View previous topic | View next topic

Moon Starer is an Anugram, not an Aptagram.

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

PDR
1160008.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:55 am Reply with quote

Oh gawd!

So in saying that "moon starer" means "One who stares at the moon" it is me who is inventing a meaning, whereas in saying a "moon starer" is "someone who stares at lots of things, some of which are moons" you are expressing the obvious inherent meaning?

Wordsey wrote:
You are disallowing any and all combinations of words not falling under common usage to mean anything but the dissected parts they comprise, [...]


No, I'm not. Really I'm not. I'm saying that when you accused Sandi of making a mistake because her suggestion that the words were aptagrams the basis of your accusation was a meaning which was previously unknown, certainly undocumented and (seemingly) confined solely you yourself. As there is no way that she (or indeed anyone else) could have known of this special meaning which you have subsequently allocated to these words her statement was NOT a mistake, and as such you owe Dr Sandi an apology.

By the way - I have decided that as of November 20th 2015 the term "Anagram" will mean "words containing all of the same letters when they occur in the same order". I trust that you will observe this definition when you use the word in future, and will apologise for your mistaken use of the word earlier in this thread.

PDR


Last edited by PDR on Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:31 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Wirish
1160010.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:59 am Reply with quote

Isn't it marvelous when intelligent people argue, instead of just shouting at each other and just resorting to calling each other wankers they set out their arguments with reasoned logic to highlight the failings and incompetence of their foe. Keep up the good work!

 
'yorz
1160013.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:08 am Reply with quote

You haven't been here long enough, it appears.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1160015.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:27 am Reply with quote

The phrase "moon starer" conveys more a sense of someone gazing at the moon, in a somewhat contemplative manner, rather than someone who is studying the cosmos, whereas the word "astronomer" conveys a sense of scientific study as opposed to a romantic gazing.

With the meaning that I infer from each term, I'd be more inclined to use aptogram rather than anugram. Nothing in the reams I have read on the subject have influenced me to change my mind or to interpret either term differently.



And as far as how the pissing contest is going, I'm unable to judge who has managed to set the high mark, but WSL has certainly covered a much larger portion of the wall.

 
Wirish
1160016.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:34 am Reply with quote

Quote:

You haven't been here long enough, it appears.


I have been away for a while. I used to frequent these message boards a few years ago under the moniker of getmeagiuness. I must say though that it is nice to be back, and to see that things are carrying on as I left them.

 
'yorz
1160018.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:00 am Reply with quote

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.
Welcome back. :-)

 
Wordsmythologic
1160025.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:27 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Oh gawd!

So in saying that "moon starer" means "One who stares at the moon" it is me who is inventing a meaning, whereas in saying a "moon starer" is "someone who stares at lots of things, some of which are moons" you are expressing the obvious inherent meaning?

I did not say that you invented a meaning. I said your chosen meaning is arbitrarily strict. And by saying "moon starer" connotes somebody interested in looking at the cosmos, I am pointing out the obvious fundamental meaning. I'm only looking at a meaning that can perfectly reasonably be conveyed by both terms.

PDR wrote:
Quote:
You are disallowing any and all combinations of words not falling under common usage to mean anything but the dissected parts they comprise,

No, I'm not. Really I'm not.

You said, and I quote, "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." That means that, if something is not in common usage, it can't be validly interpreted as something other than "as written". This is disallowing any combination of words not falling under common usage to mean anything but the dissected parts they comprise. That is a consequential, albeit definitely extreme, extrapolation of what you said.

PDR wrote:
I'm saying that when you accused Sandi of making a mistake because her suggestion that the words were aptagrams the basis of your accusation was a meaning which was previously unknown, certainly undocumented and (seemingly) confined solely you yourself.

A categorization of types of anagrams being previously unknown doesn't negate its existence or validity. It is documented and by your claim otherwise, you've suffered the fault you accused me of by not Googling it, and it's not confined to myself, because its existence is attested in reasonably researchable contexts.

PDR wrote:
As there is no way that she (or indeed anyone else) could have known of this special meaning which you have subsequently allocated to these words her statement was NOT a mistake, and as such you owe Dr Sandi an apology.

