On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 09:56:42 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
<jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Calling someone a moron, a retard, etc., is offensive though we don't have
>conscious control over it.

Or "coward", but no one with the mental maturity to be interested in
a.u.e. would use such terms.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

* Dingbat:

> On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 7:51:47 AM UTC-8, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Dingbat:
>>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:
>>>>
>>>> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]
>>>>
>>>> Scientists find oldest ever
>>>> confirmed human fossils are
>>>> even older than previously
>>>> thought
>>>>
>>>> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils", "find" really
>>>> wants to have another meaning.
>>>>
>>>> <https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-find-oldest-ever-confirmed-human-fossils-are-even-older-than-previously-thought-12514360>
>>>>
>>> Even in the world of fossils, it's a fossil!
>>>
>>> A spectacularly old fossil seems a rare find.
>>> What is the other meaning you think "find" should have?
>> Those fossils were *dug up* 50 years ago. They were now *determined* to
>> be not less than 200,000, but over 230,000 years old.
>>
>> Hint: "human", not "humanoid".
>> --
> Yes, that age would make them Homo. Were they Sapiens too?

Yes, that's what it's about. Oldest homo sapiens fossils.

--
Please stop treating gender as though it were a set menu.
Gender is an a la carte arrangement.
-- S. Bear Bergman, The Field Guide to Transmasculine Creatures

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 09:24:19 -0800 (PST)
bruce bowser <bruce2bowser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 10:51:47 AM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> > * Dingbat:
> > > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, Quinn C wrote:
> > >> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:
> > >>
> > >> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]
> > >>
> > >> Scientists find oldest ever
> > >> confirmed human fossils are
> > >> even older than previously
> > >> thought
> > >>
> > >> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils", "find" really
> > >> wants to have another meaning.
> > >>
> > >> <https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-find-oldest-ever-confirmed-human-fossils-are-even-older-than-previously-thought-12514360>
> > >>
> > > Even in the world of fossils, it's a fossil!
> > >
> > > A spectacularly old fossil seems a rare find.
> > > What is the other meaning you think "find" should have?
> > Those fossils were *dug up* 50 years ago. They were now *determined* to
> > be not less than 200,000, but over 230,000 years old.
> >
> > Hint: "human", not "humanoid".
>
> On Earth, the oldest humanoid might be 16.6 million year old Ramapithecus "fossil primate dating from the Middle and Late Miocene epochs (about 16.6 million to 5.3 million years ago)".
> -- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ramapithecus
>
> Yet, Xenon 129 (129Xe) atoms (only produced by air burst thermo nuclear weapon discharge?) are found on Mars all dating back 300 million years.
>
> -- https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2016-5529

https://www.ancient-code.com/scientist-concludes-there-is-evidence-of-ancient-nuclear-weapons-on-mars/

Says Bronze Age
Hmmm. (Raises 1 eyebrow)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, Quinn C wrote:
> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:
>
> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]
>
> Scientists find oldest ever
> confirmed human fossils are
> even older than previously
> thought
>
> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils", "find" really
> wants to have another meaning.
>
> <https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-find-oldest-ever-confirmed-human-fossils-are-even-older-than-previously-thought-12514360>
> --
> ... while there are people who are consecrated, chronic
> assholes--like Donald Trump for example, or General Patton--
> it's a condition that all of us are liable to.
> -- Geoffrey Nunberg, 2012 interview

I just got another link:
<https://www.inverse.com/science/inverse-daily-011422>

On 1/15/2022 12:35 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> Quinn C wrote:
>> * Dingbat:
>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:

>>>> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]

>>>> Scientists find oldest ever confirmed human fossils are even
>>>> older than previously thought

>>>> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils",
>>>> "find" really wants to have another meaning.

>>>> <https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-find-oldest-ever-confirmed-human-fossils-are-even-older-than-previously-thought-12514360>

>>>
>>>>
Even in the world of fossils, it's a fossil!

>>> A spectacularly old fossil seems a rare find. What is the other
>>> meaning you think "find" should have?
>> Those fossils were *dug up* 50 years ago. They were now
>> *determined* to be not less than 200,000, but over 230,000 years
>> old.

>> Hint: "human", not "humanoid".

> Yes, that age would make them Homo. Were they Sapiens too?

Are we there yet, Homie?

