"K-Rino is one of the most underrated rappers within the Houston, Texas area. His profound storytelling, incredible delivery and potent and quite mind boggling lyrics set him ahead of most artists in the Houston area. Critics are saying that the beats are what are lacking, but a new track has surfaced feature K-Rino over German beatsmith Keyza Soze on a track entitled "Look Around You", which is one of his best tracks to date.
Look Around You can be found on Book Number 7, the new release from K-Rino on Black Book International.
K-Rino has collaborated with numerous"
[It ends there.]
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
The question begs, what were you doing reading wikipedia entries of obscure american rappers?
I can only assume that in light of my posting about your emo nature, you've decided to take up an alternative lifestyle as a gangsta. Let me be the first to say:
Hahahahahaahahaha
Now that that is over and done with, I will recommend a few names for you to pursue in your newfound lifestyle of bitches and guns:
D-Money
Fo-Dizzle
2Daz
Also note, I will be notifying 3DWorld of this post and they will be terminating your contract immediately. I may have neglected to mention in my previous post that further research by aforementioned scientists showed that below dance music was:
-Mimi from Drew Carey-
-People who dress animals in real clothes-
-Those who dislike Seinfeld-
-Mormans-
-Rap Music-
The reason they didn't discover this before was that Mimi pretty much blocked out the view to everything below her.
So as you can see, 3DWorld will have no choice but to release you. On the plus side they finally get to feel good about themselves by having someone to look down upon, so in that way you're really performing a good deed!
-Unbiased Critic
What's the matter? Didn't daddy give you enough love as child?
You're aware that you misused the phrase "begging the question", right?
Eh, it's a turn of phrase more than anything else. Turns of phrase don't necessarily make sense, they generally come into existence through repeated use. And as google spits of 63,000 responses for "The question begs" i'm happy enough with that usage.
-Unbiased Critic
It's not the re-ordering of the words that's the problem -- it's the meaning.
"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy -- one begs the question when one constructs a circular argument. To wit, "Why am I great? Because people do what I say. Why do people do what I say? Because I'm great."
What you meant to say, I'm guessing, was -- "This invites the question", or "I'd like to know", etc.
Restrict the use of technical terms to their specified meanings, and our language will be all the better for it.
You tell him, Kieren.
--Jackie
It may be the incorrect usage in a technical sense, but it makes perfect sense in the context of regular usage. A lot of language isn't given meaning by a technical definition, but rather by what people understand it to mean.
As the google results and sites like Wikipedia would indicate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), regardless of whether it is a correct usage technically, it is a widely accepted usage, which makes it perfectly correct to be used in conversation.
I'm fairly sure you must be aware of the common usage of that phrase, which makes this whole thing a rather cheap shot. It's easy to be pedantic. In this phrase for example:
"begging the question",
Your comma belongs inside the quotation marks.
-Unbiased Critic
No it doesn't.
Well the majority of sites on the topic that i've googled say commas are always inside the quotation marks, while other punctuation can vary depending on whether it was part of the original statement or not.
See:
http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaQuotation_Marks.htm
http://ccs.colostate.edu/index.asp?url=sm_punctuat
As a couple of examples.
I was certainly always taught it was inside.
Anyway, moot point, I was merely pointing ou how easy it is to be pedantic.
-Unbiased Critic
As far as I understand, putting the comma inside/outside out of quotation marks is a UK/USA thing. I'm happy to be corrected on that (although Darryn seems to be with me on this).
As for "begging the question" -- well, I'll argue that until the cows come home. "Generally accepted by the public" is certainly no bloody criterion for doing something a certain way. Sure, most people can derive meaning from a sentence that uses "their", "they're" and "there" interchangably, but there's no frigging way you'll see me doing it.
PS. You seem to be relying on Google a lot -- is that the grand arbiter of most things for you?
PPS. I'm sure I could find 63,000 instances of people buying Britney Spears LPs on Google -- again, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
It could well be a US/UK thing. I tried to search it Australia only and the one site I could get with data on it said it was before. Anyway like I said, not really the issue.
