HOME | DD

GatesMcCloud In reply to fotland42 [2015-04-08 13:30:25 +0000 UTC]

"What, does that mean . . . ?" Only works if there is an exaggerated pause. There isn't. And you don't space out the periods.

"What, does that mean—" Only works if she is being interrupted. She isn't.


This exchange references something you (the viewer) don't know about. And it isn't something I can talk about, because I want it to stay that way.



Aj is doing exactly what Aj wants to do. How can one know the machinations of a liar?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fotland42 In reply to GatesMcCloud [2015-04-10 07:14:52 +0000 UTC]

"What, does that mean?" is ungrammatical and nonsensical. "Does that mean?" is not a sentence. "Mean" is a transitive verb. If there is no object either stated or implied, the whole sentence is completely meaningless. If you're not giving it an object, either Rarity is leaving the end of the sentence implicit (in which case the sentence should end in an ellipsis, denoting omitted material), Rarity is being interrupted (in which case the sentence should end in a dash), or Rarity is completely unable to construct a comprehensible sentence despite being a native speaker and surely having gone through speech classes to have learned her Mid-Atlantic accent. (Well, I suppose the violation of grammar could be some sort of bizarre rebellion brought on by chaos, which she abandoned as soon as she heard herself.)

Strictly speaking, an ellipsis should be typeset with a moderate amount of space between each dot; I think the official standard is half of a space, though I can't find a reference at the moment so it might just as easily be something like two-thirds of a space, for example. But assuming you do not have a half-space key on your keyboard, and do not care to find the Unicode character "…" (which looks absolutely awful in the font I'm using, FYI) or are restricted to pure ASCII, it is acceptable to type an ellipsis as either ". . ." or "...". Well, either is acceptable in most settings, anyway; if there's a style guide you're supposed to follow, it will generally dictate that you must space ellipses one way or the other (and of course even in less formal writing you should be consistent).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GatesMcCloud In reply to fotland42 [2015-04-11 15:30:10 +0000 UTC]

"Mean" is used in its infinitive form in this instance.

Consequently:

• In your question, DO-support is invoked to provide an invertible finite auxiliary, does. It must be followed (after the subject) by the infinitive form of the lexical verb MEAN:

  What does it mean?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fotland42 In reply to GatesMcCloud [2015-04-14 03:32:36 +0000 UTC]

The explanation you cite is irrelevant to the discussion at hand; it is an explanation for why "mean" is not conjugated in that question, which was never in dispute. Presumably every one of your sources that you didn't cite was a confirmation that (as every native speaker should hopefully know) "What does that mean?" is correct, which has very little bearing on the correctness of "What, does that mean?" (or "What does, that mean?" "What does that, mean?" or "What: does—that; mean!").

Whatever form we find "mean" in, with an auxiliary verb or without, conjugated or not, it is transitive and needs an object. (Well, there is one intransitive meaning I forgot, but I doubt you meant for Rarity to say "What, does that have intentions?" seeing as a) everybody knows that declarations of revenge are abstract inanimate objects and can't have intentions, and b) that definition of "mean" is essentially extinct outside of idiomatic constructions such as "to mean well.") Since the comma breaks off "what" as an interjection in "What, does that mean?" there is nothing present to serve as an object for "mean," leaving us with a sentence that is either highly implausible or incomplete.

The issue is more blatant if we cut out the interjection, leaving only the problematic independent clause: "Does that mean?" No it does not mean, because vibrations in the air lack agency, not to mention nearly every conceivable prerequisite thereof. An independent clause should be a complete sentence on its own, and by any definition of "mean" that one might reasonably expect here, "Does that mean?" fails that test.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GatesMcCloud In reply to fotland42 [2015-04-14 06:15:24 +0000 UTC]

The source I listed was, at the time, the only thing I could find that could shed light on why I was getting correct passes on several online checkers. That is not the case now. Nice that you point out the correct form and then dismiss it.

       intransitive verb

       :  to have an intended purpose   -Merriam-Webster

Which if you follow the conversation, is implied. I like how you somewhat suggest that it could be that version, but then do not get the definition right. Declarations (of revenge) are not inanimate objects, that's silly, they are statements that contain words that have various meanings. Meanings and intentions that can be questioned.

I stated that several online grammar checkers confirmed that the line was grammatically correct, only two gave an alteration that I agreed with already. You stated that the line was "ungrammatical", which is false. Also, you misread and assumed poorly. I checked, as I stated before, "What, does that mean?". Not "What does that mean?".

Every single online checker I used said it was correct, with two giving me alternatives, as I've stated before. If you aren't going to read what I said correctly, why should I bother considering what you say even remotely valid? I already didn't before, as I have sources that conflict with you. I more so don't now, since you didn't read what I wrote. Furthermore, you assumed what I wrote. Why does that feel familiar to me...?

