Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[Evo]

Screw what the sentence says. How about you people get some facts? This is how I believe it went: Some time ago, people fled from the deteriorating inner city to suburbs (increasing innovations in transportation facilitated commuting from the city job to the suburb home); nowadays, though, jobs have been moving into the suburbs.

Dang, you just summed up 97,392,732,957 posts.

Seriously, that sums it up.

 

[BicycleTree]

Whenever you have anything that says "many people no longer do x and instead do y," it implies that they were not doing y beforehand or were not doing y beforehand as much as they are now--in other words that they are substituting activity y for activity x.

 

[Knavish]

Oh, and...

It almost seems as if underlying all this is the argument carried over from that bus thread.

I'm pretty sure I was dead right about that.

 

[Evo]

Whenever you have anything that says "many people no longer do x and instead do y," it implies that they were not doing y beforehand or were not doing y beforehand as much as they are now--in other words that they are substituting activity y for activity x.

But it doesn't state what y is, you entered that yourself.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm pretty sure I was dead right about that.

And Brewnog beat you to it in his very first post.

 

[brewnog]

Oh, and...



I'm pretty sure I was dead right about that.

Yes and no. I wasn't even involved in that argument in the bus thread, but have been fairly active in this one...

 

[BicycleTree]

In "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work" you have x = "live where they work" and y = "live in the suburbs." Therefore they are not living in the suburbs beforehand as much as they are now; they are substituting living in the suburbs for living outside of the suburbs (obviously in the city).

 

[Hurkyl]

I think it's a very awkwardly worded sentence. I think BT has the correct strict literal interpretation, but I'm also well over 90% confident that the strict literal interpretation isn't the intent of the sentence.

If I were an editor, I would insist that the sentence be reworded.

 

[brewnog]

Therefore they are not living in the suburbs beforehand as much as they are now; they are substituting living in the suburbs for living outside of the suburbs (obviously in the city).

The contents of your parentheses are the problem. The city/town/CBD was not stated anywhere in the quote, you added that bit yourself.


One thing is certain: We have spent much more time discussing this than the author spent writing it.

 

[Evo]

In "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work" you have x = "live where they work" and y = "live in the suburbs, commuting to work." Therefore they are not living in the suburbs beforehand as much as they are now; they are substituting living outside of the suburbs (obviously in the city) for living in the suburbs.

It never implies where they work. For it to take on the specific meaning you want, it would have to say "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting into the city". They left it open, you are trying to give it a specific meaning.

 

[BicycleTree]

Ah, for those two quotes of my post, I edited my post apparently after I was quoted (I had something backwards originally).

 

[brewnog]

Ah, for those two quotes of my post, I edited my post apparently after I was quoted (I had something backwards originally).

Even so, the point remains exactly the same. Sorry.

Edit: I've changed it for you now

 

[Evo]

I think it's a very awkwardly worded sentence. I think BT has the correct strict literal interpretation, but I'm also well over 90% confident that the strict literal interpretation isn't the intent of the sentence.

If I were an editor, I would insist that the sentence be reworded.

Agreed, it's badly worded.

 

[BicycleTree]

When they say "and instead live in the suburbs," it means that living in the suburbs is something NEW, something that is in STEAD of living where they work. Replace the instances of living where they work with instances of living in the suburbs, and there you have your meaning.

Look, why would they even mention living "in the suburbs" if they did not mean to say that the people moved to the suburbs from somewhere else? They would have just said "and instead commute to work."

 

[Evo]

Look, why would they even mention living "in the suburbs" if they did not mean to say that the people moved to the suburbs from somewhere else? They would have just said "and instead commute to work."

Implying that they moved to the suburbs from somewhere else doesn't state where they work, they only stated that they now commute, it doesn't imply where they commute, only that they no longer live in an environment that puts them in close proximity to their work. They are stating that the suburban environment is different from the city environment.

 

[BicycleTree]

You know, after reading your last post and looking at the sentence again I see there is a second interpretation that can be assigned to it.

Namely, they 1.) previously lived somewhere else (city or rural area) and 2.) now live in the suburbs and commute to other places in the suburbs. That is _possible_ but it's weird, and sure as hell not the intended meaning, given the context.

It can't mean, as your claim has been, that they lived in the suburbs originally and still live in it and commute to work.

 

[Knavish]

Arr, I don't know why I'm getting so caught up in this. But here goes:


I'm quite positive BT is right here. When I went to Wikipedia, I specifically looked up "suburbanization"; this really means to transfer from the inner city/CBD to the suburbs. And the article reads:

Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work. This has set the United States apart from many other countries where the majority of people live in urban areas.