I'm leaning towards "Homo fabulans" as being more accurate.

On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 2:32:57 PM UTC-8, Quinn C wrote:
> * Dingbat:
> > On Saturday, January 15, 2022 at 7:51:47 AM UTC-8, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Dingbat:
> >>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 6:54:15 AM UTC-8, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:
> >>>>
> >>>> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]
> >>>>
> >>>> Scientists find oldest ever
> >>>> confirmed human fossils are
> >>>> even older than previously
> >>>> thought
> >>>>
> >>>> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils", "find" really
> >>>> wants to have another meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-find-oldest-ever-confirmed-human-fossils-are-even-older-than-previously-thought-12514360>
> >>>>
> >>> Even in the world of fossils, it's a fossil!
> >>>
> >>> A spectacularly old fossil seems a rare find.
> >>> What is the other meaning you think "find" should have?
> >> Those fossils were *dug up* 50 years ago. They were now *determined* to
> >> be not less than 200,000, but over 230,000 years old.
> >>
> >> Hint: "human", not "humanoid".
> >> --
> > Yes, that age would make them Homo. Were they Sapiens too?
> Yes, that's what it's about. Oldest homo sapiens fossils.
>
> --
Thanks. Re. Homo but not Sapiens, here's an older find in Morocco:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-earliest-unequivocal-evidence-of-our-species-might-be-even-older-than-we-realized

* Jerry Friedman:

> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Jerry Friedman:
>>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 11:26:38 AM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Anders D. Nygaard:
>>>>> Den 14-01-2022 kl. 15:54 skrev Quinn C:
>>>>>> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scientists find oldest ever
>>>>>> confirmed human fossils are
>>>>>> even older than previously
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils", "find" really
>>>>>> wants to have another meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't find it too bad - I got it in one.
>>>
>>>> That seems hardly possible. Is there something wrong with your internal
>>>> parser that it didn't recognize at "fossils" that you have a complete
>>>> sentence now? Or do you routinely jump around the sentence and took in
>>>> the "are" before processing the "oldest ever ..." part?
>>>
>>> Maybe you could consider making your point without suggesting that
>>> there's something wrong with the person you're arguing with.
>
>> Would you allow this: You can't run? Is there something wrong with your
>> heart (or legs)?
>
> Maybe in certain settings (though I can't allow or disallow it).

I think you can, once you land on the right meaning of "allow".
> When Ross Howard, a respected regular, mentioned here that he was in a
> wheelchair, no one asked him what the cause was, as I recall.

It might be inappropriate to ask for causes this way, because it's quite
a personal matter. But that's a different point from the one I was
making, whether a peculiarity is a personal failing or not.

> But the main thing I want to say is that I see a big difference between
> suggesting a physical disability and suggesting even a minor and localized
> mental one. In my opinion the latter is far more offensive to most people.
> (I'm not speaking for Anders, but offering you advice in general.)

I truly appreciate the advice. Even if it's just to know that my words
are received differently from how I intended them, or how I believe I'd
receive them (insofar as I can tell), that's valuable information, and I
I'm not offended by the way you present it.

The rest of my comments is also not meant as "but I'm right". I'm not
saying there's something wrong with you (or others) because you receive
the words differently than intended. I'm working through how I can apply
the lessons I take from your advice.

----

I'd not classify an unusual working of someone's language comprehension
as a mental disability, unless it's a repeated impediment to
communication.

The crux here may be that I have training in linguistics, and from that,
a certain idea of how language processing works in the mind/brain that
may differ from the general public. The result may be a kind of
misunderstanding that is vaguely similar to that which often happens
with accusations of acting in racist ways. Both are variations on the
theme that the majority of your mental processes aren't accessible to
your consciousness (not even to introspection, even less to conscious
control), an idea that many aren't comfortable accepting.

> And see below.
>
>> I didn't conceptualize the above as a personal failing, as it's not
>> something I think we have conscious control over. At best we may be able
>> to improve its working by training, but that's not something most people
>> do intentionally, either, certainly not in a native language.
>
> Calling someone a moron, a retard, etc., is offensive though we don't have
> conscious control over it.

Because those words have a history of being used to disparage. And given
existing prejudices, it's hard to protect any word from that fate.

