<okyn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:29b9fd54-b6d7-42de-a4fa-a8d69eee3e61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Feb 20, 7:38 am, Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> o...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> > On Feb 19, 11:10 pm, "Paul J Kriha"
>> > <paul.nospam.kr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> "Karel Kriz" <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:karel-0744BC.07321919022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >>> In article <fpelj9$5e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >>> Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>>> Karel Kriz wrote:
>> >>>>> In article <fovata$ui...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >>>>> Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>>>>> The camera does not lie: Former centres of learning and
intellectual
>> >>>>>> diversity are now indoctrination sites systemically dedicated to
the
>> >>>>>> abbreviation of human curiosity and the alienation of students
from
>> >>>>>> Western
>> >>>>>> civilization.
>> >>>>>> I often wonder where in Canada I could "go home again" in the
21st
>> >>>>>> century.
>> >>>>>> I have one simple, symbolic criterion: a learning centre that
would still
>> >>>>>> hold up for critical admiration the greatness in the writings of
Thomas
>> >>>>>> Wolfe, a hard-drinking, aggressively hetero***ual white male
from a racist
>> >>>>>> background, whose creative inspiration was Western
civilization's literary
>> >>>>>> treasure trove and whose overriding theme was his passion for
America.
>> >>>>>> That's a tall order nowadays. I only know one three-year arts
program in
>> >>>>>> Canada today I'd be glad to call my intellectual home, and I
fear for its
>> >>>>>> survival.
>> >>>>> This article blew me away. Bures accused me of just "scanning
it", but
>> >>>>> NO-OOO, I read every word.
>> >>>> To put words in someone mouth is not too ethical, but it happens.
>> >>>> To intentionally misquote someone is reaching new low even for
you.
>> >>>> There is no phrase "scanning it" anywhere in my original post.
>> >>> A new low? Even for me? What on earth are you talking about?
>> >>> You wrote:
>> >>> "Karel,
>> >>> have you read the article? Or just glanced over it?"
>> >>> glanced = scanned more or less. So what's the problem?
>> >> You fool! Where have you been since you got off the boat?
>>
>> >> You _quoted_ Frank. When you put something in quotes
>> >> it means you quote (i.e. repeat) exactly what the person said.
>> >> That is the very purpose of the quotes to distinguish quotations
>> >> from paraphrasing.
>>
>> >Do not use quotation marks for
>> > indirect quotations.
>>
>> Q.E.D.
>
>
>Frank, it seems to me obvious that Kriz used the quotation marks not
>as direct quotation but in the "unusual" way that is quite usual in
>English. So your "Q.E.D." is not convincing.
Oldo, Oldo, it doesn't work. Words are indeed used in "unusual" way
quite often. But "unusual way" means they are used to mean something
unusual (or in unusual context) not in one one can readily find in a
dictionary.
Consider the following two versions:
(1) This article blew me away. Bures accused me of just scanning it, but
no, I read every word.
(2) This article blew me away. Bures accused me of just "scanning it", but
no, I read every word.
The quotes in (2) impart no (extra) irony or unusual way of
expressing an idea. The most obvious function one can read into
the quotes is of a literal quotation.
Frank's reaction of scanning for "scanning it" in his posts is entirely
understandable.
I suspect, KK meant to stress the expression "scanning it". The usual
chars people use for that are underscores (_underscore it_),
or asterisks (*enbolden that*).
pjk
|