With regards to Google, obviously not the ultimate answer to everything, but when discussing things online where it's prudent to provide links to corroborate what you're saying, it tends to be a good option. Would you prefer sourceless arguments? Or books that I can't easily show you?
And the Britney example is completely different. You're talking about personal taste there. I don't even think it's in the same ballpark.
I also think the 'they're' and 'their' example isn't particularly relevant. That's just a word written differently. That isn't a situation of common acceptance. Sure, people will understand what you mean if you mistype it, but nobody will try to tell you that 'they're' means the same as 'their'.
'Begs the question' on the other hand is widely understood to mean 'raises the question'. It isn't the same as either of the above examples. All meaning is is people accepting that a certain word or phrase is representative of a certain thing, and in that case this is perfectly correct.
-Unbiased Critic
I tend to agree with unbiased critic, but you know that, Kieren.
We're not starting the whole prescriptive/descriptive thing again, are we?
Look, "begging the question" has had a specific, defined, set meaning for four hundred years now. If you'll do some Google digging, you'll find that it's a translation from a Latin term, and thus has been in circulation for a long term.
All that happened is that one day, some person -- who obviously was lacking in scholarship -- decided that he/she was going to change the meaning. Unfortunately, this "mis-meaning" is gaining traction with general public. Does that mean that we should surrender a perfectly good technical term, with a precise meaning that allows it be deployed precisely in intelligent discourse, just because people are lazy?
It's not like we don't have enough terms for explaining the concept of "inviting the question". Why add one more, for no reason?
I know, Darryn, that you and I differ on this point. There are changes that are happening that I really don't like, on an aesthetic level, but I can accept them. Stuff like using "text" as a verb, in the context of mobile phones -- I'll never do that myself, but I can see it as a change that's happening.
But things like "begging the question" -- I'm sorry, but that's flat-out wrong. It's not like there's some void that this phrase is filling -- and, as it stands, it's a concise, clean way to describe a somewhat complex idea.
One question for the both of you -- where do you stand on the misuse of "everyday"? I've seen Dairy Farmers trucks around the city with the slogan "Fresh goodness everyday" emblazoned down the side. Now, as much as I'm a champion of the Australian dairy industry, this makes me cringe. This isn't a case of "people-power", with individuals taking back words... this is just somebody who didn't know the difference between the noun and adjective forms of the word, and -- well -- fucked up.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing that it is an problem. I merely took issue with you latching on to one part of my post and criticising it, when my usage, although not technically correct, is perfectly legitimate in normal discourse.
Language is fluid. Things change. I'd define legitimate use of a word as being reached when a large percentage of the population recognise that usage as having that meaning. The misuse of Everyday on the milk trucks is clearly an error and I wouldn't accept its usage because the majority of the population wouldn't agree it's correct.
I don't think there is an arbitrary set of rules to be followed when expressing yourself. Puntuaction, grammar and language are all just tools to help communicate. If it is commonly accepted amongst a group of people that something is representative of a concept or idea, then it is. No rules can say otherwise.
-Unbiased Critic
Uh-huh. Nope. I'm not buying it.
The reason that the "everyday" on the milk trucks has persisted is because nobody knows that it's incorrect. Something blatantly obvious, and it would have been pulled within a day or two of it being posted.
I'd wager that, if you asked one hundred people, ninety or so wouldn't know the difference between "everyday" and "every day" (or something similar like "practice" and "practise") -- just as many as who wouldn't know the correct meaning of "begging the question". These mighn't necessarily be the same ninety people in each survey, but the proportion will be accurate.
The only difference in this case is that you did know the difference between "everyday" and "every day" before coming into this conversation, but not the true definition of "begging the question" -- dare I say it, but you're showing your bias here by shrugging off the latter distinction.
I'd like to think that when I'm presented with something I didn't know before, that I'd embrace the mistake, and do things correctly from now on. At one point I didn't know the true meaning of "begging the question" -- when I did learn, however, I didn't simply say, "Well, that's not important. Why should I do things that way." Rather, I saw the important distinction, and I took delight in having my vocabulary enriched in a similar way.
