Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, the question is over what the "many" referred to in the sentence (which is not necessarily "most") refers to.

 

[BicycleTree]

No comment BT?

Yes, no comment until you explain what you mean. Please do so by PM because it does not belong in this discussion.

 

[Evo]

Quote from Wikipedia: "Those who lived in the city were increasingly poor, as the wealthy, who had lived there not too long ago, moved to these suburbs."

Before suburbanization, the rich were city-dwellers.

That has nothing to do with the first paragraph. The first paragraph is stating current conditions. Subsequent topics discussed in later paragraphs do not modify the first paragraph.

I have never lived in the city, I have always lived in the suburbs, most people living in suburbs right now probably never lived in the inner city. Which is what the first paragraph addresses, nothing else. Which makes your obsession with this wikipedia article make even less sense.

What does this have to do with whether or not under current conditions more bus terminals is a realistic solution to traffic congestion? According to the Department of Transportation, it's not.

 

[BicycleTree]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, no comment until you explain what you mean. Please do so by PM because it does not belong in this discussion.

It certainly does belong in a discussion of reading comprehension.

However, I see I'm getting the blunt edge of your sword ("I don't understand.").

 

[BicycleTree]

At the moment, only one thing from the pet peeves thread is on topic: the interpretation of the second sentence of the Wikipedia article as your and my reading comprehension. If you want to bring more stuff in, I'd like to see a convincing argument for how it is on topic.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, Zooby, then let it wait. I don't remember the point you say chroot was making--I do recall that he kept thinking my claim was much broader than it actually was--but I'm not going to try to talk about several different things at once in the same thread.

 

[Evo]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

Because that has to do with the wikipedia post.

 

[BicycleTree]

Because that has to do with the wikipedia post.

I don't think it has much to do with the interpretation of the sentence in the wikipedia post. Are you going to prepare a response to the following?

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."

 

[Moonbear]

Why are you talking about the pet peeves thread?

You introduced the discussion of the pet peeves thread by challenging the reading comprehension of those participating in that thread when you presented, as your example, the statement used in that thread.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, I am not going to discuss the topics of the pet peeves thread at the moment except in how they directly have impact on the meaning of the second sentence of the Wikipedia article, unless someone can give convincing reasons otherwise. And even if someone gives those reasons, I'm not going to discuss it until the second sentence of the Wikipedia article has been resolved. And Zooby's question has priority after that if he so wishes since he brought his question up first.

 

[Evo]

I don't think it has much to do with the interpretation of the sentence in the wikipedia post. Are you going to prepare a response to the following?

I already did.

Also, everyone seems to be in agreement that the commuting mentioned is open to commuting anywhere. You are the only one saying it can only be commuting back to the city. You're the only one trying to make the statement have only one true interpretation. Prove it.

I'm not going to discuss it until the second sentence of the Wikipedia article has been resolved

It's resolved as far as everyone is concerned, except you. Majority rules. End of dispute.

 

[BicycleTree]

I already did.

You did? News to me. The only thing I noticed was you talking about was how a minority of the rich would have lived in rural areas before migrating to the suburbs.

As to majority, I recall that I have one backer and one partial backer. But majority is hardly a valid way to settle debate.

Zooby, if you're there this would be a fine time to explain your point.

 

[Moonbear]

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..."

The full paragraph states:

Suburbanization is a term used by many to describe the current residential living situation in the United States. Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work. This has set the United States apart from many other countries where the majority of people live in urban areas.

In context, it becomes clear that the second sentence serves two purposes, however horrendous the grammar. First, it does set up a contrast between past and present; we can agree on that. That contrast is between "live where they work" and "live in the suburbs, commuting to work." In the past, they lived where they worked, possibly cities, as you argue. In the present, they live in suburbs and commute to work. The location of that work is unspecified. One cannot assume from the sentence that the location of the work now is the same as the location of the work previously, because the emphasis, provided by the first sentence, is on the location of where they live.

The second purpose of that sentence is to set up the premise for the contrast of America with other countries, which is elaborated in the third sentence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And Zooby's question has priority after that if he so wishes since he brought his question up first.

I have no question. That was an observation about your modus operandi. When I asked for a comment, I just wanted to make sure you knew I noticed that you'd ignored it. The way you ignored Chroot's repetition of the same point four times in the other thread comes of as, well...a reading comprehension problem.

 

[BicycleTree]

One cannot assume from the sentence that the location of the work now is the same as the location of the work previously, because the emphasis, provided by the first sentence, is on the location of where they live.

One cannot assume that the location has been changed. In the absence of any mention of a possible change, one must assume that the location of work remains the same. The default is no change, overrided only when there is a reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Moonbear]

In this discussion of reading comprehension, that wikipedia definition provides another very useful example related to what was discussed way back at the beginning of this thread. If you do not write clearly, such that your statements have ambiguous meaning, the communication breaks down at the level of the writer not the reader. That second sentence in the wikipedia definition is poorly written, and without reading the mind of the writer, there is no way to understand the intention umabiguously. Perhaps you should move on to another example as the one you're presenting is not an issue of reading comprehension but writing ability.

