background preloader

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
The example refers to two students, James and John, who are required by an English test to describe a man who, in the past, had suffered from a cold. John writes "The man had a cold" which the teacher marks as being incorrect, while James writes the correct "The man had had a cold." Since James' answer was right, it had had a better effect on the teacher. The sentence can be understood more clearly by adding punctuation and emphasis: James, while John had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.[5] Usage[edit] The sentence can be given as a grammatical puzzle[6][7][8] or an item on a test,[1][2] for which one must find the proper punctuation to give it meaning. The sentence is also used to show the semantic vagueness of the word "had", as well as to demonstrate the difference between using a word and mentioning a word.[11] In the novel "Flowers for Algernon" written by Daniel Keyes, it was used as proof of intelligence. See also[edit] References[edit] Related:  Rhetoric and Language

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo The sentence's meaning becomes clearer when it's understood that it uses three meanings of the word buffalo: the city of Buffalo, New York, the somewhat uncommon verb "to buffalo" (meaning "to bully or intimidate"), as well as the animal buffalo. When the punctuation and grammar are expanded, the sentence could read as follows: "Buffalo buffalo that Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo." The meaning becomes even clearer when synonyms are used: "Buffalo bison that other Buffalo bison bully, themselves bully Buffalo bison." Sentence construction Bison engaged in a contest of dominance. A comic explaining the concept The sentence is unpunctuated and uses three different readings of the word "buffalo". Marking each "buffalo" with its use as shown above gives: Buffaloa buffalon Buffaloa buffalon buffalov buffalov Buffaloa buffalon. "New York bison New York bison bully, bully New York bison", or:"New York bison whom other New York bison bully, themselves bully New York bison". Usage

40 most common radicals | Junjie's China blog November 10, 2007 – 1:31 am When I started learning Chinese my teacher gave me a list of the most 40 common Chinese radicals. Might be helpful for anyone. 人 rén – man, person 刀 dāo – knife 力 lì – power 又 yòu – both, again 口kǒu – mouth 囗 wéi – enclosure Used as a radical only, not as a character itself 门 mén – door 土 tǔ – earth 夕 xī – sunset 大 dà – big, large 女 nǚ – female, woman 子 zǐ – son 寸 cùn – inch 小 xiǎo – little, small, young 工 gōng – labor, work 幺 yāo – tiny, small 弓 gōng – bow 马 mǎ – horse 心 xīn – heart 戈 gē – dagger-axe 手 shǒu – hand 日 rì – sun, day 月 yuè – moon 贝 bèi – cowry (shell) 木 mù – wood 水 shuǐ – water 火 huǒ – fire 田 tián – field 目 mù – eye 示 shì – to show 糸 mì – fine silk, Used as a radical only, not as a character itself 耳 ěr – ear 衣 yī – clothing 言 yán – speech 走 zǒu – to walk 足 zú – foot 金 jīn – metal, gold 隹 zhuī – short tailed bird 雨 yǔ – rain 食 shí – to eat To the newbie learner: These are only radicals, often they are not used as words. Related Articles:

Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard (简体字:为什么中文这么TM难?) (繁體字:為什麼中文這麼TM難?) The first question any thoughtful person might ask when reading the title of this essay is, "Hard for whom?" If this were as far as I went, my statement would be a pretty empty one. If you don't believe this, just ask a Chinese person. Everyone's heard the supposed fact that if you take the English idiom "It's Greek to me" and search for equivalent idioms in all the world's languages to arrive at a consensus as to which language is the hardest, the results of such a linguistic survey is that Chinese easily wins as the canonical incomprehensible language. There is truth in this linguistic yarn; Chinese does deserve its reputation for heartbreaking difficulty. Okay, having explained a bit of what I mean by the word, I return to my original question: Why is Chinese so damn hard? 1. Beautiful, complex, mysterious -- but ridiculous. For one thing, it is simply unreasonably hard to learn enough characters to become functionally literate. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

38 Ways To Win An Argument—Arthur Schopenhauer - The India Uncut Blog - India Uncut For all of you who have ever been involved in an online debate in any way, Arthur Schopenhauer’s “38 Ways To Win An Argument” is indispensable. Most of these techniques will seem familiar to you, right from questioning the motive of a person making the argument instead of the argument itself (No. 35), exaggerating the propositions stated by the other person (No. 1) , misrepresenting the other person’s words (No. 2) and attacking a straw man instead (No. 3). It’s a full handbook of intellectual dishonesty there. The full text is below the fold. 38 Ways To Win An Argumentby Arthur Schopenhauer 1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. Phew.

Waste your life, learn to speak a foreign language Waste your life, learn to speak a foreign languageBy Anthony Browne We all know le problème: we are a nation of monoglots, linguistically challenged and so culturally inferior and economically constrained. Only one in four of us can claim to speak in foreign tongues, whereas our chic European chums babble away in a veritable Babel. European governments have lobbied, and the British Government has responded: from 2010 every primary school shall teach foreign. It’s a further good intention paving the road to ruin of our education system. All the time we spend learning another language, we should spend instead learning something useful — like economics, business studies, politics, law or computer science. Learning another language may make you feel clever, but it is no longer necessary for speaking with the foreigners you’re most likely to want to speak to: the educated and those working in tourism. From The TimesDecember 23, 2002 An interesting point of view.

How to Disagree March 2008 The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. Many who respond to something disagree with it. The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. DH0. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. The author is a self-important dilettante. is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag." DH1. An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. Of course he would say that. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. DH2. DH3. This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in: DH4. DH5. DH6.