I've established that an object is not require for this moment of dialogue. I've established that the line is grammatically correct, which is backed up by several online sites. The only reason why it doesn't sit well with you, based on your explanations, is that you've chosen to ignore what it could possibly be, based on your own opinion and not factual evidence. And if this is a contest of opinions, the house always wins.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

fotland42 In reply to GatesMcCloud [2015-04-14 07:38:35 +0000 UTC]

Honestly, I think you're just covering your ass now. I'm pretty sure Rarity does not want to question whether there was a meaning or intention. If she's suffered brain damage that would cause the answer to not be readily apparent to her, it's hard to imagine that it would not have had any other apparent effects yet. Maybe she would like to ask about the content of the meaning, but sadly she cannot, as she'd need an adverb to even start on such a path of questioning, and even that wouldn't get her very far before she'd require an object.

To be quite frank, why should I take anything you say seriously if you consider an automatic grammar checker to be an authoritative source? It apparently comes as a surprise to you, but computers are not very good at checking grammar. It's a rather difficult problem; you can't reliably tell if a sentence was constructed correctly without considering the context, and generalized natural language processing is far from a solved problem. I suspect those checkers saw "interjection, verb (aux) pronoun verb (trans/intrans)" and were quite unaware that the intransitive meaning is basically defunct, and never even had a chance to consider the context in which the strained meaning becomes even more strained.
And why should I believe anything you say when you cite your sources by simply asserting that you've totally got sources? (There's a cool invention that I hope you might find interesting.) You quoted one source, which proved something I wouldn't dream of disputing about "What does that mean?" I'd be making unfounded assumptions if I guessed that you had chosen out of your many sources the singular one that was least suited to prove your point. (And before you ask, I have faith in you that you can look up the definitions of individual words, and anyway I never actually claimed to have sources. Shame on you if you assumed I was implying that!)

So just to reiterate, since you apparently had trouble reading my previous comments, your previous post was mostly taken up by a piece of completely irrelevant evidence, as I briefly explained in my response, and mixed in there was a little bit of evidence (the appeal to grammar checker) that I didn't bother responding to because I didn't believe you honestly thought that was remotely reliable. Before that, you presented an assertion about the meanings of dashes and ellipses, which I didn't directly counter because that would have been superfluous; you got the meaning of dashes correct, and I was going to indirectly counter your point about ellipses in my enumeration of ways Rarity could be leaving the sentence incomplete whether or not I also explicitly and directly responded to it.

Oh, and just to point out, if you deliberately use an obscure definition of a word and somebody says you're wrong, maybe you should try defining the word? If you wait for somebody else to bring up the definition and only then latch onto it, people might suspect there's a reason you couldn't seem to think of that definition until somebody pointed it out to you. It's almost like you didn't know that definition until somebody was kind enough to concede it as a weak counterargument, causing you to latch onto it and hope it could save your rapidly eroding footing.

And closing with "I've already proven my point" comes off as very juvenile. I didn't realize that I didn't actually have any counterarguments, and have rather been typing random words this whole exchange, but given that that's the case I can't imagine what you're even responding to.

Oh, and:
"Declarations (of revenge) are not inanimate objects, that's silly"
Don't you dare try to derail our argument about grammar into a different argument about semantics. That is a line you just do not cross.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GatesMcCloud In reply to fotland42 [2015-04-14 17:20:42 +0000 UTC]

You're pretty sure of the intent and meaning of a conversation between two characters that you had no part in creating? You're pretty sure you know the conversational patterns of two characters that you had no part in creating? You're pretty sure you know the internal motives of two characters that you had no part in creating? You're pretty sure you know the plot to a story you had no part in creating? I don't know how you would know this, the only one who would know this would be me. That isn't something gleaned from just 2 panels of text. So that means you don't know. Yet you assume you do. You've attempted to explain the why's and what's of your entire case, but it was built upon a flawed notion. One that you've chosen to ignore. Now you've given me a wall of text, like before, that means nothing. I made the point about ignoring what I said and why I should consider what you say valid, because this isn't the first time you've done this and you're attempting to persuade me.

The talk of what is grammatically correct is over. Nice that you dismiss tools used to examine term papers. Because we all know those don't need to be accurate. Yes I would agree with you partly, I don't truly trust them. When I used several of them, of different popularity and quality, and they all spat out the same response, then I started to believe them somewhat. When I had an automated grammar checker give me a suggestion based on the context of the line alone, I trusted it even more. Especially when it was a suggestion that I was considering already! They are not subjective, they do not ignore. You have. This may come as a shock to you, but linguistic recognition software has come a long way.
Also, you fault them for not considering context. Define context. Context of the sentence? They did, one even giving a suggestion based on that alone. Context of the conversation? You ridiculed the line by itself. Never the entire conversation. Because Discord and Rarity are having a conversion amongst themselves. They are speaking to one another as most people who have two way conversations would. There is information that is intentionally referenced that was not referenced before to the viewer, and is hinted at in their conversation via Rarity's line. It is intentionally made to make you (the viewer) ask questions. Failure to understand that context is not a grammatical error. The error is one of interpretation. Instead asking questions about what Rarity could be referencing, you interpreted as a grammatical error. Which was wrong. Instead of asking me what she could mean, you instead gave corrections and alternatives. And here we are.

