[Serataru]

pathwriter, on 05 October 2009 - 10:38 PM, said:

And, Sera, you get the dunce cap for this thread. There's no such thing as "de-evolution." It's not even worth arguing with someone who used that as a serious point, though, because you're clearly too stupid to grasp that value judgments have no place in this kind of discussion.

Wait wait wait -- you're defending the non-satirical use of the nonsense word "strategery," while simultaneously taking my satirical use of a nonsense word "de-evolution" seriously?

I think you need that dunce cap for yourself, homeboy.

Reread it:

Serataru, on 05 October 2009 - 10:25 PM, said:

Path, strategery is not a word, it is a mispronunciation/bastardization of the word strategy. Mispronouncing words does not create new words, it simply makes the speaker a retard.
This is not part of the "evolution of language" -- if ANYTHING, it is the de-evolution of language.

Spoilers: I was making fun of you, and your crackpot theory that mispronunciation contributes to the development of language.
What's next, are you going to start arguing the validity of pronouncing "nuclear" as "nookyulur"? Give me a fucking break.
And you have a degree in English? From where, a crackerjack box? Good grief.

[pathwriter]

Do you think you could rewrite that in a way that makes some kind of goddamned sense? I know you're female, but fucking give it a try. You've just simultaneously tried to claim that you were being ironic AND non-ironic in your statement. Which one is it?

As for my "crackpot theory," you've basically just said that the entirety of linguistics is nonsense. Rather than just saying, "Nuh-uh!" like a small child, maybe you should go educate yourself for once. I've already thrown out more than enough information to make these futile arguments of yours meaningless. At the very least, if you're going to claim that mispronunciation does not change language, you're going to have to find some way to refute the evidence I've already presented that backs up my claim. Thus far, I'm the only one who has brought any real information to this argument (as usual), so maybe you should trundle back into your hole.

[firefeng]

Deploring this instance as a condemnation of the media is like subjecting a single pellet of Zyklon B to war tribunals for genocide.

I blame the media for your lack of perspective.

[draugo]

Oi loikes to eat pi!

[Serataru]

pathwriter, on 06 October 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:

Do you think you could rewrite that in a way that makes some kind of goddamned sense? I know you're female, but fucking give it a try. You've just simultaneously tried to claim that you were being ironic AND non-ironic in your statement. Which one is it?

It was two statements. I was telling you that you were full of shit, and then I was proceeding to make FUN of you by using a nonsense word. Not difficult to get.

pathwriter, on 06 October 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:

I've already thrown out more than enough information to make these futile arguments of yours meaningless. At the very least, if you're going to claim that mispronunciation does not change language, you're going to have to find some way to refute the evidence I've already presented that backs up my claim. Thus far, I'm the only one who has brought any real information to this argument (as usual), so maybe you should trundle back into your hole.

I just DID. Do you KNOW how to read? Sell your pseudo-intellectual bullshit elsewhere -- you didn't provide information, you just babbled ridiculous crap and insisted that "IT ARE FACTS I KNOW BCUZ OF MY LERNINGZ," as usual. People who say 'nukeular' instead of 'nuclear' aren't considered linguistic pioneers, they are considered morons (as they fucking should be.) 'Nukeular' didn't become a new word just because idiots don't know how to pronounce 'nuclear' properly, just as 'strategery' didn't become valid just because the mispronunciation of 'strategy' is spreading like a brain cell slaughtering epidemic. It isn't a word, it was never a word. It was a joke, much like your attempt to validate the use of an nonsense "term" that was intended to be an accidental mispronunciation, used solely as a method to make fun of a man who mispronounced and misspoke on a daily basis. The fact that the journalist used it was pretty pathetic for certain, but not earth shattering. But it still isn't a word any more than 'nukeular' is a word.

Now, if you'd like to harp on whether or not the mistake matters, I will have to say no -- it doesn't. Journalists these days have a lot more to be ashamed of than their mispronunciation of three-syllable words.

[pathwriter]

I guess "cute," "apron," and "nickname" aren't words, either. Of course, you've never defined what a word is.

[f0v]

pathwriter, on 05 October 2009 - 10:38 PM, said:

"symbolology,"

Had to register for this: "I'm sure the word you were looking for was Symbolism, what is the Sssssymbolism"

too bad the sequels gonna suck

[Cruzandercerberus]

The first movie sucked.

[Phlow]

pathwriter, on 06 October 2009 - 11:53 AM, said:

It's synonymous to "strategy," which we all know and understand, although it could develop connotative meanings that would ultimately distinguish it. I don't know what kind of dodging you think I was doing, but I thought that it was so obvious that it'd be insulting to suggest you actually needed it defined.

I had to double-take there. So you're saying that it has the same definition as strategy, yet hasn't been fully defined yet. However, the word is so obvious that it doesn't need to be defined.

Let me try and repeat that. You can't define it yet, but it's simplistically obvious to define.

