Cantr II Discussion Forum

I got feghooted by an author I like and respect today.

An argument can be made that I ought to have expected something of the sort, since I already knew he enjoys playing linguistic games. But, since the relevant passage was also under the pretext of a different linguistic game, I thought nothing of his unusual word choices. Arrrrrgh.

destinysWalrus wrote:I got feghooted by an author I like and respect today.

An argument can be made that I ought to have expected something of the sort, since I already knew he enjoys playing linguistic games. But, since the relevant passage was also under the pretext of a different linguistic game, I thought nothing of his unusual word choices. Arrrrrgh.

Was this in game or out?

And what does 'feghooted' mean? I can tell it's nothing good, but don't know the word/expression itself.

PaintedbyRoses wrote:

destinysWalrus wrote:I got feghooted by an author I like and respect today.

An argument can be made that I ought to have expected something of the sort, since I already knew he enjoys playing linguistic games. But, since the relevant passage was also under the pretext of a different linguistic game, I thought nothing of his unusual word choices. Arrrrrgh.

Was this in game or out?

It was out-of-game. I was reading a book by Douglas Hofstadter. (Specifically, it was Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language, because my interest in linguistics and translations has rekindled itself recently)

Estaar wrote:And what does 'feghooted' mean? I can tell it's nothing good, but don't know the word/expression itself.

A feghoot is a short story (or to broaden the term, a movie or other type of media), ending in a pun or other punchline - and setting up the pun/punchline is the entire purpose of the story itself. I would argue that it has to be a really lame pun, but that could be debatable.

Because English is an incredibly flexible language, I just decided to "verb" the word. I only learned about feghoots a couple months ago, when one of the fanfiction stories I read was one and used the term feghoot to explain what had happened.


Edit:
It's not so much a bad thing (at least for me) since I do enjoy terrible puns, but I really feel like I should have seen it coming.

Thanks for explaining, destinysWalrus. It did sound as if you were more upset at yourself than at the author.

Linguistics is simply the politicising of utterances to create borders. Creating borders are simply the politicising of space and loosely speaking, linguistics is just one of the political tools that help maintain them.
Borders are the friends of the powerful states and an enemy to the people living within them.

Linguistic trickery and puns are the stuff that these political systems can't control and they have therefore made relatively and sociologically speaking, meaningless, except to the 'literate-clever'

Sorry to have such a downer on your rant, but that's how I see it.


Mt rant is... just people... in general... people piss me off... a lot and a lot more than usual, recently!

curious wrote:Linguistics is simply the politicising of utterances to create borders. Creating borders are simply the politicising of space and loosely speaking, linguistics is just one of the political tools that help maintain them.
Borders are the friends of the powerful states and an enemy to the people living within them.

Linguistic trickery and puns are the stuff that these political systems can't control and they have therefore made relatively and sociologically speaking, meaningless, except to the 'literate-clever'

Sorry to have such a downer on your rant, but that's how I see it.


Mt rant is... just people... in general... people piss me off... a lot and a lot more than usual, recently!

I think you mean "language" rather than "linguistics." Linguistics is simply the scientific study of language. I'm not sure what "...politicising of utterances to create borders" is called but it's not linguistics. Various languages, themselves, contribute to creating political borders, of course.

___________ is simply the politicising of __________ to create __________.

Ironically, you can stick any three loosely related terms in these blanks and come up with a pro/anti-government statement. For the most part, words are all we have with which to communicate (witness this game) so criticizing the very use of them (using words) is both bizarre and meaningless.

I would argue that "linguistic trickery and puns" are the last bastion of power for the masses. Stodgy political systems can't keep up with the lightening-fast changes in language taking place in the world of the proletariat, especially with present day communications systems.

"Linguistic trickery and puns are the stuff that these political systems can't control and they have therefore made relatively and sociologically speaking, meaningless, except to the 'literate-clever'" This sentence is so vague and filled with jargon that it is, itself, meaningless.

If the political systems can't control the "linguistic trickery and puns," then how are they managing to make them "meaningless, except to the 'literate-clever'?" Who are these "literate-clever" lottery winners, anyway? Academics? Rappers? Reporters? Bloggers? Surely not politicians and their hopelessly befuddled advisors and spokespeople.

I'll tell you who they are: the downtrodden. You cannot take language away from human beings or even begin to control it. The most that politicians can do is use language to lie.

On the topic of politicising language i suggest reading those books:
"1984" by George Orwell
"The languages of Pao" by Jack Vance

and of course:
"The collected tweets 2016-2018" by Donald Trump.

My personal thought of the day (C) 2018 Tiamo:

Utopia is boring!

PaintedbyRoses wrote:I think you mean "language" rather than "linguistics." Linguistics is simply the scientific study of language. I'm not sure what "...politicising of utterances to create borders" is called but it's not linguistics. Various languages, themselves, contribute to creating political borders, of course.

___________ is simply the politicising of __________ to create __________.

Ironically, you can stick any three loosely related terms in these blanks and come up with a pro/anti-government statement. For the most part, words are all we have with which to communicate (witness this game) so criticizing the very use of them is both bizarre and meaningless.

1. I am well aware of what I mean, regardless of what you think to tell me I mean, thanks. Without 'language' there is no linguistics and they inherently linked.
2. There is no irony in your example and I reject it anyway and on the basis that you begin it by stating that you don't know what 'politicising' means.
3, I also resent you referring to my point as 'bizarre and meaningless.

