Truespel Spam

[LanDi Liu]

On Feb 4, 2008 11:39 PM, LanDi Liu <strangeguitars at gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Ben Zimmer (one of my superheroes) wrote:
> >
> > > > (Outside the theology of
> > > > ADS-L? If only we had the powers of excommunication...)
> >
> > This, and a lot of the other remarks about TZ are surprising in the
> light of
> > the ADS's own description of its members (from the home page): "Our
> members
> > include academics and amateurs, professionals and dilettantes, teachers
> and
> > writers."
>
> My comment  was of course written in jest (even if I neglected to add
> an emoticon). I was just struck by the ludicrousness of a
> "theological" ADS-L, presumably run by a cabal of high priests. I'm
> not interested in excommunicating anyone -- on the contrary, I find
> the openness of ADS-L to be one of its virtues, overall. My apologies,
> Randy, if I gave the impression of close-mindedness.


Actually, I was just using your comment to represent many other comments,
since it (though in jest) was worded in the strongest way.  Many others'
comments weren't in jest.

You've never given me the impression that you're closed-minded.  Quite the
opposite.
close-minded 1070k google hits
closed-minded 1050k google hits
See Mark Liberman's recent LL post on deletion:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005365.html

>
> > There are a lot of "names" that have come to my mind when reading TZ's
> > posts, too, but that's where they have stayed.
> >
> > I am in no way condoning his behavior, however.  It does verge on spam
> > sometimes, and that's completely wrong on a list like this.
> >
> > Maybe it's better to address these iniquities more specifically, and
> with
> > the emotional detachment normally characteristic of academic discourse
> > (whether or not that discourse includes participants, like me, with no
> > "piece of paper"*).
>
> I've never cared for the "professional" vs. "amateur" distinction,


It's often not so easy to make that distinction.

>
> particularly when it comes to more lexicographical matters. This is a
> point I raised on Language Log recently with respect to the New
> Scientist article on "amateur" lexicography:
>
> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005360.html<http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/005360.html>
>
> As should be obvious to anyone who regularly reads ADS-L, many of the
> most important recent discoveries in historical lexicography have come
> from the so-called "dilettantes". I certainly didn't mean to impugn
> any non-professionals with my "excommunication" jab, which was of
> course directed at one person who steadfastly refuses to learn the
> basics of phonetics and phonology -- something that any "amateur", let
> alone a self-proclaimed "expert", should be able to do.
>
>
> --Ben Zimmer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

--
Randy Alexander
Jilin City, China

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org