If people did this, that'd be a good thing. When people are too lazy, too stubborn or too ignorant (or all three) to learn the subtleties of language (and not just the things they already know), well, we've got problems.
'That is not a very nice thing to say about your mum.'
Eh, that's a different scenario. Again it comes down to a single letter or space within a word or words that makes the difference there. It's simple for people to confuse two terms when they are so alike. I'm not saying it's right, but it is understandable. It's not a case of them actively going "Well Everyday means the same thing as Every Day", it's merely a case of them not being certain which way is which.
With a statement like 'begs the question' however, people using it aren't confusing it with anything. They're actively using it as in their mind it means 'raises the question'. When a large portion of people do that, it becomes a legitimate usage.
-Unbiased Critic
Go get a life.
Heh, I think that was a little uncalled for.
Just for reference, the "Anonymous" who posted at 10:30 am is not the same "Anonymous" you've been corresponding with for the prior duration of this post.
That anonymous will continue now:
You said, "It's not a case of them saying, 'Well, "everyday" means the same as "every day".'" Actually, I'd wager that that's exactly the case.
People see a word like "something", and then attempt to draw a pattern. "Hey, I can condense 'something' to one word. Why not 'anything', 'anyway', and 'everyday'?"
I don't see how that's any more understandable or acceptable than people misusing a phrase like "begging the question".
That's the same thing. Somebody has heard those words in sequence without knowing the specific meaning, and has attempted to make a pattern... "Well, I know what those words mean individually, so if I string them together, I think I can figure out what it means." Sometimes that'll work, and they'll guess the correct meaning. In this instance, however, it doesn't. Simple case of ignorance (and I'm using that word without any pejorative overtones here).
There are millions of cases of people doing that. It's particularly prevalent, I think, in technical, medical and scientific cases, where people will latch on to a technical word, give it a meaning more in line with the literal meaning of the constituent words in sequence, and begin using it that way.
Is it "legitimate" to call this "legitmate use", when the great unwashed, comprising 95% of the population, spoil a perfectly good word used by the 5% for whom it actually has a purpose?
As you may have guessed from what I've been saying -- no, I think don't think it is.
From my perspective, the difference stems from the fact that I don't think the majority of people do think 'every body' and 'everybody' are the same thing. They may see those words and be confused as to what means what, and they may not know the difference, but they know there is a difference. It is a simple case of people struggling to remember basic differences in similar phrases/words.
On the other hand, i'm arguing that with a phrase like 'begging the question', since the majority of people acknowledge that that phrase is representative of something, makes it legitimate to use it in that way.
Sure it may have started out like the milk example, with someone not knowing better, but the fact that it is now commonplace makes it part of the language. Whether or not that's a good thing is obviously debatable, but that's how language works.
Words are adjusted, given new meanings, new words are created. Have you never used the word cool in its modern context? I bet language purists were horrified when the meaning of that word changed, but gradually it was altered until now nobody thinks twice. Is that an incorrect word too? Does it need to be put into the dictionary to be accepted?
Also, we may wind up having to agree to disagree here, seeing as several thousand words haven’t gotten us anywhere.
-Unbiased Critic
I'm not going anywhere.
The milk example wasn't the cause of the problem -- it's indicative of it. The fact that this slogan was:
(a) designed by somebody; then
(b) approved by somebody else; then
(c) passed up through God-knows-how-many layers of management; then
(d) passed on to the graphics team; then
(e) painted by God-knows-how-many artists; then
(f) painted on God-knows-how-many trucks, the entire fleet been driven by God-knows-how-many drivers --
shows me that, in a sample of at least one hundred people, nobody knew what was going on. I'm not even talking about an unequivocal knowledge, being able to cite chapter and verse in your favourite reference term. All somebody had to do is say, "Hey, I've heard somewhere that you only use the space-less 'everyday' in certain contexts. Somebody want to get a dictionary?"
When not even that happens, we've got a problem.
As per this "evolution" of language -- you've got to remember that evolution exists to enrich things, to make them better.
