the last part with numbered points conveys most of the message.

PDR wrote:
Well, I maintain an abundant stockpile of scepticism towards retrospective wordchopping of this nature.

Well, you can't really do that, since there's no retrospective, nor retroactive, wordchopping to be found. I expressed doubt, using the word "doubt" to do so. Nothing I said indicated that I was accusing you of lying.

PDR wrote:
Really?? Typing "surgeon doctor mister" into google gives a long list, the first three of which confirm this point even on the search results page abstract.

The first three results show no indication that any surgeons have been insulted by being called doctors. The first three results explain a tradition, that exists in few parts of the world, that surgeons are called "mister" in those places.

PDR wrote:
The entry for "Surgeon" on Wiki has as its second substantive paragraph an treatise on titles, whose second sentence reads:

"The title Mister became a badge of honour, and today, in many Commonwealth countries, a qualified doctor who, after at least four years' training, obtains a surgical qualification"

Which does not confirm the statement you made. It expresses one title used, in a select group of territories only, by surgeons in an honourary appellation, that is used only due to tradition.

This, in no way, confirms that any of them would be offended to be called "doctor", and it is a title not universally applicable, in addition to the fact any M.D. is, by definition, a doctor.

PDR wrote:
So forgive me if I maintain an abundant stockpile of scepticism towards the claim that you googled it in any meaningful manner.

Maintain away, by all means.

PDR wrote:
Quote:
"Moon starer" isn't in a dictionary, but it doesn't need to be to mean something, but the words it comprises are in dictionaries, and you have repeatedly expressed that the phrase only means "people who look at the moon", which is a specific interpretation of yours,

As you agree it isn't in the dictionary you will agree that there is no general usage which would change the meaning of the words as written.

Of course lack of general use doesn't change the meaning as written, but "as written" isn't a pertinent phrase, lack of general use doesn't, in the slightest degree, change meaning of the words as intended, nor does it imply that a phrase HAS to be interpreted "as written", and, again, "as written" is you sticking exclusively to a literal interpretation. As written, the phrase "uncleftish beholding" does not mean the same thing as "atomic theory", but "as written" is an irrelevancy. It certainly didn't stop Poul Anderson from writing Uncleftish Beholding, and it doesn't stop me from saying something like, oh let's say "torridity abatement" to express quenched thirst, despite it would literally mean a decrease in aridity and temperature. Words are an art that fundamentally allows for its assemblage to be greater than the sum of its parts.

You are disallowing any and all combinations of words not falling under common usage to mean anything but the dissected parts they comprise, which is defaultedly a foolish stance to have toward language, especially given the nigh 9,000 new words entering the English language alone every year.

PDR wrote:
Therefore taking the term "moon starer" to mean "one who stares at the moon" would not be a "specific interpretation of mine"

Wrong again, unfortunately. It is you taking the words to express only their individual parts, without accounting for connotation or semantic meaning of the phrase as a whole. you are reading only "moon" and then "starer" and ignoring the fact they are a combined phrase that can absolutely be used to mean the same thing as "stargazer" or "celestial observer" or "planet spotter" or "stationary upward explorer" or a nigh inexhaustible array of possible word combinations that can convey the same idea, regardless of dictionary meaning. The general meaning connoted by the phrase matches that for "astronomer" more than sufficiently.

PDR wrote:
it would be the meaning of the words as written.

No, because there is no reason for a phrase to inherently only be valid as the literal meaning of each word it is composed of. That's your viewpoint, but it is one that holds no inherent truth.

PDR wrote:
You may wish to extend this meaning to include all celestial bodies for your own purpose

I may not, as I don't. I'm not extending meaning. I am pointing out the very general, quintessential, underlying meaning inherently extant and obvious to any reader, except, of course, you. It is not an extension. It is pointing out the implication inherent to the phrase on its own merits.

PDR wrote:
(it's a free, or at least relatively affordable, world), but if you then base anything on your extended rather than "as written" definition the argument becomes circular.

There is nothing, in the slightest, circular about having the capacity to recognize semantic meaning in language. And again, it's not an extended meaning. It's the meaning that both phrases express to a reader capable of understanding semantic meaning expressed by combinations of words.

PDR wrote:
Specifically - "moon starers" (people who observe/study moons)

That's your specific and narrow interpretation of the words as being only capable of carrying the literal meaning of each word, and not allowing for them to express any ideas carried by them combined.

PDR wrote:
would be a subset of "astronomers" (people who observe/study all celestial bodies) and as such the two terms cannot have identical meanings.

They can have identical meanings, insofar as they can express the same fundamental idea. But again, as I have already said, they do not need to have identical meanings to qualify as an anugram, which is what they qualify as.

PDR wrote:
If you say "I define moon starer as having an identical meaning to astronomer therefore the two terms are identical"

Which I've not once done.

PDR wrote:
that is a circular argument when used to support the idea that "moon starer" is an anugram (rather than an aptagram or even just an anagram) of "astronomer".

