Re: "claim", etc. (was Re: C Standard Regarding Null Pointer Dereferencing)



In article <57bf02b5-471b-460e-938a-d5db62e73eaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Shao Miller <sha0.miller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 2, 8:07 pm, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <14700fda-3ca2-4d27-a151-72607d3dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Shao Miller <sha0.mil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 31, 4:13 pm, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[ snip ]

I agree. I believe that people associating a claim of a claim with a
dispute for the latter claim will find their doubt-casting.

I don't understand what you mean by that sentence, but maybe it's
not very important.

If I say "So-and-so claims such-and-such," that very statement is a
claim just as much as so-and-so's claim of such-and-such.

Oh. Sounds a bit recursive ....

If one perceives a negative connotation, I find it likely that it is
due to their conditioning; sometimes cultural, sometimes personal.
Experiences cause conditioning. A connotation isn't explicit, so
where does it come from?: A conditioned voice in the reader's head.
It says (very quickly), "I recognize that word in this context. It
implies that there is doubt about the truth of what so-and-so stated."

I'd rather not drop the plain English "claims to have" from my typing
because some people associate such with doubt-casting, but I have
enough respect for others to do so. :)

Well, whatever. To me it still sounds like you somehow think
that only the, hm, "denotative meanings" [*] of words count, as
opposed to their "connotative meanings", and that seems strange
to me, and if you do think that I don't agree, but I don't think
anything good will come of further discussion here.

[*] Terms that I, um, invented. No idea whether a linguist would
recognize them as valid, but maybe my meaning is clear enough.

I'm mildly curious about whether there are others for whom "claims
to be" has no negative connotations. That might be a question for
alt.usage.english, another group I sort of follow, hm, ....

"...who are you calling..." is another example of a perceived
attack. :S

Meaning "an example of perceiving an attack where none was meant"?

No, I didn't mean that. You are correct; none was meant. But the
intention is not accessible to you, it belongs to the author and only
the author knows the truth of their intent. A point that might or
might not be worth taking away is that if we have some overlap in our
frames of reference, we can hopefully communicate more effectively.
"We are typing to one another" != "Someone is calling someone else
wordy or a liar." :) My impression from your posts is that you agree.

Well, I do agree that no one but the writer can really claim to
know exactly what he or she meant. I also agree that more overlap
in frames of reference improves the odds of clear communication,
and that it's good when people can recognize the limitations of
a text-only medium and try to avoid misunderstandings.

Sometimes we even learn from each other, such that the frames of
reference overlap more. Maybe that has happened a bit here.

Of course, sometimes when people are typing at each other, one
of them *IS* calling the other one wordy or a liar. But maybe
a level-headed person tries to keep in mind that words can have
different interpretations ....

One thing that can help a great deal is to recognize situations
in which replying to a post right away is *not* a good idea, and
set it aside for later. But the temptation to reply in anger is
sometimes strong, and I suppose depending on tools it might be
difficult to set something aside for later. My two cents' worth!

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
.