Thus we can see the people are moving away from the "urban areas," or the city. Also, if we were to assume that the Americans initially lived in suburbs, the sentence would, in a sense, read: "Many Americans no longer live in suburbs and instead live in suburbs, commuting to work." Certainly this isn't what the author meant.


Today, however, the suburbs themselves are urbanizing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It can't mean, as your claim has been, that they lived in the suburbs originally and still live in it and commute to work.

No one is questioning that people originally lived in the city and then moved to the suburbs.

 

[Danger]

Implying that they moved to the suburbs from somewhere else doesn't state where they work, they only stated that they now commute

Sorry, Evo. I told you that I'd stay out of it, but I have to respond to this post, since it sums everything up perfectly. A lot of my friends who used to live on the farms and ranches that they work on now live in the outskirts of Calgary and drive to work.
As for the SAT thing, that's a Yank test that probably has no relevance to Brewnog, Matthmas (whatever; sorry, man, I don't have ready access to how to spell that without losing this and having to type it over), Marlon, Arildno, Soilwork, Monique (Yank, but cosmopolitan?), Icvotria and countless other PF members who don't particularly respect the US government's criteria for intelligence. I mean really, MENSA members think that their **** don't stink because they have to be in the 98th percentile to qualify? I'm dumb as a stump and I can pass their test in my sleep.

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes, Danger, this thread is not about general intelligence.

I think this is a telling point: The sentence also does not state that the people change where they work. It indicates a change in living living location only.

 

[brewnog]

Yes, Danger, this thread is not about general intelligence.

Yeah Danger! Clear off! You're not welcome here! This is a local thread, for loc... ah, never mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

As for the SAT thing, that's a Yank test that probably has no relevance to Brewnog, Matthmas (whatever; sorry, man, I don't have ready access to how to spell that without losing this and having to type it over), Marlon, Arildno, Soilwork, Monique (Yank, but cosmopolitan?), Icvotria and countless other PF members who don't particularly respect the US government's criteria for intelligence.

SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test". It isn't an IQ test, but a specific measure of how a person is likely to do in "scholastic" settings.

The reading comprehension part of the test simply consists of paragraphs of prose to read and answer questions about. The questions are simply geared to determining if you understood what the paragraph said. All native English speakers have an equal shot at doing well on one of our SATs. The prose you're tested on is plain and straightforward, and doesn't have any special American bias to speak of. I think Brewnog would score very high with no problem.

 

[Evo]

You know, after reading your last post and looking at the sentence again I see there is a second interpretation that can be assigned to it.

Namely, they 1.) previously lived somewhere else (city or rural area) and 2.) now live in the suburbs and commute to other places in the suburbs. That is _possible_ but it's weird, and sure as hell not the intended meaning, given the context.

It can't mean, as your claim has been, that they lived in the suburbs originally and still live in it and commute to work.

See, you misread my post, I didn't say they didn't move to the suburbs. I said "Implying that they moved to the suburbs from somewhere else doesn't state where they work...only that they no longer live in an environment that puts them in close proximity to their work. What was this about reading comprehension?

 

[zoobyshoe]

There's another difference between how well a person might do on the SAT reading comprehension and their reading comprehension at PF: people's reading comprehension sometimes seems to plummet when they don't like what you've said.

I notice Evo making good point after good point, and BT seeming not to grasp it the better her point becomes.

 

[BicycleTree]

It does not state they change where they work, therefore you assume they continue to work in the same area.

 

[BicycleTree]

Zooby, Evo's points seem good to you because your first reading was the same as hers. The principle whereof you speak is double edged.

 

[Evo]

I think this is a telling point: The sentence also does not state that the people change where they work. It indicates a change in living living location only.

The sentence "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work" is vague and ambiguous. They aren't really stating much of anything. It's not claiming that these people moved to the suburbs from anywhere, it is merely stating that currently many people no longer live where they work as opposed to older times when that was the case. They are simply stating how things are now. You are reading WAY too many details that are not present into this. The preceding sentence gives us a clue to what they mean "Suburbanization is a term used by many to describe the current residential living situation in the United States". Hmmmmm, describing the CURRENT residential living situation. Gee, as in current and not having to do with what they were previously doing? Do you remember something in school about reading things in context?

You made the error of pulling the sentence out of context. That's a no no.

 

[BicycleTree]

Evo, I find that post rather insulting. This is a thread about how to form good discussions.

 

[BicycleTree]

The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby, Evo's points seem good to you because your first reading was the same as hers. The principle whereof you speak is double edged.

Everything's double edged. However, in your case, we get the blunt or sharp edge depending on your purpose. I noticed how Chroot had to repeat a good point four times to you in the other thread.