It would be, but nobody in this forum has yet to make that argument.

My argument is this:

1.) "Moon starer" expresses, at its core (without giving the phrase any specific or literal interpretations), the general notion of a celestial observer, in the same regard the phrase "stargazer" does. That it is not a combination of two words in common usage does not alter this fundamental meaning which is expressed.

2.) "Astronomer" expresses, at its core (without giving the term any specific or literal interpretations), the general notion of a celestial observer. That it contains subcategories does not alter this fundamental meaning which is expressed.

3.) thus, it is an anugram

PDR wrote:
The terms are related but not identical, therefore Sandi was absolutely correct in suggesting that these terms were aptagrams.

You've yet to pick up on the fact that an anagram does not need to be a 100% synonymous reexpression of a specific definition of a word to qualify as an anugram. It merely needs to be reasonably interchangeable and express a truth, which they are and do.

PDR wrote:
They only become anugrams. If you assign a special meaning

That's not how the definition of "anugram" works.

PDR wrote:
(which is not evident in the words or present in documented common usage)

Not evident to you, yes. You've made it abundantly clear that you do not wish for words to mean anything new when they are combined. But, just because it is not evident to you, that does not change the otherwise evident core meaning that both phrases express. And you're operating under the misapprehension that a phrase has to be documented to be allowed to express an idea generated by the combination of words. Documentation and common usage don't make a difference to anugrams.

PDR wrote:
in order to CREATE the anugram relationship then that is a circular argument.

Okay, first off, that's not actually circular. Forcing something to fit isn't circular logic, it's not even necessarily bad logic. You can force "door hinge" to rhyme with orange, but it still rhymes in the end, no matter how ill-fitting you think it is, and there is no actual circular logic involved in then qualifying the two as rhyming. Even if I were forcing the relationship, which I am not, it doesn't qualify as a circular argument. I am doing the following:

1.) Asking "What is the general, non-specific, notion that the phrase "moon starer" conveys to a reader?" and getting the result "a person who observes the cosmos"

2.) Asking ""What is the general, non-specific, notion that the term "astronomer" conveys to a reader?" and getting the result "a person who observes the cosmos"

That is not forcing a definition or "creating" a relationship. It is the means through which one finds the sort of correlation that anugrams are. That's the question you have to ask to identify an anugram, because, one more time now, they do not need to be perfect synonyms to qualify.

PDR wrote:
And therefore the statement that Sandi made a mistake (as you alledged in your first sentence in your original post) was incorrect.

You've yet to provide viableproof of this. You've said that common usage is a deciding factor, which there is not reason for it to be, you've perceived circular logic where none exists, you've expressed that you believe words can not express general implications, and must mean what they are defined as in a literal sense only.

All of that is flawed logic, and not an argument that withstands scrutiny.

PDR wrote:
This circularity of argument was made immediately clear from the first three responses you got to your post

Clear only to one with skewed perception.

PDR wrote:
pretty well everything you've added trying to justify your position was superfluous verbiage that failed to refute (or even discuss, let alone address) this point.

Actually, everything I've added has justified my position. My responses have perfectly refuted, totally, very nearly every point you've made so far, by pointing at every flaw you presented. I've addressed every single one and explained in detail why your reasoning is baseless. I've outlined it all. The problem here is that you seem unable to register this. I've meticulously and thoroughly dismantled your arguments, and explained it at length, but you're selectively not seeing it. Even when I call attention to your fallacious logic, you don't react to it afterward and, in stead, repeat your position. I'm explaining your flaws. Here, I'll do it again:

1.) I've not yet said the two phrases have identical meaning. That's your flawed interpretation of what I did say, which is that both convey, at their core, an identical, general meaning, which is exactly the qualifier for an anugram.

2.) You've implied that lack of common usage dictates interpretation. It is not the arbiter, and there is no base for this being inherently true.

3.) You've accused me of using circular logic, by implying I'm forcing the connection. That is not only not what I'm doing, but not circular logic. Forcing something to fit a definition is self-serving, but not circular, nor necessarily fallacious. It would be circular if I said that they are anugrams because they're anugrams. I'm saying they're anagrams because there's an apparent overlap in meaning, which is the thing that makes something an anugram. I'm giving you a reason, not a circular argument.

4.) You've implied that an anugram must be a perfect synonym. This is not at all true. An aptagram conveys new information; for example "Elvis" and "lives" express different notions not contained in the other. An anugram does not express new information in this way. The information contained in "moon starer" is already contained in astronomer", so switching from one to the other does not reveal any information to a reader that is sufficiently new. The information is shared between the two, and that overlap in conveyed information qualifies it as an anugram.

5.) You've not refuted the fact that "moon starer" and "astronomer" both have an overlap in their meaning, nor that it is possible to refer to one as the other while maintaining the general meaning and being able to get it across to a reader.

I, unlike you, have refuted flawed arguments.

 

Page 4 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group