There is a way that she or anyone could have known the meaning of the terms, that being the same way that I came to be aware of them: independent research and collecting books by linguists regarding oddities of language and recreational linguistics. I did not invent these word, nor their definitions. I am providing you with preexisting information I've gathered from my own research on forms of wordplay. They are by no means commonly know terms, except in the case that Sandi was already aware of one of them, and not the other.

Her statement was an unknowing mistake, given the more accurate definitions of the two distinct terms. She gave other examples that were aptagrams, but the initial one, I believe, was not, for the reason given.

I only sought to share an awareness of the difference between the terms. Her mistake was minute and made for not being aware of a very niche difference in terminology, so it in not a condemnable mistake, nor have I condemned her for making it. I have done nothing to purposefully insult Sandi, and wished to point out the technicality that differentiates the words in a lighthearted way. I have the highest regard for her, and hold great admiration that she even knew the term "aptagram". All I have done is share a bit of uncommon information that I've been made aware of through my avid interest in forms of wordplay. So no, I do not owe her an apology. If, however, she herself asked me to apologize for sharing the alternate term in a way that she felt insulted by, I would apologize, but as it stands, neither my intent nor expression were derogatory toward her.

I just like wordplay.

PDR wrote:
By the way - I have decided that as of November 20th 2015 the term "Anagram" will mean "words containing all of the same letters when they occur in the same order". I trust that you will observe this definition when you use the word in future, and will apologise for your mistaken use of the word earlier in this thread.

Your trust is misplaced. That is a definition you came up with. You can Google "anugram". I did not invent it, nor its definition. And now you're using the logical fallacy of false equivalence. Even had I fabricated these words, I would not be redefining a preexisting one, which is what you now tried to do.

All that I intended to do was share something I think is cool. I like wordplay. I am enamoured of it. Wordplay is my passion. As such, I have a vivid awareness of the more fringe details that is includes. Yes, these words are not widely known, but they do exist. When I watched the Maths episode, I was reminded of the different meanings carried by the terms, and, to me, the one she first applied the term "aptagram" to did not seem to fit, and it is through that that I decided to share this information.

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
The phrase "moon starer" conveys more a sense of someone gazing at the moon, in a somewhat contemplative manner, rather than someone who is studying the cosmos, whereas the word "astronomer" conveys a sense of scientific study as opposed to a romantic gazing.

With the meaning that I infer from each term, I'd be more inclined to use aptogram rather than anugram. Nothing in the reams I have read on the subject have influenced me to change my mind or to interpret either term differently.


That is a perfectly valid argument against the classification, and is actually one I briefly touched on when providing examples of arguments against my stance that do hold up to scrutiny. If the phrase does not connote a same underlying concept, or does not have sufficient overlap in the general meaning conveyed, then they aren't anugrams. If the general idea of "moon starer", to you, is that of romantic gaze, while the general idea of "astronomer" is that of a scientist, that is an argument that looks at their more general possible implications, and that is a valid point.

But, again, as I've said, it is a gray area, and of this I am aware. I only meant to make the case that there does exist a reasonable explanation as to why "moon starer" would be an anugram, and, by comparing it to other examples, I'd hope to show that their similarity is more in line with anugrams than aptagrams. Like "semolina" and "is no meal", because that introduces a new concept, is an aptagram, because they go together fittingly. For me, the two terms in the "moon starer" anagram invoke extremely similar concepts when looking at them generally, and they don't seem to truly introduce any sufficiently new concepts.

I apologize if I come off as trying to win a pissing contest, but the entire point I wanted people to walk away with was "Hey, there's this cool other kind of anagram too!" And then the topic derailed and devolved into arguing about how "moon starer" is supposed to be interpreted, which is beside the point. My points were attacked quite harshly, and so I defend them, and I make an effort to address points clearly, so, yes, I may be oh so verbose, but I'm mostly just trying to defend what I said from pedantry I do not feel is constructive or applicable.

Above everything, I wanted to share my love of wordplay, so I hope that the state of this topic hasn't catastrophically ruined that, and I hope that some of you find the subtlety of these two kinds of anagrams as fascinating as I do.

 
PDR
1160027.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:44 am Reply with quote

I am not suggesting you invented the meanings of "anugram". I am stating that you have invented meanings for "moon starer".

I am not suggesting Sandi was unaware of the meanings of "anugram" and "aptagram"; I am stating that she [like the rest of the sentient universe] was unaware of your new, extended meaning for the words "Moon Starer".