Sure, I could have a kid tomorrow with six heads, three stomachs, no brain and a complete lack of blood -- but would that be a good thing?
In that case, Nature would act as the grand arbiter, applying the test to the new baby. "Hey, guys, can this thing breathe? Will its heart beat? What's that, you say? No? Well, goodbye, then. This baby is dead."
Consider me this arbiter in our circumstances here. Somebody presents to me the motion -- "Let's make 'everyday' and 'every day' mean the same thing."
Me: "Why? Does it make the language better?"
Unwashed public: "Well, no actually. It actually just removes one layer of sophistication that our language has evolved [note the usage] over the past thousand years."
Me: "Well, fuck off, then."
Pretty simple, I think.
Fine if that's the way you want it. You neglected to respond to my question about the word 'cool'. I'd be pretty much one hundred percent certain you've used that word in it's modern context at least a couple of times. It is an almost identical example to this situation. Someone has taken a word, used it to mean something different (which would no doubt have offended a lot of people with similar views to you at the time) and it gradually fell into common usage, to the point where it is now a recognised word. It would be a little hypocritcal to use a word like that having taken your stance wouldn't you say?
In that 100 or however many people worked on that little milk project, it's not a case of none of them knowing better, it's a case of them simply not noticing. Unless you're actively looking for mistakes, it is extremely easy to mistake an 'it's' for an 'its' and so forth. I acknowledge that most people will easily make mistakes when it comes to those two terms, but like I said before, if presented with both of them, they're going to know there is a difference.
It also struck me they could also potentially have been making a play on the similarity of 'every day' and 'everyday'. Your everyday item is a standard part of your lifestyle, so it makes sense they could have been trying to imply that not only do you get milk daily, but that that particular milk should become a regular part of your lifestyle.
I never used the term evolve. Evolution in that definition you gave isn't applicable to language I don't think. With evolution, things change for the better like you said. With language they don't necessarily do that, as you've pointed out.
However you have to acknowledge, as with the example I gave for the word 'cool', it does happen and happens extremely regularly.
You seem to think i'm disagreeing with you about some points, but i'm not. I agree completely that it removes layers of sophistication. But at the same time I think that once a term reaches the point where it is commonly accepted as having a specific meaning, then it's fine to use it like that. The entire concept of language is based around this notion. It didn't just spring up overnight with a guy writing down what you could and couldn't do. People came up with terms to mean specific things. Over time some words grew to have multiple meanings (be that for good or bad). I find the whole argument pretty hypocritcal really, considering how all the language we use has developed this way.
-Unbiased Critic
Bah I was cutting and pasting and messed up this paragraph:
I never used the term evolve. Evolution in that definition you gave isn't applicable to language I don't think. With evolution, things change for the better like you said. With language they don't necessarily do that, as you've pointed out.
However you have to acknowledge, as with the example I gave for the word 'cool', it does happen and happens extremely regularly.
Second paragraph isn’t supposed to be there at all, so it is supposed to read:
I never used the term evolve. Evolution in that definition you gave isn't applicable to language I don't think. With evolution, things change for the better like you said. With language they don't necessarily do that, as you've pointed out.
(This is just in case you decide to try and pick up on potential errors again).
-Unbiased Critic
Sorry, I skipped over your comments regarding "cool" before.
Yes, I do use the word in its "modern" context, and quite frequently. I don't exactly have any strong feelings on this point, either way. A few observations, though -- you'll note that "cool" in its "correct" meaning hasn't dropped from usage. As long as the two meanings exist in separate contexts, I suppose we can live and let live. What happens, though, when the modern "cool" is used in a context where a traditional "cool" could be applied? The world wouldn't stop turning, sure, but there'd be the potential for confusion.
(It kinda reminds me of that scene from "Back to the Future". Marty: "Wow, that's heavy?" Doc: "What's that's got to do with it? All this talk about weight." (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) You'll also note that the Doc incorrectly uses "weight", when he should have said "mass", especially since he's a physicist.)