 

[BicycleTree]

I have no question. That was an observation about your modus operandi. When I asked for a comment, I just wanted to make sure you knew I noticed that you'd ignored it. The way you ignored Chroot's repetition of the same point four times in the other thread comes of as, well...a reading comprehension problem.

Zooby, you're making vague claims. If you stated what his point actually was (in a PM since this discussion is currently occupied) then you might have something to talk about.

 

[Moonbear]

One cannot assume that the location has been changed. In the absence of any mention of a possible change, one must assume that the location of work remains the same. The default is no change, overrided only when there is a reason to believe otherwise.

You are correct in the first sentence, we cannot assume the location has changed. But, we also cannot assume it has not changed. There is nothing in that sentence to distinguish between either option. You then do make the assumption that there must be some "default" assumption, but there is no requirement for that. Nothing in the paragraph indicates one should interpret it one way or the other. It is only you who seems to argue it must mean only one thing, and you conveniently choose the only one thing that fits your argument. That is called bias.

 

[BicycleTree]

No, it's a general rule that in the absence of any reason to suppose change, no change should be supposed. If I say I go for a walk, would you be inclined to express doubt over whether or not I changed my shoes? You would normally take it for granted that I kept the same shoes, unless I had earlier mentioned a predilection to wearing different shoes while walking.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby, you're making vague claims.

I'm not making any claims. I am informing you of an observation I have made about your modus operandi.

 

[BicycleTree]

Call them "observations" if you like, but you're still making vague claims.

 

[BicycleTree]

Also, if you look at the history of the article on Wikipedia, the earlier versions of the sentence can be seen clearly not to be compatible with interpretations other than mine.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Call them "observations" if you like, but you're still making vague claims.

I'm sorry. I observed what I observed. There was nothing vague about it.

 

[Evo]

Also, if you look at the history of the article on Wikipedia, the earlier versions of the sentence can be seen clearly not to be compatible with interpretations other than mine.

Doesn't matter, we're going by what is currently posted. Obviously the wording was changed because the writer no longer felt the old version applied, so he changed it to correct the meaning.

 

[Danger]

I am subjecting myself to permanent banishment from PF, and to my friends here I apologize, but I just can't keep this in any longer...

BT - Get over yourself, give credence to those who are more knowledgeable than you, admit when you're wrong, and for Crissakes try to learn how to communicate with people in a civil manner.

 

[BicycleTree]

I'm sorry. I observed what I observed. There was nothing vague about it.

Yes, there was; as I explained, you did not state what exactly was the point you claim chroot was making.

Danger, nobody on these boards is significantly more qualified to interpret English than I am. (assuming we have no professional grammarians in the house)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, there was; as I explained, you did not state what exactly was the point you claim chroot was making.

I did not claim to be stating what point Chroot was making. My only claim was that I accurately stated my observation about your modus operandi.

 

[BicycleTree]

I suppose the best resolution of the sentence is this:

The interpretation I have of it is clearly the correct one, and the one the authors intended. Why I say this depends on a few issues that I have explained based on my reading experience, and experience-determined mental weights to those issues, but is crystal clear to me that there was only one intended interpretation for that sentence. As the history of the sentence implies, the sentence was originally designed to mean what I say it was, and was reworded slightly by future authors while retaining the same meaning (except for "most--many"). However, the view that the sentence was ambiguous is possible if you ignore these issues, which are predicated and weighted only on empirical reading experience rather than on fixed rules stated in a book anywhere. So it is not a good example of flawed interpretation; I apologize, Evo, for insulting you.

 

[Evo]

I suppose the best resolution of the sentence is this:

The interpretation I have of it is clearly the correct one, and the one the authors intended. Why I say this depends on a few issues that I have explained based on my reading experience, and experience-determined mental weights to those issues, but is crystal clear to me that there was only one intended interpretation for that sentence. As the history of the sentence implies, the sentence was originally designed to mean what I say it was, and was reworded slightly by future authors while retaining the same meaning. However, the view that the sentence was ambiguous are possible if you ignore these issues, which are predicated and weighted only on empirical reading experience rather than on fixed rules stated in a book anywhere. So it is not a good example of flawed interpretation; I apologize, Evo, for insulting you.

Apology accepted, but it was decided that your interpretation was incorrect awhile back, and the fact that the author even previously deleted your interpretation in order to correct the meaning confirms it.

 

[BicycleTree]

Actually, no such thing "was decided." I am not going to retract my apology, but know where you stand. Also, the very recent "correction of meaning" was obviously done by one of PF's own, perhaps even you.

 

[BicycleTree]

Another good point: the way the phrase "commuting to work" is used in the sentence, it appears in a natural pairing with "live in the suburbs." If you are commuting to work elsewhere in the suburbs, that relationship would not be present because you would have been commuting anyway if you lived in the city. The sentence is equivalent to "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, thus commuting to work."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Danger, nobody on these boards is significantly more qualified to interpret English than I am. (assuming we have no professional grammarians in the house)

This is pompous.

 

[BicycleTree]

Pompous, perhaps, yet true.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Pompous, perhaps, yet true.

You are truly pompous, yes.