The Science of Why Comment Trolls Suck Mark Matcho Everybody who's written or blogged about climate change on a prominent website (or, even worse, spoken about it on YouTube) knows the drill. Shortly after you post, the menagerie of trolls arrives. They're predominantly climate deniers, and they start in immediately arguing over the content and attacking the science—sometimes by slinging insults and even occasional obscenities. To cite a recent example: What part of "we haven't warmed any in 16 years" don't you understand? It was reasonably obvious already that these folks were doing nothing good for the public's understanding of the science of climate change (to say nothing of their own comprehension). In a recent study, a team of researchers from the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and several other institutions employed a survey of 1,183 Americans to get at the negative consequences of vituperative online comments for the public understanding of science. The upshot of this research?

Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts by Chris Hoofnagle The Denalists' Deck of Cards is a humorous illustration of how libertarian policy groups use denialism. In this context, denialism is the use of rhetorical techniques and predictable tactics to erect barriers to debate and consideration of any type of reform, regardless of the facts. has identified five general tactics used by denialists: conspiracy, selectivity, the fake expert, impossible expectations, and metaphor. The Denialists' Deck of Cards builds upon this description by providing specific examples of advocacy techniques. The point of listing denialists' arguments in this fashion is to show the rhetorical progression of groups that are not seeking a dialogue but rather an outcome. As such, this taxonomy is extremely cynical, but it is a reflection of and reaction to how poor the public policy debates in Washington have become. The Deck is drawn upon my experience as a lawyer working on consumer protection in Washington, DC.

Is Crime a Virus or a Beast? One Word Can Make a Big Difference | Stanford Knowledgebase Imagine your city isn’t as safe as it used to be. Robberies are on the rise, home invasions are increasing and murder rates have nearly doubled in the past three years. What should city officials do about it? Hire more cops to round up the thugs and lock them away in a growing network of prisons? Or design programs that promise more peace by addressing issues like a faltering economy and underperforming schools? Your answer – and the reasoning behind it – can hinge on the metaphor being used to describe the problem, according to new research by Stanford psychologists. Psychology Assistant Professor Lera Boroditsky and doctoral candidate Paul Thibodeau have shown that people will likely support an increase in police forces and jailing of offenders if crime is described as a “beast” preying on a community. Their findings are published in the Feb. 23 edition of PLoS ONE. They found the test subjects’ proposed solutions differed a great deal depending on the metaphor they were exposed to.

Politics and the English Language - Essay by George Orwell Politics and the English Language by George OrwellHorizon, April 1946. Recorded as completed in Orwell’s Payments Book on 11 December 1945. Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent, and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse. Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad — I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen — but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. Professor Harold Laski (Essay in Freedom of Expression) Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossa) Essay on psychology in Politics (New York) Communist pamphlet

Excerpts from three articles on education: Dorothy Sayers, Richard P. Feynman, John Taylor Gatto To say that our education system is broken and in need of a gargantuan overhaul is an understatement, but it will happen since it is an inevitable side effect of the liberation of data that comes with an open internet. What form these new systems of education will take are yet to be determined: only time will tell if they will be optimized replicas of the present models, or if they will be based on a new way of teaching and thought. Either way, the overhaul is long overdue and I for one am excited to see the transformation. Below you will find excerpts from three excellent articles on education that address some of the problems with our current systems. 1) “The Lost Tools of Learning” by Dorothy Sayers: “Let us amuse ourselves by imagining that such progressive retrogression is possible. “It is difficult to map out any general syllabus for the study of Rhetoric: a certain freedom is demanded. 2) “Judging Books by Their Covers” by Richard P. “I didn't pay much attention to what he said.

Number Facts: number 0 up to number 500 and more is the only prime 1 less than a perfect square. - Robin Regan is the number of spatial dimensions needed to mathematically describe a solid. are the primary colors. are the geometric constructions you cannot build using just a ruler and compasses: 1. You cannot trisect - divide into three equal parts - a given angle; 2. A number is divisible by 3 when the sum of its digits can be divided by 3. If the denominator of a rational number is not divisible by 3, then the repeating part of its decimal expansion is an integer divisible by 9. 3 + 2 = log2 32 5 (sum of two square roots)= 4! 4) = XV/V = CL/L = MD/D = 4 + 4 – 5 = 43 + 43 – 53= 17,469 / 5,823 (this division contains all digits 1 through 9 once) 3 x 51249876 = 153749628 (the multiplication uses all 9 digits once - and so does its product!) 3 x 37 = 111 33 x 3367 = 111,111 333 x 333667 = 111,111,111 3333 x 33336667 = 111,111,111,111 33333 x 3333366667 = 111,111,111,111,111 3 x 1.5 = 3 + 1.5 34 x 425 = 34425 (see also 312 x 325 = 312325)

Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts Summary The mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., has reignited a national debate on gun control. As elected leaders begin the dialogue, some facts are clear — there has been a massive increase in gun sales. We have decided to look at some of the rhetoric and how it squares with the facts, while offering some broader context to inform the debate. Rep. Here are some other facts. Analysis On Dec. 14, on the afternoon of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and after a spate of public mass shootings, President Obama said that “we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” Five days later, Obama announced in a press conference that he had tapped Vice President Joe Biden to lead a team to “come up with a set of concrete proposals” to “reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country.” On cable news and other media outlets, gun rights advocates have begun to push back.