Re: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
>Some would say words are defined by the dictionary ;) And their usage >is defined by their definition and the communicator's intent, > > >But "usage" requires comprehension by the listener. A dictionary >definition, and a communicator whose face is red with righteous wrath >isn't enough. Thus... I would disagree. Usage seems to only require someone with intent to use a word as they see it defined. A receiver is another step in the equation who is responsible for interpretation. Although, certainly comprehension is essential for truly effective communication, but that wasn't what we were discussing, or we were discussing different things. >If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car >and more red Toyota Camrys are sold than any other color, that does not >mean that a >car is only defined as a red Toyota Camry or that all Toyota Camrys are >red. > > >... if the overwhelming number of Camrys are red, then the prototypical >Camry becomes red, and when people hear the word they will imagine that >particular type of red car, and a person can say "the color of a Camry" >and listeners will understand -- even though a few blue Camrys exist! Perhaps, but we aren't discussing imagined or popular cars. Just because someone has a specific image in their head when they hear a word doesn't mean there is no actual definition for that word, nor does it mean that the person doesn't understand that. For instance, if you say, "I Love my mother." The word "mother" may trigger me to think of my mom. But I would not think you meant her. Nor would I assume your mother and my mother looked alike or sounded alike or dressed alike, etc. So, regardless of common or popular examples stuck in our heads, there are distinct definitions of both car and mother that preclude them from being mistaken for each other, for instance. Yet there is still no definition of blog that would preclude it from being mistaken as just another word for website. > >If I rip the rear view mirror off a car, it's still a car. But how > >many parts can I remove until it ceases to be a car? > >One: the engine ;) > > >So, if I bring someone to an apparently intact car, open the hood, and >reveal the engine lacking, I should expect most people to turn to me >and say "That is not a car"? Are you willing to stand by that as a >prediction of the behavior of English speakers, or do you want to >re-think this? It is the body of a car. Give them a choice: is this a car or is this the body of a car? >but let's get >back on point: what is unique and exclusive to a blog that makes it by >definition different than a website? > > >I won't discuss blogs until I prove to you that the conceptual >fuzzyness of "blog" is equivalent to that of "car" or "mother", That puts us at a bit of a stalemate. I cannot agree that "blog" is as fuzzy as "car" or "mother" because it is not as sharp. In other words, as I stated before: There is a definition of "car" and there is a definition of "mother." Both are defined in terms that are specific, unique, and universal to what they describe. You have not offered up the same for "blog." It sounds like you want to get to a point where "If I strip this away is it still a blog?" and I can play that game, but only if I know where we are starting from. Give me a definition of "blog" that is specific to blogs, unique to blogs, and universal to blogs first, so that we are both starting from the same point. >and not >at all resembling the nonsensical pseudo-statements involved in >theology, as you have so callously implied. I went back and re-read the following (which I am fairly sure is what you are referring to): "Which, I suppose, sort of puts us back to the beginning. So, "blog" is either indefinable because it is: 1) Infinite and awesome and our tiny human brains and our petty language cannot begin to describe it. Like God, some might say. 2) Non-existent. Like God, some might say. So therefore, either way blog=God. Perhaps we should end this here and go worship our possibly non-existent master. :)" I can definitely see how that might be taken in a way it was not intended. I apologize if I offended you or anyone else. For what it is worth, the last statement is meant to refer to worshipping (as in paying more attention, which I have not done since this discussion started) blogs, not God. I am about eight hours behind on my sleep and that number keeps growing. I should have re-read my email before posting it when I was tired. I'm on a crappy schedule that means I should be going to bed at 8pm, which isn't happening. Excuses/reasons aside, I am truly sorry for my poor choice of wording. It was a lame, sleep-deprived attempt at syllogistic humor. It was stupid of me. >We can go no further until you agree that, even though we all know what >a "car" is, and we all agree that a heap of parts is not a car, we >cannot agree upon a specific point at which the carness vanishes and >the it
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
some crazy guys wrote: > > We can go no further +1 How about "agree to disagree" perhaps? Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
