Given that the narrative makes much more sense top to bottom than bottom to top, i.e. the temporal structure is why the fuck am I commenting on this stupid subject?
strange. I enjoyed the star wars reference.
"via no woman" keeps making me think about As You Like It. "And I for Phoebe/And I for Ganymede/ And I for no woman."
I'm sure this will help.
When architectural students go mad?
5: It made me think of Sinead O'Connor, viz, "no [man's] woman," with the subjugation of woman by patriarchy as always, implied, even if left unsaid.
You all need Greek lessons. Please email for my hourly rate.
Where is Barbara Bush? Why isn't she a beautiful building? Asbestos!
11: She got her concrete balconies redone with less ornamentation.
Oh. As usual, I only looked at the pictures.
This is deeply strange, and maybe a little wonderful.
I'll read them all and report back.
You remember when I said here about three months ago that reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine would be a good idea? And then Tim laughed at me?
Well, the wingers are on the case. It's them against me. Dozens, maybe hundreds of them have risen up to defeat my lone initiative. I have the strength of ten, and probably dozens, but maybe not the strength of hundreds.
This is just the sort of thing that the Internet is for.
5,7, 8: I thought of Macduff, myself.
I just looked for the lyrics to "No Woman No Cry". The fact that there is a comma in the title phrase not just between "Woman" and "No", but between "No and Woman", shocks me and changes the entire meaning of the song.
OK, I haven't read it all, but here's my take:
I love the concept. I like the slightly dada dialogue*. I am baffled by the (willful?) misuse of terms. To wit:
"Let us quote past aspects of various buildings and melt them together!"
"Yes! Seagram Building rules! All hail Ludwid Mies van der Rohe!"
The first line is a funny summary of Postmodernism. But the Seagram Building is the very emblem of International Style Modernism. So the "Yes!" makes no sense. I suppose that makes it more dadaist, but for me it's starting to approach word salad - if the buildings really mean what they're saying, then it's all nonsense; if they don't mean what they're saying, well then, even less sense.
* what's the right term for dialogue featuring >2 people?
"what's the right term for dialogue featuring >2 people?"
polylogue, multilogue, conference, webinar ?
if the buildings really mean what they're saying, then it's all nonsense; if they don't mean what they're saying, well then, even less sense.
Something less than nonsense?
New mouseover text.
what's the right term for dialogue featuring >2 people?
In writing about drama it's still called dialogue.
Philosophical dialogues (Plato, Hume, etc.) are still called dialogues when they feature multiple people.
what's the right term for dialogue featuring >2 people?
Why would it be anything but "dialogue"? Is the concern here that the etymology of the word suggests "two"? If so, don't worry, because it doesn't.
The word comes from Greek dialegesthai, where dia is a preposition modifying a middle-voice form of the ordinary verb legein, to speak, so that it comes out meaning "to talk with [one another]". Not, in other words, di- meaning "two", as in Di Kotomy.
26 just reinforces the truth of 9 for most of us.
You know, I'd love to take Greek lessons. Actually an all-classical-languages sabbatical (Greek, Sanskrit, Chinese) is a running fantasy of mine.
potchkeh and Merganser have tested out of their Greek requirement.
Thanks, all.
I would like to note that the existence of "monologue" does suggest the "two" meaning of "dialogue."
So, when will oudemia be made a front page poster so that we can have a daily Greek lesson?
Actually, JRoth, the "mono" in "monologue" derives from the Spanish word for monkey.
Here we see the continued confusion over whether Bob Marley is saying "O woman, do not cry" or "Without a woman, crying does not occur".
This looks like a lyrics site a step above the spam- and spyware-laden ones. It uses the two-comma interpretation. And since apparently the lyrics also include " Woman, little sister, don't shed no tears", it's a no-brainer and there should be no confusion at all. Except for the bias many of us have, from our first assumption, that the title indicates that the emotionally fraught situation described in the song is now over, and because of that, the narrator no longer cries.
You know, I'd love to take Greek lessons. Actually an all-classical-languages sabbatical (Greek, Sanskrit, Chinese) is a running fantasy of mine.
Yeah, I could go for that, too. Maybe take some books along on my 'touring the US/Europe/Asia with a camera and an open top vintage sports car" sabbatical.
ToS, have you read a Borman joke?
it was on the site i linked the other day, hilarious
so Stirlitz was sitting in his office and someone knocked on his door. It's Borman, thought Stirlitz. It's me, thought Borman.
"Here we see the continued confusion over whether Bob Marley is saying "O woman, do not cry" or "Without a woman, crying does not occur"."
The fact that there is any confusion has always seemed bizarre to me, and suggests that a lot of people only listen to the song when they're so stoned they can't hear the words. To be fair, that's about the only time I listen to it, too.
"And since apparently the lyrics also include " Woman, little sister, don't shed no tears", it's a no-brainer and there should be no confusion at all"
Well, duh. It's not an ambiguous song in the least, unless you only hear the line "No(,) woman(,)no cry".
pity, you should laugh from time to time
any jokes by Johnny Carson or chevy chase you find amusing?
Bormann
wasn't that funny
there were other black humor jokes, but i forget
true, but Zhukov was a hero
nice name to be called, thanks, now if only you would sign your comments, so that you won't get deleted, ah?
If you search diligently, you can find a 1987 Peter Rowan version where he gets the women in the audience to sing "everything is gonna be alright" and the men to sing, at the same time "no woman no cry."
these dialogues without a username connected to one side are amusing.
Ok, these are starting to make some sort of sense, I like them.
I 'get' it, but can't articulate. Anyone else?
well, i find Tos' comments amusing when he is not abusive, but his abusiveness is also kinda like a sign of fondness, he has a problem with expressing his admiration i guess
it's similar to reading SB's How it is, for example, also couldn't get what he's talking about though it was kinda easy to read
Here's how I feel about that person's comments: it's like someone walked into your house uninvited and took a shit on your living room rug. I would not consider that a sign of fondness. I think you are missing some nuance, read.
i don't know how it's all started but i feel he usually comments fairly on topic but due to his excessive modesty or some self-identification-naming problems does not sign his comment, gets deleted, gets angry and leaves abusive remarks
and it goes in circles
i love to receive emails, but i'm afraid i hate to be reprimanded in a however polite manner it's expressed
sorry, i won't reply to your email
i'll leave after me the decision where and how and whom i should talk
That commentary could even aspire to amusing and insightful, if it had a lot more wit and a bit less vitriol. As it is, far too often amounts to nothing more than angrily demonstrated ignorance and confusion, which is just boring.
50, 52: I certainly understand and agree with the general stance and corrective actions, but I must say that for this specific post and linked material, I found the attempt at a dialogue to be almost appropriate.
I didnt know my beautiful buildings blog would create such a big deal of comments all not really related to it...
The sense to me is that it doesnt need to make sense. but if it does, then it's fine by me.
57: This crowd rarely stays on-topic. It's a feature, not a bug.