Re: Results in Parallel columns

From: Marshall <>
Date: 16 Jun 2006 07:53:49 -0700
Message-ID: <>

x wrote:
> "Marshall" <> wrote in message
> > I'm not sure if this is humor in the form of a pun,
> > a misunderstanding, or what, but I want to make
> > sure I get the point across: I have no complaint
> > about your manners.
> >Instead, it is your diction,
> > your idiom, your writing style, your phrasing,
> > that I have trouble with.
> Well, that might come from the fact that I've not studied English, my native
> tongue is Novelian, I have been outside Novelia only one time for about 2
> weeks, and I don't spend hours to carefuly translate each phrase I write.

This "Novelia" is a made-up name for a real place, yes? A place-name pseudonym the same way "x" is a person-name pseudonym.

> You might have noticed I mostly use Latin loaned words and I don't use a
> spell checker.

I've noticed you're not a native speaker of English,but I haven't seen that you've any particular difficulty getting your ideas across. Whether those ideas make sense is another matter ... :-)

> I also have some trouble sometimes understanding some of your (pl.)
> allusions.

Ah, well, I am guilty of that, certainly. My alusions tend to be either of 19th century events or literature, or else 21st century late night cartoons. (Two of my interests outside of data management.) Not a good way to make onesself understood internationally, I suppose.

> Someone asked how he can check if two databases are syncronized after
> syncronization or something like that.
> I said the databases will be syncronized.(explanation: No need to check. If
> they weren't, that was not syncronization.)
> Is that cryptic ? Opaque ? Obvious ?

All of those, in order. At first it is cryptic, because without explanation
it seems obviously false. Then if one decides to try to find a meaning, in becomes opaque, or "hard to understand." Then when one stumbles upon what you meant, it is obvious.

> Someone complained that I'm not subtle (or something like that), that I'm
> obvious, that I'm dull or veiled. You say I'm opaque and fine.

So clearly there is some semantic issue; there is only disagreement as to what specifically it is.

> [...]
> 4. hard to understand; not clear or lucid.
> [...]

> See how difficult it is ?

I recognize there are challenges and ambiguities in natural language, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Marshall Received on Fri Jun 16 2006 - 16:53:49 CEST

Original text of this message