David Yirchott wrote: >Words are defined by their usage. Usage is determined by observation >of human beings; it is inescapably statistical. Some would say words are defined by the dictionary ;) And their usage is defined by their definition and the communicator's intent, But "usage" requires comprehension by the listener. A dictionary definition, and a communicator whose face is red with righteous wrath isn't enough. Thus... If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car and more red Toyota Camrys are sold than any other color, that does not mean that a car is only defined as a red Toyota Camry or that all Toyota Camrys are red. ... if the overwhelming number of Camrys are red, then the prototypical Camry becomes red, and when people hear the word they will imagine that particular type of red car, and a person can say "the color of a Camry" and listeners will understand -- even though a few blue Camrys exist! >If I rip the rear view mirror off a car, it's still a car. But how >many parts can I remove until it ceases to be a car? One: the engine ;) So, if I bring someone to an apparently intact car, open the hood, and reveal the engine lacking, I should expect most people to turn to me and say "That is not a car"? Are you willing to stand by that as a prediction of the behavior of English speakers, or do you want to re-think this? but let's get back on point: what is unique and exclusive to a blog that makes it by definition different than a website? I won't discuss blogs until I prove to you that the conceptual fuzzyness of "blog" is equivalent to that of "car" or "mother", and not at all resembling the nonsensical pseudo-statements involved in theology, as you have so callously implied. We can go no further until you agree that, even though we all know what a "car" is, and we all agree that a heap of parts is not a car, we cannot agree upon a specific point at which the carness vanishes and the item becomes a bunch of parts. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
> > Charles, > > I was rather hoping you'd respond to: > > >I'll come back to the specific case of "blog" after I've proven that >most definitions are fuzzy and prototypical. Isn't that what this discussion is really about? The definition -- or lack thereof -- of a blog. Why wait? If we are in agreement that there is no definition of blog, how can there be requirements to be a blog? As I said in a previous post: "I do find it interesting that at the same time you claim there can not be a definition, you are adamant that it has to have RSS and trackbacks." > > This isn't about majority. This is about definition. > >Words are defined by their usage. Usage is determined by observation >of human beings; it is inescapably statistical. Some would say words are defined by the dictionary ;) And their usage is defined by their definition and the communicator's intent, but let's get back on point: what is unique and exclusive to a blog that makes it by definition different than a website? > > The exception disproves > > the rule. If any blogs do not have RSS, then "blog" by definition >cannot [snip] > > It is like saying that the Toyota Camry is the most prevalent > > car, therefore a "car" by definition is required to be a Toyota >Camry. Again, statistical superiority does not equal a requirement for definition. In fact, any factor that varies cannot be part of a set definition (unless the part is saying that the variable exists), unless you are defining a more specific item: If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car and more red Toyota Camrys are sold than any other color, that does not mean that a car is only defined as a red Toyota Camry or that all Toyota Camrys are red. >If I rip the rear view mirror off a car, it's still a car. But how >many parts can I remove until it ceases to be a car? One: the engine ;) What is being lost here is that definitions are not as fuzzy as you would like us to believe. Definitions -- by definition -- define something in specific terms. What is a car? We could define it as a vehicle with a metal frame, wheels, and a steering mechanism. But that could also describe a bicycle, so it isn't a useful definition. We need something that specifically describes a car so that we can differentiate it from a Radio Flyer wagon, or a van, or a tank. And that is what I haven't yet seen: a definition of blog. What is unique about it that makes it a blog? If there isn't anything definitive, then perhaps it is just another name for website. >Is there a >well-defined threshold? If it were well-defined, wouldn't all people >who know "what" a car is have to agree on it? > >Rather, as you remove pieces, it gradually becomes less and less of a >car. There is no precise threshold, and there are states at which >reasonable people would disagree. Same with Techno, and adolescent >dogs, and websites with some blog-like features. That's great, but you're talking deconstruction from a point you haven't yet constructed. I still haven't heard a minimum level or maximum level definition from you that isn't leaving out what are widely considered blogs or including what is widely believed to not be blogs. As I said in a previous post: "If you have a list of characteristics, shouldn't you end up with a clearcut answer? If you cannot, then I would suggest that the list isn't good enough. Or there is no differentiation to be found." -David SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