Words that don't have a definition are not words. They are an arrangement of letters. Until they have meaning, you might as well be grunting.

pathwriter, on 06 October 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:

Do you think you could rewrite that in a way that makes some kind of goddamned sense? I know you're female, but fucking give it a try. You've just simultaneously tried to claim that you were being ironic AND non-ironic in your statement. Which one is it?

Actually, she's busting your chops for completely reversing your stance on what is a word and what isn't a word with her satirical use of de-evolution. Considering "Strategery" has about 154,000 hits on google while "De-evolution" hits about 36 million, it's interesting to to see the pot call the kettle blackER.

Cruzandercerberus, on 07 October 2009 - 06:43 AM, said:

The first movie sucked.

It only sucked if you took it topically. It actually poses a decent question with a lot of lines and symbolisms drawn. The two irish kids were "ordained by god" to exercise justice. Rocko was not. So is judging another human being based on their actions something we as human beings should be doing? We aren't infallible and sooner or later we'll fuck it up, littering the judicial system with corruption. Rocko sure seemed to enjoy shooting people simply for vengence or fun (re: WYATT FUCKIN' EARP!)

And William Dafoe was fucking epic. Fuck you if you didn't love his character.

The real tragedy was the guy that wrote it was a fucking asshole. If you haven't seen Overnight, it's a documentary about how Duffy became real popular real fast and suddenly became a class A prick. Suddenly, everyone in hollywood stopped fucking talking to to the guy because no one wanted to deal with him. That's why his movie was so "underground" - It's because people fucking buried it because they fucking hated him.

Edit: Oh, and I use "corporate shit-speak" because I have a job. lol.

[pathwriter]

I didn't say that "de-evolution" wasn't a word, I said it wasn't a concept. Of course it's a word, we understand what it means as surely as you understand what strategery means. Nice job whiffing on that one, by the way. It's presently synonymous with the intended word (strategy), but its definition may change. That's what I said. I don't know what kind of job you have, but I hope that it relies on you not having to open your mouth.

Either way, the fundamental problem here is that you guys haven't defined what a word is. Oh, I know, you think that's going too basic, that it's a given that a word is... something. But your definition of word (such as can be extrapolated from your wobbly arguments) is strongly at odds with mine and the big question would be which of us is correct. For reference, my definition is "an utterance that conveys comprehensible meaning." Your definition appears to be "whatever the OED tells me," which is moderately amusing since it doesn't actually match up with the OED definition, anyhow. There's a tinge of "I say what is and isn't a word," once more returning to that fallacy that any one of us is qualified to arbitrate something which cannot be arbitrated.

[Knyte]

Hmmm...what's worse?

...the fact that this is even an arguement?

or

...the fact that I understood every post that path has made in the topic?

What I find funny is how both sides of the arguement has called the other out for a definition of the word, and neither side has given it. But hey, if neither side knows..then neither side knows.

I think what path is trying to say, in laymens terms, is that strategery is becoming part of the vernacular: every day speech. Or atleast it has the potential to if it hasnt already. Vernacular is not something you will find in a dictionary nor will it be clearly defined for some time, yet the general populace understands the word and its meaning. Every culture and langauge has a "commom speech", aka vernacular, that you won't find in a standard <language> to <language> dictionary. Its something the people develop and use as they live out their lives.

As for what is a word, its simple. A word is a collection of consonants and vowels arranged together to make a noise or an image, that is understood by others. Babies gurgle and blabber incoherent nonsense to our ears, but to theirs and/or another baby's, it could be like fucking einstein spouting off his theory of special relativity. So in this context, "strategery" is in fact a word.

As for its definition, come on now. It's been given atleast once in this topic. But here it is from wikipedia: a mock-Bushism playing on the words "strategic" and common morphological word ending "-ery" or "-ary".

Here it is in a Dictionary sense:

Strategery: Strah-tee-jer-ree. Noun. A mock-Bushism playing on the words "strategic" and common morphological word ending "-ery" or "-ary".

Can we end this now? The fire alarm may be triggered if my brain smokes any longer .

[Cruzandercerberus]

Phlow, on 07 October 2009 - 07:27 AM, said:

It only sucked if you took it topically. It actually poses a decent question with a lot of lines and symbolisms drawn. The two irish kids were "ordained by god" to exercise justice. Rocko was not. So is judging another human being based on their actions something we as human beings should be doing? We aren't infallible and sooner or later we'll fuck it up, littering the judicial system with corruption. Rocko sure seemed to enjoy shooting people simply for vengence or fun (re: WYATT FUCKIN' EARP!)

I'm pretty sure I've already beaten the limits of morality to death in this forum, so I'll spare you. My feelings on justice can be found in my sig.