Quote:

That means that, if something is not in common usage, it can't be validly interpreted as something other than "as written". This is disallowing any combination of words not falling under common usage to mean anything but the dissected parts they comprise.


I am not suggesting that. What I *am* suggesting is that if there is no documented or widely used (aka "common usage") definition or interpretation of a word or phrase then for communication purposes it can only ever be used to mean the parts they comprise. For your own purposes you can certainly allocated a different interpretation, but if no one else is *aware* of that interpretation (ie it is not in a dictionary or in common use) then no one else will be expected to use it or understand it. So it would be wrong to suggest Sandi made a mistake when she used the "sum of the parts" definition to identify the words as aptagrams rather than anugrams.

It is alos excedingly arrogant of you to accuse her of making a mistake when it would only be a mistake if she was aware of (and agreed with) your personal, invented meaning of the phrase "moon starer".

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1160080.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:17 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I am not suggesting you invented the meanings of "anugram". I am stating that you have invented meanings for "moon starer".

I am not suggesting Sandi was unaware of the meanings of "anugram" and "aptagram"; I am stating that she [like the rest of the sentient universe] was unaware of your new, extended meaning for the words "Moon Starer".

Oh, I see. But, seriously, the idea that "moon starer" can imply a stargazer is not really so much new information as it is a consequential meaning carried by the phrase in a more general sense. It's not a "new" meaning, it's the general meaning of what the phrase already implies. With that point, you disagree.

PDR wrote:
Quote:
That means that, if something is not in common usage, it can't be validly interpreted as something other than "as written". This is disallowing any combination of words not falling under common usage to mean anything but the dissected parts they comprise.

I am not suggesting that. What I *am* suggesting is that if there is no documented or widely used (aka "common usage") definition or interpretation of a word or phrase then for communication purposes it can only ever be used to mean the parts they comprise.

You're saying that if a phrase doesn't have a meaning belonging to common usage, it can only be interpreted literally, as the parts they comprise. That is exactly the same thing as disallowing combinations of words not falling under common usage to mean anything but the dissected parts they comprise. It's the same thing, exactly. You're saying that if a given meaning of a phrase isn't present through common usage, that meaning can not be what is conveyed to a reader. That, I believe is unreasonable. For example, the phrase "thin, green pointy things in dirt" is not in common usage, and does not, in the sum of its parts alone, necessitate the meaning of "blades of grass", but the meaning is expressed regardless.

PDR wrote:
For your own purposes you can certainly allocated a different interpretation, but if no one else is *aware* of that interpretation (ie it is not in a dictionary or in common use) then no one else will be expected to use it or understand it.

Again, taking "moon starer" to mean "observer of celestial phenomena" is not an outlandish meaning to grant the phrase, and, again, common usage doesn't play into it, because irrespective of whether "moon starer" can only mean "person who stares at moons", the information expressed in that is information carried also within the overall purview of "astronomer".

It's the fact that it's not a new idea, not new information, that makes it an anugram. It may not contain the totality of the information in "astronomer", but it does not actually have to for it to be an anugram. Anugrams are not necessarily total equivalences.

PDR wrote:
So it would be wrong to suggest Sandi made a mistake when she used the "sum of the parts" definition to identify the words as aptagrams rather than anugrams.

If it introduced a new concept, it would be closer to an aptagram, so it is not wrong to suggest she made a mistake, given the similarity of the phrases, even if you do take only the sum of its parts definition.

PDR wrote:
It is alos excedingly arrogant of you to accuse her of making a mistake when it would only be a mistake if she was aware of (and agreed with) your personal, invented meaning of the phrase "moon starer".

I am not making an accusation toward her. I am stating a fact that is a consequence of the difference in meaning of the two kinds of anagrams, and I only pointed out that "moon starer" is more of an anugram as a means to introduce the concept of anugrams, because, to me, it seems to fit that definition much more readily. Yes, you can disagree, but you can not justifiably say that the categorization is definitely wrong.

You can disagree, but I only pointed out the technicality I saw to introduce anugrams by giving the example I saw in "moon starer".

And look, it is not necessarily actually a mistake, I'm fully aware of that because of how much a gray area it is, but it is reasonable to suggest it could have been a mistake, given how the terms relate to each other, so the suggestion of error is fine to bring up, and it's not an attack on her, it's just something I wanted to use to present the difference in anagrams.