My problem with "begging the question", I guess, is that it's not a general, common term, like "cool" is/was, even in its traditional meaning. This has a specific meaning, in a particular context. Changing its meaning in this way is the problem.
It's technical words being reappropriated that I have the biggest problems with. Stuff like "random", too -- these are technical words.
When you redefine "common" words -- "gay", "nice", "cool", whatever. Sure, that's language in action, and I can dig it.
But stay away from my technical terms.
(signed)
An Engineer
But then who gets to abritrate what is and isn't a technical term? Your basic issue seems to be that the original term loses it's meaning, but with a term like 'begs the question', most of the people using it in its current incarnation never knew the correct definition to begin with.
They aren't wiping it out by choosing to use an alternate version, they're simply making use of a phrase they heard in passing. It's not stupidity or laziness (as implied in the milk example), it's merely people repeating phrases they hear from others.
That doesn't make that usage wrong. The correctness of a term simply lies in it's ability to convey an idea and in that regard, 'begs the question' works just fine in the context I used it in.
Who knows how the term came about in its current form. Someone could merely have misheard someone else, or pulled something out of context, and that's all it would take. You can lament it all you like but there are myriad examples of this kind of thing throughout the English language and be it good or bad it is the way it works.
-Unbiased Critic
Well, of course that's the way it works, obviously. And I don't know if, even if I did have the power, I'd choose to implement one of the French-style committees to say this is the way it should be.
I do think, however, that idenfication of "technical" terms is somewhat easy. In this case, for example -- this is a term with a long pedigree (four-hundred-years-plus), having been used in formal, academic study. That, to me, is enough for it be classified as "technical".
Nobody attempts to redefine what a "volt" is, or what an "ampere" is, so why are the social sciences subject to such re-jigging?
With the "constantly evolving" attitude to language, though, how is anything ever determined to be wrong? All these diverging paths in English are just the result of one person getting something wrong, and having it catch on.
Trust me, I'm conflicted about this -- pencillin, for example, was invented by accident. Should we cut "accidental coinages" the same sort of slack? Well, I say we take it on a case-by-case basis... and in this example, where we have one -- exactly one -- term to describe the technical instance, and probably ten or fifteen synonyms for the more general understanding, do we really need one more? Is offering you sixteen ways of saying the same thing really that much better than a paltry fifteen?
PS. I applaud you on using "myriad" as an adjective, though. That's a usage that seems to be being phased out.
Why would you 'applaud' the use of 'myriad' as an adjective? Noun or verb, it's still correct - I'm certain you'll admit as much as that. But as far as I can tell you're merely patting yourself on the back for belonging to some sort of supposed intellectual minority. It's elitism, and it's silly.
I'm "patting myself on the back" because I think it is the better choice, aesthetically.
And that's the real reason -- aesthestics -- that I advocate most of the stuff I advocate.
"Myriad" -- in this case, I'm advocating the original use. Simply, it looks better.
"Okay" -- in this case, I'm advocating the newer, "impure" use. Why? It looks better.
Heh, yea I threw myriad in for your benefit.
The reason a phrase like ‘begs the question’ could become misinterpreted is because unlike ‘volt’ or ‘amphere’, it is really just a combination of words that have relatively common meanings.
And like I said, it’s not like people went out of their way to subvert the proper meaning of the phrase. They didn’t get together and say ‘yea we have fifteen ways of expressing this particular idea, but we need more.’
It’s the kind of thing that just develops naturally. Basically the crux of the issue isn’t whether or not it should happen or even how it happens, but whether or not the use of the word is legitimate given its current status within the language.
I agree with most of your points about how developments in language can remove sophistication, I was merely defending my use of a common phrase, which I believe has legitimate value in that context, considering that is how the population understands it. How and why it developed that way to begin with is another issue, but in my mind if the majority of the population accepts a word or phrase to have a specific meaning, then that is the meaning, regardless of whether any arbitrators or technical definitions would say otherwise.
-Unbiased Critic
Eh, he can applaude it if he wishes. I normally use it in the modern way to be honest, but I figured in light of the discussion i'd throw it in because he'd probably enjoy it.