The tone of your entire reply is quite derogatory, to be honest and you'll have to forgive me if I await your next retort with disinterest.
All I did was state an opinion. It didn't need to be attacked in this way, thank you.

Tiamo wrote:On the topic of politicising language i suggest reading those books:
"1984" by George Orwell
"The languages of Pao" by Jack Vance
and of course:
"The collected tweets 2016-2018" by Donald Trump.

And these are written in...what? Musical notation? Interpretive dance? Dolphin squeaks? Smoke signals? Rhythmic tapping? Coded blinking?

curious wrote:

PaintedbyRoses wrote:I think you mean "language" rather than "linguistics." Linguistics is simply the scientific study of language. I'm not sure what "...politicising of utterances to create borders" is called but it's not linguistics. Various languages, themselves, contribute to creating political borders, of course.

___________ is simply the politicising of __________ to create __________.

Ironically, you can stick any three loosely related terms in these blanks and come up with a pro/anti-government statement. For the most part, words are all we have with which to communicate (witness this game) so criticizing the very use of them is both bizarre and meaningless.

1. I am well aware of what I mean, regardless of what you think to tell me I mean, thanks. Without 'language' there is no linguistics and they inherently linked.
2. There is no irony in your example and I reject it anyway and on the basis that you begin it by stating that you don't know what 'politicising' means.
3, I also resent you referring to my point as 'bizarre and meaningless.

The tone of your entire reply is quite derogatory, to be honest and you'll have to forgive me if I await your next retort with disinterest.
All I did was state an opinion. It didn't need to be attacked in this way, thank you.

You'll have to get tougher if you want to write and publish political statements. Having your ideas challenged and critiqued is part of a rigorous intellectual discourse. I'm a very lightweight critic.

I didn't say that I don't know what "politicising" means. I said that your use of it in that phrase was not called linguistics.

They could be written in any of those 'languages and still express the same thoughts and concepts... and would all be available to the same linguistic analysis.

PaintedbyRoses wrote:

curious wrote:

PaintedbyRoses wrote:I think you mean "language" rather than "linguistics." Linguistics is simply the scientific study of language. I'm not sure what "...politicising of utterances to create borders" is called but it's not linguistics. Various languages, themselves, contribute to creating political borders, of course.

___________ is simply the politicising of __________ to create __________.

Ironically, you can stick any three loosely related terms in these blanks and come up with a pro/anti-government statement. For the most part, words are all we have with which to communicate (witness this game) so criticizing the very use of them is both bizarre and meaningless.

1. I am well aware of what I mean, regardless of what you think to tell me I mean, thanks. Without 'language' there is no linguistics and they inherently linked.
2. There is no irony in your example and I reject it anyway and on the basis that you begin it by stating that you don't know what 'politicising' means.
3, I also resent you referring to my point as 'bizarre and meaningless.

The tone of your entire reply is quite derogatory, to be honest and you'll have to forgive me if I await your next retort with disinterest.
All I did was state an opinion. It didn't need to be attacked in this way, thank you.

You'll have to get tougher if you want to write and publish political statements. Having your ideas challenged and critiqued is part of a rigorous intellectual discourse. I'm a very lightweight critic.

I didn't say that I don't know what "politicising" means. I said that your use of it in that phrase was not called linguistics.

I agree... you are indeed a lightweight critic... so light in fact, as to not offer a critique at all and yet, still make enough noise to convince yourself that you have?
I didn't call politicising, linguistics. Read it again.

curious wrote:

PaintedbyRoses wrote:

curious wrote:

PaintedbyRoses wrote:I think you mean "language" rather than "linguistics." Linguistics is simply the scientific study of language. I'm not sure what "...politicising of utterances to create borders" is called but it's not linguistics. Various languages, themselves, contribute to creating political borders, of course.

___________ is simply the politicising of __________ to create __________.

Ironically, you can stick any three loosely related terms in these blanks and come up with a pro/anti-government statement. For the most part, words are all we have with which to communicate (witness this game) so criticizing the very use of them is both bizarre and meaningless.

1. I am well aware of what I mean, regardless of what you think to tell me I mean, thanks. Without 'language' there is no linguistics and they inherently linked.
2. There is no irony in your example and I reject it anyway and on the basis that you begin it by stating that you don't know what 'politicising' means.
3, I also resent you referring to my point as 'bizarre and meaningless.

The tone of your entire reply is quite derogatory, to be honest and you'll have to forgive me if I await your next retort with disinterest.
All I did was state an opinion. It didn't need to be attacked in this way, thank you.

You'll have to get tougher if you want to write and publish political statements. Having your ideas challenged and critiqued is part of a rigorous intellectual discourse. I'm a very lightweight critic.

I didn't say that I don't know what "politicising" means. I said that your use of it in that phrase was not called linguistics.

I agree... you are indeed a lightweight critic... so light in fact, as to not offer a critique at all and yet, still make enough noise to convince yourself that you have?
I didn't call politicising, linguistics. Read it again.

OK, I don't want to be mean.

"Linguistics is simply the politicising of utterances to create borders."
linguistics = the politicising (of utterances to create borders)
linguistics = politicising
politicising = linguistics

Maybe "propaganda" is closer to your intent rather than "linguistics."