That same ethical dilemma was presented better, and with far less homoerotica and gratingly bad stereotypes in Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver. Hell both of those movies were superior in that there was more than a bullshit reason based loosely on ethnocentrism and gaiety why the main characters turned to vigilantism. I don't feel that either of those films was improved by replacing Saint Beastwood and Robert De Niro with some bad Irish accents and William Defoe in drag. Somehow I'm almost certain that you disagree.

Phlow, on 07 October 2009 - 07:27 AM, said:

The real tragedy was the guy that wrote it was a fucking asshole. If you haven't seen Overnight, it's a documentary about how Duffy became real popular real fast and suddenly became a class A prick. Suddenly, everyone in hollywood stopped fucking talking to to the guy because no one wanted to deal with him. That's why his movie was so "underground" - It's because people fucking buried it because they fucking hated him.

He was most likely a prick long before the film. And the film sucked ass, hence the 5 theater release and no justification to be a bigger one. He reaped what he sowed, Justice has been served.

[Phlow]

pathwriter, on 07 October 2009 - 09:25 AM, said:

I didn't say that "de-evolution" wasn't a word, I said it wasn't a concept. Of course it's a word, we understand what it means as surely as you understand what strategery means. Nice job whiffing on that one, by the way. It's presently synonymous with the intended word (strategy), but its definition may change. That's what I said. I don't know what kind of job you have, but I hope that it relies on you not having to open your mouth.

You said de-evolution did not exist. And it most certainly does - As a concept and idea. Given, it is a flawed idea, it still doesn't mean the concept cannot exist.

But here's the big difference between de-evolution and strategery: What is the concept or idea behind strategery? You, yourself, said that strategery was synonymous with strategy, but could take on different meanings as time progressed. Which means it doesn't have a solid definition at this point, and as a result doesn't have a unified or universally accepted meaning.

Word - a unit of language that native speakers can identify

Since it cannot be universally identified, it is as much a word as religion is a legitimate science that needs to be taught in schools.

Knyte went on to cite a definition in Wikipedia, which explains it is a mock Bushism, used as a satirical poke at Bush's oratory skills (or lack thereof). Therefore, to use the word would be in a sarcastic or undermining term. So, if we all recognize this as it's true meaning then maybe I shouldn't be vocalizing my disapproval for using a slang term in a professional setting, rather, using words that one does not know the definition of as she obviously used it inappropriately (did she mean to ask the press sec. what his lack of strategy was in the Iranian conflict?).

In any case, Path, I'd love to see you argue with a future employer that walking into the interview and exclaiming "My nig!" is still acceptable because it's still technically still a word.

[pathwriter]

It'd be nice if you could at least enter this argument without blowing things well out of proportion in a desperate attempt to seem correct. You keep intentionally bringing up exceptionally formal situations and juxtaposing them with the most informal speech available. It would be as though I said that juggling is not difficult and you said in response, "Yeah, go try to juggle snowballs on the surface of the Sun, asshole!"

I'm not sure where you were trying to go with that whole rant about universal acceptance of a word by native speakers, but that hardly exists for anything outside of the core words of a given language (by which I mean things like standard pronouns and the most common verbs). You're some kind of electrical engineer, right? You're certainly not a linguist, that's for goddamned certain. If you start talking to someone about transistors and diodes and inductance, what are the chances that person will understand it? If they're part of the in-group, that is, electrical engineers and people with related training, the probability is high. If they're part of the out-group, you may as well be speaking a separate language. If I start talking about elipsis, aphaeresis, and hypocorisma, I'm sure your eyes glaze over wondering what they mean. As a note of irony, one could argue that neither of us is strictly speaking English because of the strongly preserved Latin and Greek roots of the six words I just rattled off.

The reporter, who was speaking in a semi-formal venue and, by all accounts, made a mistake rather than intentional choice, used a word that we denotatively know is synonymous with "strategy." It's connotative meaning has yet to be cemented. Vigilous offered an alternative possible definition that may arise as a sort of antonym to strategy. This really is how words develop and, even so, they differ by who is saying them and to whom. I'll offer a parallel, since you seem so offended by the notion that an error might creep into the sacred lexicon of English (a language that is composed about 90% of foreign words -- the brilliance of English is how easily it integrates new words). I'm sure you know that "teh" is just a typo of the particle "the" (it's not exactly a word). If you asked for a definition of "teh," I'd simply say that it's synonymous with "the." It's not as simple as that, though, as "teh" has been embraced as an ironic marker of internet culture in general (since we communicate in text rather than speech) but, at the same time, can carry negative meaning, as in the presence of obsessive spellers. The latter meanings, though, demand deliberate action, hence why I did not give alternative definitions for "strategery" in this case because it was clear the reporter did not mean them.

[firefeng]

pathwriter said:

It would be as though I said that juggling is not difficult and you said in response, "Yeah, go try to juggle snowballs on the surface of the Sun, asshole!"

Mayhap I'm old-fashioned, but this was funny enough to make me spit out my dick.