And the whole "generalized meaning" argument was only one case supporting the categorization. The fact that the term "astronomer", by default, includes the information conveyed in "moon starer" makes it an anugram. They don't need to convey all the information of the other in equal amount.

Taking "astronomer" and turning it into "moon starer" does not subsequently introduce sufficiently new or different concepts or information to the reader. It introduces descriptive specificity, but that doesn't make it not an anugram.

An anugram is an anagram that describes itself through a general truth. The "u" in "anugram", I believe, comes from the "u" in truth, though that point I may be misremembering.

An aptagram is an anagram that describes itself, or conceptually relates to itself, through mental association. Generally they convey new concepts in the rearrangement, but they're pertinent ones. That's why they're apt.

"Moon starer" can be argued as either one, as I already have said. I have already said it's a gray area, but to say that it, in an absolute sense, is not an anugram is not reasonable. I only mean to express that the two terms in question seem perfectly reasonable to categorize as anugrams, given the similarity in meaning that is perfectly reasonable for them to convey, and that the overlap therein is more in line with the notion of anugrams than aptagrams. When I watched the episode, my reaction was "Wait, isn't it more of an anugram?", so that's how I introduced the concept in this topic. It was supposed to be in good fun.

If it helps to explain my reasoning more succinctly, these examples sort of point to the differentiation:

Aptagrams:
A telephone girl = Repeating "hello"
I run to escape = A persecution
The meaning of life = The fine game of nil
Astronomers = No more stars

Anugrams:
Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one
A gentleman = Elegant man
Indomitableness = Endless ambition
Astronomer = Moon starer

Again, it is not a prime example, I know, and have said so, but it really does seem to fit that category more. It's okay to disagree on that point, but for me to suggest that it might have been an unintentional, technical slip-up is not so disastrously flawed.

 
PDR
1160082.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:34 pm Reply with quote

So in summary - you've made up a new meaning and then castigate people for (a) not knowing it and (b) having the temerity to disagree with it.

These are not the bases of a sound argument.

QED

PDR

 
Wordsmythologic
1160097.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:02 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
So in summary - you've made up a new meaning and then castigate people for (a) not knowing it and (b) having the temerity to disagree with it.

Not even at all, actually.

PDR wrote:
These are not the bases of a sound argument.

Neither are they the bases of any of the arguments I've supplied here. Your summary is wholly not reality. I've not cast any aspersions on anyone for not drawing the comparison that is perfectly reasonable to draw between the two phrases. I've only pointed out the fact that the correlation is a rational and viable and valid one. I've not criticized you merely for disagreeing. In fact, I said explicitly in my last reply that it is okay to disagree on the classification, because of the gray area the delineation lies within. And besides that, you are the one who's insulted me for disagreeing with you. I'm not insulting you for disagreeing. It's fine to disagree, but ad hominem is your area; not mine. All I've done is pointed out what flawed logic you've thus far used. I am saying it can fit both terms, but that it fits "anugram" better, because the anagram conveys no truly new concepts to a reader, while aptagrams do. You are saying it is wrong to classify it as an anugram, on the basis that they are not total synonymous phrases. That is a false assertion.

Anugrams do not actually need to be total equivalencies. You seem to think they do. Taking "astronomer" and making it into "moon starer" does not introduce any sufficiently new or different information or concepts to a reader that aren't already carried by "astronomer". It introduces a specificity, not a new or different concept. This is why it is more an anugram than an aptagram. Again, see the examples listed in my last reply.

I only pointed out that "moon starer" is an anugram, rather than an aptagram, because, when watching the episode, I thought "Wait, isn't it more of an anugram?", so I decided to share this information about wordplay through that technicality, in a lighthearted way. I only want to share my love of wordplay here. An anugram is an anagram that describes itself through a general truth. An aptagram is an anagram that describes itself, or conceptually relates to itself, through mental association. Generally they convey new concepts in the rearrangement, but they're pertinent ones. That's why they're apt.

