[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: semantics
- From: Charles <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 09:47:04 -0700
- Message-Id: <199806051644.JAA15472@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.edu>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: On the web at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
You write: "Language is a heavy thing, a specific thing, and a powerful
Most effective when kept simple. This bit is obfuscating and sematically
Write what you mean.
"the person who misunderstands has every right to demand clarification of
the words which
have confused clear meanings." Ergo, apply your own advice.
> From: Madeleine Fix <fix.3@OSU.EDU>
> To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: semantics
> Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:59 AM
> Ms. Adler:
> I also saw admiration, etc. and appreciation of Cuban bookbindery in Ms.
> Bona Dea's letter. However, I also saw this admiration and appreciation
> framed within an overlying sense of 'Bestowing Gifts Upon Lesser,
> As you will note, I specifically replied to exact sentences which were
> in meaning. As book artists, this list specifically serves people who
> involved in the commerce of words. Language is a heavy thing, a specific
> thing, and a powerful thing. Use it specifically. If someone words
> something in a manner which can be misunderstood, then
> Also, e-mail/computer language has a way of muddling up specificity in
> language in a way which can create miscommunication while simultaneously
> enhancing communication.
> So perhaps I misunderstood; perhaps I didn't. I don't think it's
> to 'read things' into written words. They are on the page, or on the
> computer, as symbolic, legible, communicable icons which function as
> linguistic communication. Therefore, I could 'read in' to Ms. Bona Dea's
> statements only if we were having a face to face conversation in which
> language and speech inflection could potentially blur and/or confuse her
> meaning. As words, these statements sit on the page/computer screen
> irrevocably; like art, they are subject to interpretation.
> So, basically, it's a matter of opinion, and that's my opinion.
> --Madeleine Fix