No elitism involved.
-Unbiased Critic
And anyway, when did "elitism" become such a bad thing? As far I see it, it's just a desire to be the best, or have the best.
I'm not necessarily saying that I am the best, but it is a goal I'm working towards.
Counter-example to illustrate my point: "Fuck those symphony orchestra guys. They're so elitist. So I can only play three chords on my instrument of choice... so what?"
That is silly.
We elevate Shakespeare, Wilde, et al, and yet anybody attempting to achieve the same standards they set is instantly classified as "elitist" -- like that's a bad thing.
I'm not necessarily trying to be exclusionary... as above, the symphony orchestra mighn't want the three-chord musician in his current condition, but, should he get better, the invitation is opened.
Excelling, or showing merit, or displaying a desire to be the best is not a bad thing. Sure, one can take it too far, but that's why blogs like yours exist, I suppose. To tell people to pull their heads in. Right?
Right?
I think "definition by largest number of believers" is a dangerous thing.
That's just me.
It can be dangerous, but when we are talking about language, which is a tool specifically for expression and communication, it's the perfect way to define something. Communication is all about understanding, and if the majority understand something to represent a specific idea then it does.
-Unbiased Critic
Of course, of course.
Look, I'm happy to retire this point now, but let me ask one more thing.
If we're talking about "communication", and the greatest number of people understanding the intended meaning of the author, what do you say of the past four hundred years, where that phrase had only one meaning? As far as I can tell, it's only in the last decade or two that the meaning of the phrase has started to slip.
As someone who's fond of worthwhile traditions, I'm kinda sad that this phrase (which is almost majestic and monolithic, when you think about it), has been removed from popular discourse in such a short time, after such a long history.
And what about me? I'm not ancient, sure, but I was educated -- young -- about this particular phrase, and I've used it that way ever since...
Should I consciously modify my use of this phrase, because I'm worried about somebody misunderstanding what I know it to mean?
Darryn seems to be of the opinion that I've got this massive chip on my shoulder, and that I have to display my superior education (or whatever he thinks I think it is) by using these words and phrases in their original, obscure configurations. That I somehow get a kick of being the iconoclast, or whatever.
That's not it, though. Far from it. I didn't learn my vocabulary by reading dictionaries -- I learned it by reading books. Some of these books were, say, more than fifteen years old. I was actually quite far along the path of using "myriad" as an adjective before I realised that there even was another way of doing things.
Now I am accused of being "messed up", because I don't make the conscious effort to change my schooling.
Chip on someone's shoulder, say what?
I have a feeling Milton wouldn't have been a patronising arse about it though. Simple distinction.
But that's just me.
Patronising arse?
This whole thing stems from a single eleven-word comment left way back when.
I doubt that even Hemingway would have had the conciseness to be patronising in that short a space.
But that's just me.
Yea, quite a bit of stamina has been shown with this particular debate I must say. All over the use of a single phrase.
I'd bet you weren't expecting it to spring into this, heh.
That last point you raise is interesting. Not sure what i'd do in your situation. I tend to just communicate in a way that will enable whoever i'm talking to to understand. I'm not speaking to satisfy myself, i'm speaking to convey something to someone else and so i'll do that in the best way possible.
-Unbiased Critic
But then comes in the inevitable barrage of attempting to second-guess oneself.
Okay, this guy's fifty years old. He probably knows the "correct" meaning. No, wait, he's wearing an "I like tits" t-shirt -- he probably doesn't. No, wait, he's carrying a copy of the collected works of Aristotle... Maybe he does.
Weren't you ever excited by stumbling across a phrase that you *didn't* know the meaning of, or one you found used in a different context to that which you were aware? Personally, I loved when that happened, because it was something else I could add to my library of words.
(The Beatles did that too, you know. There's the story of them catching a bus across Liverpool to hear a guy play them a B7 chord. The compulsion to learn new things, ladies and gentlemen -- a good thing, in my book.)
Forty Posts! Boo-yah!
Post a Comment