----- Original Message ----- From: David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Hoyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [Cooker] menudrake, crossover and kde3
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Hoyt wrote: > > > > There is no 'second' the implied second is "First wait, before > > > complaining". > > > I try and cut struggling non-native English speakers some slack, but > > Frédéric seems to have a pretty good command of the language. I haven't read > > enough of yours to form an opinion. > > Are you saying that his use of the word "First" implies bad command of the > language? I am trying to explain to you that when someone says "First" > they don't mean there is a second. You say that this is a joke, but it's > such a common occurence in english and french that I am surprised that you > didn't get it. > I assume from your use of grammar and punctuation here that English is not your native language. That's fine with me. You won't catch me writing in French at all even though I might possibly mumble my way through a limited conversation and likely offend every native French speaker within earshot. 8) Frédéric's use of "first" was as you would use it in a list: First, ... Second, ... Third, .. . . . and so on. When one omits the comma (as you did -- see above), it changes the meaning to imply that the step that follow sw is so important, it stands on its own. For example, First you disconnect the electricy before attempting to assist the person being eletrocuted. (If you fail to follow that first step, there will be no other steps since you will be dead.) The former example is how Frédéric used it; the latter how you used it. Eliminating the comma changes the context and meaning regardless of your statements below. > > original questioner wants to be prepared in his knowledge of the menu system > > so that he could investigate possible solutions while Mandrake was > > finalizing KDE3 menus. What if the problem actually turned out to be a bug > > Now what are you talking about? I think you both misunderstood the > question (or maybe I still do), but we are well aware of how the menu > script overwrites any pre-existing menus. I'm not aware of how it works because I haven't had reason to examine that aspect. I don't think the original poster did either; that's why he was asking. Since I have stated that "I" did not know, your assumption that ". . . we are well aware . . ." is as false as it is condescending. Perhaps I am not included in "we". I'm not clear about that from your comments since I don't appear to have been included in "you" at some point, as follows: > > > > I do have a complaint, though, now that you've prompted me, Dave. People on > > this list have become too sensitive to criticism of any kind. Read and > > respond politely to the constructive criticism; ignore the rest. That would > > eliminate a lot of the noise and aggravation. Let's get back to work. > > I think you are the only one being sensitive. I didn't complain about you > complaing. I believe the sentance stood alone. Let's look at it since you cut it from your post: > The second is the complaining you are doing. > In the context, "you" implied me, personally, but now I realize that your grammar skills aren't adequate for me to assume _anything_ about what you write; "you" could have meant Mandrake, or the mail list readers or 'yo momma. That's an excellent example of the miscommunication that occurs here. > I will complain (if you wish) about quoting a whole message > just to say "And second?". It wasn't a joke -- you were serious. Didn't I trim the post? I believe I followed the conventions regarding context. If not, I apologize. But gosh, Dave, then why did Frédéric appear to "get it"? Maybe he didn't and simple reponded in a polite way. Who really knows? He engineered a quick end to the conversation between he and I and that's all that was necessary. If I offended him, that was not my intent and I apologize if he read my post that way. > So, > again, I'll say it for all non-native English speakers or people who don't > get it. > > It's normal to answer questions with "First" even if there's no second. > The second is implied as "stop asking", "just wait", or "that's silly" -- > whichever you wish. > > Example: > > Question: "Cookers, it hurts when I bang my head on the wall." > Answer: "First, stop doing it." > > The "First" here is usually used when the question is rather obvious, so > for non-english speakers, I could see where the confusion is. The "First" > here actually means that there isn't a second. I don't know why you're > confused if you have spoken english all of your life, though. But even the > French speakers and others "get" why you might use "First" to begin that > sentence. So, all I meant to say was that it should have been as obvious > to you as that there wasn't a second, as much as there wasn't a first. > David, that kind of convoluted reasoning would get you a failing grade in any English grammar classroom. To understand why, look at my comments above. _________________ Cookers, this dialogue illustrates a communication problem that rears its ugly head on occasion. That's the only valid reason for me continuing to post to this list on this topic. As difficlut as it is to convey meaning in a secondary language, it all goes to Hell when one becomes upset -- that happens all too frequently of late. David, if you want to debate the finer points of English grammar, let's take it off the list. Nobody gives a damn about this here except you. Hoyt
