Comments on: What’s wrong with this Sentence? http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence Writing and Reading. Commerce and Art. Fantasy and Science Fiction. Discuss. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:27:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Kathleen Retterson http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2819 Kathleen Retterson Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:53:29 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2819 Heidegger is much easier to understand in German than in English -- all of them are. (I thought so, at least.) Some concepts don't have good English equivalents and that's a part of the problem when translating German. Heidegger is much easier to understand in German than in English — all of them are. (I thought so, at least.)

Some concepts don’t have good English equivalents and that’s a part of the problem when translating German.

]]> By: Laurie http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2811 Laurie Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:11:30 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2811 I agree with Mark. It sounds like something my old boss would say in his nervous, high-pitched voice, fidgeting all the while. I agree with Mark. It sounds like something my old boss would say in his nervous, high-pitched voice, fidgeting all the while.

]]> By: kateelliott http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2809 kateelliott Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:00:47 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2809 <blockquote>Though obnoxious from a writing standpoint, it is a nice bit of ass-covering by a philosopher who . . . (etc)</blockquote> So funny, and so true.

Though obnoxious from a writing standpoint, it is a nice bit of ass-covering by a philosopher who . . . (etc)

So funny, and so true.

]]> By: Katharine Kerr http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2807 Katharine Kerr Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:13:44 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2807 Heidegger himself is very very VERY hard to follow, of course. This may be a case of Infection from Source. I shall never forget how I lugged BEING AND TIME around with me for a full semester and never did manage to get beyond page 13. Heidegger himself is very very VERY hard to follow, of course. This may be a case of Infection from Source. I shall never forget how I lugged BEING AND TIME around with me for a full semester and never did manage to get beyond page 13.

]]> By: Mark Tiedemann http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2795 Mark Tiedemann Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:33:51 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2795 It sounds very like something which has been transcribed from a lecture--verbatim. Standing in front of an audience and speaking produces, even in the best of us, grammatical gaffs like this. Not correcting them on the page is the biggest error. It sounds very like something which has been transcribed from a lecture–verbatim. Standing in front of an audience and speaking produces, even in the best of us, grammatical gaffs like this. Not correcting them on the page is the biggest error.

]]> By: Kathleen Retterson http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2779 Kathleen Retterson Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:55:56 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2779 1. For an academic piece, there is altogether too much informal language, and the informal language only serves to make the sentences more confusing. 2. The interrupted quote is a big no-no. The author should have quoted Heidegger’s translator without the further translation. Remove these two issues and you have: <em>What is the meaning of this “as” that Heidegger emphasizes so strongly when he says that “that which is explicitly understood has the structure of something as something?” Heidegger means that the structure of interpretation (Auslegung) is figural rather than intentional.</em> Even corrected, though, the paragraph is still hard to follow. A third problem is substantive. Presumably, the author's use of informal language is an attempt to use the Socratic method. He asks a question and then goes on to answer it himself. However, he doesn’t answer the specific question he asked (i.e., the meaning of “as”); he actually interpreted the whole phrase.] Have the question ask what's been answered and you get. <em>What is the meaning of Heidegger’s assertion: “that which is explicitly understood has the structure of something as something?” Heidegger means that the structure of interpretation (Auslegung) is figural rather than intentional.</em> I’m sure there’s more . . . . 1. For an academic piece, there is altogether too much informal language, and the informal language only serves to make the sentences more confusing.

2. The interrupted quote is a big no-no. The author should have quoted Heidegger’s translator without the further translation.

Remove these two issues and you have:

What is the meaning of this “as” that Heidegger emphasizes so strongly when he says that “that which is explicitly understood has the structure of something as something?” Heidegger means that the structure of interpretation (Auslegung) is figural rather than intentional.

Even corrected, though, the paragraph is still hard to follow.

A third problem is substantive. Presumably, the author’s use of informal language is an attempt to use the Socratic method. He asks a question and then goes on to answer it himself. However, he doesn’t answer the specific question he asked (i.e., the meaning of “as”); he actually interpreted the whole phrase.]

Have the question ask what’s been answered and you get.

What is the meaning of Heidegger’s assertion: “that which is explicitly understood has the structure of something as something?” Heidegger means that the structure of interpretation (Auslegung) is figural rather than intentional.

I’m sure there’s more . . . .

]]> By: Michael Phillips http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2772 Michael Phillips Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:48:37 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2772 I looked at it a little more closely, and really, the two big problems are that it is jargon filled, which since I assume it is intended for an audience that shares the jargon, isn't a mortal sin, and that it breaks up a quote with a clarification that ends up implying that there are two seperate quotes. Those thises, thats, and whats (ooh that's fun to say) are almost technical tools of early to late-mid 20th century American (and British) philosophy, working to "clarify" specifically which part of a massive sentence is the clause we are interested in. I just noticed the "say" at the end. Though obnoxious from a writing standpoint, it is a nice bit of ass-covering by a philosopher who can't come up with other alternatives to figural than "intentional" off the top of his head and who knows at the bottom of his heart that if he doesn't cover that lapse, some obnoxious little twit, probably one of his ex-grad students, will trumpet the "fact" that by not covering this obscure case in a side comment that he made at the end of his statement, he invalidates every word that he has written in the last decade. (These things get viscious.) (Ah not even a hundred words. Must be getting rusty.) I looked at it a little more closely, and really, the two big problems are that it is jargon filled, which since I assume it is intended for an audience that shares the jargon, isn’t a mortal sin, and that it breaks up a quote with a clarification that ends up implying that there are two seperate quotes. Those thises, thats, and whats (ooh that’s fun to say) are almost technical tools of early to late-mid 20th century American (and British) philosophy, working to “clarify” specifically which part of a massive sentence is the clause we are interested in.
I just noticed the “say” at the end. Though obnoxious from a writing standpoint, it is a nice bit of ass-covering by a philosopher who can’t come up with other alternatives to figural than “intentional” off the top of his head and who knows at the bottom of his heart that if he doesn’t cover that lapse, some obnoxious little twit, probably one of his ex-grad students, will trumpet the “fact” that by not covering this obscure case in a side comment that he made at the end of his statement, he invalidates every word that he has written in the last decade. (These things get viscious.) (Ah not even a hundred words. Must be getting rusty.)

]]> By: Michael Phillips http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2771 Michael Phillips Wed, 13 Sep 2006 02:33:14 +0000 http://www.deepgenre.com/wordpress/katharinekerr/misc/whats-wrong-with-this-sentence#comment-2771 You know, my epistemology prof would have smacked me for that monstrosity. Or at least publicly humiliated me by reading it to the class. *shakes head* I was so glad when we got past Quine and the 20th century folks started writing to present an idea not to ocnfuse the situation. (As much as I like Quine's program, he was definately a child of the positivists in his style.) You know, my epistemology prof would have smacked me for that monstrosity. Or at least publicly humiliated me by reading it to the class.
*shakes head* I was so glad when we got past Quine and the 20th century folks started writing to present an idea not to ocnfuse the situation.
(As much as I like Quine’s program, he was definately a child of the positivists in his style.)

]]>