I've already explained this, but will again: I've not made up a new meaning. It's the general meaning of what the phrase already implies. "Moon starer" connotes, in a general sense, a notion of celestial observation. You have yet to refute that, though even if you did, I've also pointed out that this "general meaning" argument is only one possible argument, among the things qualifying it as an anugram. What you consider to be a new meaning is not even the crux of my stance, which I've already said, so to bring it up again and imply that it's the base of my argument is nonsensical. The crux is that the information carried by the word "astronomer" contains within it the information carried within the phrase "moon starer". Turning "astronomer" into "moon starer" is not a comparison to a new and different idea. It's self-descriptive more than an apt comparison between distinct concepts. Aptagrams are the opposite (see the examples I gave).

All I seek is to share these cool anagrammatical terms. To that end, I used "moon starer" as an example to illustrate the point. I've said from the start it can be argued either way, but what you are doing is implying that the classification of "moon starer" as an anugram is not one that is even possible. That is faulty.

I already said, it is not necessarily actually a mistake on the part of Sandi; I'm fully aware of that because of how much a gray area it is, but it is reasonable to suggest it could have been a mistake, given the way in which the terms relate to each other, so the suggestion of error is reasonable, and it's not an attack on her, it's just something I wanted to use to present the difference in anagrams. I only mean to express that the two terms in question seem perfectly reasonable to categorize as anugrams, given the similarity in meaning that is perfectly reasonable for them to convey, and that the overlap therein is more in line with the notion of anugrams than aptagrams (again, see the examples in my previous response).

I only wanted to explain anugrams by example, and I jocularly used what was an unintentional slip-up of a technicality that I noticed when watching the episode to do so. The case for it being an anugram is not a flawed one. The two phrases contain enough of the same information that it reasonably warrants anugram classification. It is perfectly fine to disagree with the classification, because it is not the optimal case, but it is not okay to dogmatically claim that the classification is absolutely impossible and unfounded, in the way that you are.

 
CharliesDragon
1160107.  Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:18 pm Reply with quote

Okay, I'm gonna chip in with my opinion, which I do not claim to be right or universal in any way, it is just how I interpret things. (And I have not bothered to read the two last pages of argumenting, sorry.)

Elvis=lives is purely an aptagram because it is funny in relation to the theory that Elvis Presley is still alive. It's not an anugram because you do not need to be called Elvis to be alive, and you can be called Elvis without being alive. It's funny, that's all. (Elvis is also the middle name of Voldemort in the French translations, and Voldemort is between alive and dead for about thirteen years before he comes properly back, at which point "Elvis lives" becomes apt, so that's another fun connection between the words.)

Moon starer=astronomer can also be seen as an aptagram because you can humorously refer to an astronomer as a moon starer, but it can also be an anugram if the astronomer you refer to belong to the sub-category of astronomers that study moons. Whether the astronomer in question is offended would depend on personality and how well you know each other, I'd guess.
There might be some rule that something can't be an anugram and an aptagram, but I don't agree. Most anagrams that are either might be just one or the other, but in the case of moon starer=astronomer I feel both definitions can apply.

 
PDR
1160135.  Thu Nov 26, 2015 3:20 am Reply with quote

I feel that Donniepoon's contribution is more relevant and accurate than Wordsey's, as well as being both more concise and comprehensible...

PDR

 
bemahan
1160142.  Thu Nov 26, 2015 3:28 am Reply with quote

Wordsmythologic wrote:


Aptagrams:
A telephone girl = Repeating "hello"
I run to escape = A persecution
The meaning of life = The fine game of nil
Astronomers = No more stars

Anugrams:
Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one
A gentleman = Elegant man
Indomitableness = Endless ambition
Astronomer = Moon starer

Leaving aside the (to me - so shoot me) rather pointless wranglings, I think these are rather cool and shall share them, and the concepts, with others who will think so too. Thank you, Wordsmythologic.

 
Wordsmythologic
1160184.  Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:13 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I feel that Donniepoon's contribution is more relevant and accurate than Wordsey's, as well as being both more concise and comprehensible...

Then your understanding of language and reality is extraordinary and commendable.

bemahan wrote:
Leaving aside the (to me - so shoot me) rather pointless wranglings, I think these are rather cool and shall share them, and the concepts, with others who will think so too. Thank you, Wordsmythologic.


Oh, I think the ongoing dispute has been pointless too, no worries. But then it being pointless doesn't exactly mean I won't respond to my topic either. In any case, I'm glad at least somebody got the point that I've been making. Sharing the wordplay is all I wanted, and I'm happy to see you think it's cool. Thank you.

 

Page 5 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