And then there's the privacy issue, which makes it difficult to ask
about disabilities even when the motive is genuine empathy and a
willingness to make accommodations.

>>>> That might be the biggest issue - the "are" is so far out when you need
>>>> to know it'll come that you can't be expected to hold out for it. Seven
>>>> words before "are", that about fills the short-term memory.
>>>
>>> As I see it, you don't need "are" till after "fossils", which is where it is.
>
>> You need to know it's coming in order to realize that "fossils" is not
>> the object of "find" and to get to the right meaning of "find": "find
>> out", not "unearth", the latter being primed by "scientists find
>> fossils".
>>
>> So when I arrived at "fossils", my parser jumped on the obvious
>> interpretation and then at "are", I needed to a) reinterpret the
>> structure of the sentence and b) reinterpret "find".
>
> I agree with all that.
>
>> The challenge is to keep multiple decisions of that kind open. So
>> really, what is "wrong" with Anders' parser as opposed to mine seems to
>> be that his is able to keep more ambiguities undecided. A bit like
>> there's something wrong with my mental mathematics module in that I
>> often don't see the continuation of a sequence that is obvious to most
>> people, because I still see other good options.
>
> Yes, exactly, so there wasn't even any basis for you to think something
> was wrong (without scare quotes) with his English parser.
>
>> "What's wrong with you?" in casual conversation can mean "you're not
>> normal", and that can mean you're extraordinary.
>
> If there are clues to the irony.

I think there's a spectrum of possible attitudes, not all of which I'd
classify as irony.

If I'd say "You enjoy classical music? What's wrong with you?", then I
might really think that's weird, in the sense that I can't imagine it or
that I don't know anyone else who enjoys it. What I'd hope in order for
the other person to receive it the right way is that they know I
wouldn't actually judge a person by their taste in music, because I
don't think it's a measure of their character or moral standing, but
something there's no accounting for. I.e., wrong in the sense of "not
working within normal parameters", but not wrong in any ethically
relevant sense.

----

On some level, I may also have internalized "what's wrong with you?"
(and variations) as a traditional way of talking on Usenet, which isn't
to be taken literally.

--
Genocide is not like gifts - the thought doesn't count.
-- 22 minutes,
on Erin O'Toole's statement that residential
schools were "meant to try and provide education."

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 5:07:52 PM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
> * Jerry Friedman:
>
> > On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:29:01 PM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Jerry Friedman:
> >>> On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 11:26:38 AM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * Anders D. Nygaard:
> >>>>> Den 14-01-2022 kl. 15:54 skrev Quinn C:
> >>>>>> If that isn't a garden path, I haven't seen one:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [I space it the way it appeared on my phone screen]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Scientists find oldest ever
> >>>>>> confirmed human fossils are
> >>>>>> even older than previously
> >>>>>> thought
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is especially bad because in context with "fossils", "find" really
> >>>>>> wants to have another meaning.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't find it too bad - I got it in one.
> >>>
> >>>> That seems hardly possible. Is there something wrong with your internal
> >>>> parser that it didn't recognize at "fossils" that you have a complete
> >>>> sentence now? Or do you routinely jump around the sentence and took in
> >>>> the "are" before processing the "oldest ever ..." part?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe you could consider making your point without suggesting that
> >>> there's something wrong with the person you're arguing with.
> >
> >> Would you allow this: You can't run? Is there something wrong with your
> >> heart (or legs)?
> >
> > Maybe in certain settings (though I can't allow or disallow it).

> I think you can, once you land on the right meaning of "allow".

I guess I tend to be a little literal with "allow", "accept", and some other words.

> > When Ross Howard, a respected regular, mentioned here that he was in a
> > wheelchair, no one asked him what the cause was, as I recall.

> It might be inappropriate to ask for causes this way, because it's quite
> a personal matter. But that's a different point from the one I was
> making, whether a peculiarity is a personal failing or not.

Yes, but the suggestion that it might be a personal failing is the problem I
see.

> > But the main thing I want to say is that I see a big difference between
> > suggesting a physical disability and suggesting even a minor and localized
> > mental one. In my opinion the latter is far more offensive to most people.
> > (I'm not speaking for Anders, but offering you advice in general.)