And nice that you continue to belittle the use of "mean" in this instance. It's so defunct that it is near the top of the page of Merriam Webster. And no, I don't have to define anything when someone says I am wrong. The onus is on the one making the claim. It is on you to know the words, not I. Also, to make the claim that I'm "latching on" to a definition is laughable. Kinda hard to do that when it is implied in the comic. That would mean I could see the future. I wasn't looking for the definition, I was looking for evidence to support what I had already done in the comic. I didn't need the definition, I needed the form of "mean" to satisfy your point, since you kept insisting that "mean" was transitive verb. The definition part was merely an exact counterpoint to one you made.  I am a native speaker, the majority of the words I know I do not know the definitions to, but I know how to use them. I know what doesn't look right and I know what works. This entire time I've had to look up terminology I normally never have to use. This is why you don't see me use certain terms, simply because I haven't touched on this stuff since elementary school. I knew "mean" could be used in the way I that I used it. I only had to define and explain it after someone questioned it. I only presented evidence merely to support what I had already done. Funny you say that my footing is rapidly eroding. I met your factual points and proven them wrong. You were incorrect in your assumption. And somehow my footing is eroding...

When has proving a point ever stopped someone else from trying to counter it? Hmm? Never? Right. Also, where did I close with, "I've already proven my point"?

"I've established that an object is not require for this moment of dialogue. I've established that the line is grammatically correct, which is backed up by several online sites. The only reason why it doesn't sit well with you, based on your explanations, is that you've chosen to ignore what it could possibly be, based on your own opinion and not factual evidence. And if this is a contest of opinions, the house always wins."


That? Did you consider that to be what you quoted? In a way it is, but it isn't. It is a statement of facts. An explanation of intent and reason. I met your major points and countered them. That is a fact. You said "mean" requires an object. It doesn't. You said the line was "ungrammatical". That isn't true. The rest of your argument is opinion based. I'm not going to argue opinions as mine is the only one that matters in this instances. If you felt that it was me stating that I've already proven my point, that is entirely on you. Whether it is juvenile or not is subjective, and a weak jab. Especially when you quoted something I didn't say. That's grasping at straws.

 Attempting to belittle the use of "mean" by claiming it is defunct or obscure, comes off as a defensive mechanism attempting to soften the blow or deflect it entirely. Its obscurity doesn't make it any less right. How much of your argument was based on "mean" requiring an object due to its transitive nature? Most of it? So it not being that debunks most of what you said. The line being "ungrammatical" also was a point made. Which I've found sources that undermine that, which you are freely able to use. A simple google search of "online grammar check" should give you the same listing I used. Gingersoftware and Reverso were the ones that gave me the alternative I agreed with. The only things left in your argument is purely opinion based ideas. And I am not arguing opinions. Infact, I don't know why you bother typing your last response. You undermined your entire point, yet you continued with it. You didn't bother to stop and just drop it. You had to have know the majority of your claim was made null and void when you suggested it. You just kept assuming. Though I would of found what I need either way. Whether you believe it or not, I found what I needed for "mean" when I was writing the response for your first paragraph.


Oh and about the semantics part. You brought that up by stating, "everybody knows that declarations of revenge are abstract inanimate objects and can't have intentions". 1. No, everyone does not know that. 2. That is your definition and purely your own. 3. By stating it, you brought up the topic. Saying that I brought it up is an arrogant assumption that your definition is not only correct, but is the only correct definition. It isn't! By your own confession! You claimed it would be an argument of semantics! Semantics never have one right answer. And this is certainly not a matter of grammar. Stop assuming. Have I not told you this before in our prior engagements? You've went from assuming what characters meant, to assuming what I said and I caught you on it. The more we talk, the more your assumptions seem to grow in scope. This one being the final straw. You have the gall to claim that I attempted to derail something when I responded to what you said! You arrogantly think that your statement is free of rebuttal, and that it can not and should not be called out! No, sir. You are not above review. If you didn't want to talk about 'semantics', which this isn't, then you should have never posted what you said to begin with. That is a nonsubjective juvenile act. Don't want to talk about, don't bring it up. I only respond to the things you say.

And assuming what I say is akin to making things up. Combining that with attempting to explain further after I've debunked your main points is attempting to cover your ass. As far as I'm concern this matter is done with factually. And I've stated my opinion on arguing opinions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

blacknight71 In reply to CindersDesigns [2015-04-08 01:50:04 +0000 UTC]

DARN IT! I was going to say that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FrostKuji In reply to CindersDesigns [2015-04-08 01:36:07 +0000 UTC]

Discord is acting like Megatron for keeping her around even while she keeps trying to take over. Discord is a little smarter not to make the backstabber your SECOND IN COMMAND! Later Transformers show have fix or better yet change the story where Starscream is working for no one to take over by himself.  ( He fails a lot more and faster. lol)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0