> I truly appreciate the advice. Even if it's just to know that my words
> are received differently from how I intended them, or how I believe I'd
> receive them (insofar as I can tell), that's valuable information, and I
> I'm not offended by the way you present it.
>
> The rest of my comments is also not meant as "but I'm right". I'm not
> saying there's something wrong with you (or others) because you receive
> the words differently than intended. I'm working through how I can apply
> the lessons I take from your advice.

I appreciate that, and I'm sorry to continue to disagree with you, but I'm still
hoping to say things that are helpful.
> ----
>
> I'd not classify an unusual working of someone's language comprehension
> as a mental disability, unless it's a repeated impediment to
> communication.
>
> The crux here may be that I have training in linguistics, and from that,
> a certain idea of how language processing works in the mind/brain that
> may differ from the general public. The result may be a kind of
> misunderstanding that is vaguely similar to that which often happens
> with accusations of acting in racist ways. Both are variations on the
> theme that the majority of your mental processes aren't accessible to
> your consciousness (not even to introspection, even less to conscious
> control), an idea that many aren't comfortable accepting.

Without any linguistic training, I agree with that theme. However, it
makes answering questions about one's internal parser difficult, and
the possibility of something wrong with it no less a personal failing.

> > And see below.
> >
> >> I didn't conceptualize the above as a personal failing, as it's not
> >> something I think we have conscious control over. At best we may be able
> >> to improve its working by training, but that's not something most people
> >> do intentionally, either, certainly not in a native language.
> >
> > Calling someone a moron, a retard, etc., is offensive though we don't have
> > conscious control over it.

> Because those words have a history of being used to disparage. And given
> existing prejudices, it's hard to protect any word from that fate.

I'm suggesting the reason those words and many similar ones are used to
disparage is in the concept, not the choice of words--which is the reason for
the "euphemism treadmill".

> And then there's the privacy issue, which makes it difficult to ask
> about disabilities even when the motive is genuine empathy and a
> willingness to make accommodations.

I agree.

> >>>> That might be the biggest issue - the "are" is so far out when you need
> >>>> to know it'll come that you can't be expected to hold out for it. Seven
> >>>> words before "are", that about fills the short-term memory.
> >>>
> >>> As I see it, you don't need "are" till after "fossils", which is where it is.
> >
> >> You need to know it's coming in order to realize that "fossils" is not
> >> the object of "find" and to get to the right meaning of "find": "find
> >> out", not "unearth", the latter being primed by "scientists find
> >> fossils".
> >>
> >> So when I arrived at "fossils", my parser jumped on the obvious
> >> interpretation and then at "are", I needed to a) reinterpret the
> >> structure of the sentence and b) reinterpret "find".
> >
> > I agree with all that.
> >
> >> The challenge is to keep multiple decisions of that kind open. So
> >> really, what is "wrong" with Anders' parser as opposed to mine seems to
> >> be that his is able to keep more ambiguities undecided. A bit like
> >> there's something wrong with my mental mathematics module in that I
> >> often don't see the continuation of a sequence that is obvious to most
> >> people, because I still see other good options.
> >
> > Yes, exactly, so there wasn't even any basis for you to think something
> > was wrong (without scare quotes) with his English parser.
> >
> >> "What's wrong with you?" in casual conversation can mean "you're not
> >> normal", and that can mean you're extraordinary.
> >
> > If there are clues to the irony.

> I think there's a spectrum of possible attitudes, not all of which I'd
> classify as irony.
>
> If I'd say "You enjoy classical music? What's wrong with you?", then I
> might really think that's weird, in the sense that I can't imagine it or
> that I don't know anyone else who enjoys it. What I'd hope in order for
> the other person to receive it the right way is that they know I
> wouldn't actually judge a person by their taste in music, because I
> don't think it's a measure of their character or moral standing, but
> something there's no accounting for. I.e., wrong in the sense of "not
> working within normal parameters", but not wrong in any ethically
> relevant sense.

I'm not familiar with that trope. If I say or hear "What's wrong with you?"
or anything similar, I think it means something really wrong, unless it
obviously means the opposite. "You're a sixteen-year-old boy with a
new license, and you're not taking any foolish risks? What's wrong with
you?"

(If one is still allowed to say "boy" in this context.)
> ----
>
> On some level, I may also have internalized "what's wrong with you?"
> (and variations) as a traditional way of talking on Usenet, which isn't
> to be taken literally.