Re:Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)
by khedoros on Monday July 04, 2016 @01:23PM
(#12031906)
What I'm saying is that you took the strongest possible interpretation and knocked it down as a strawman. If there are several possible interpretations of someone's argument, and one of them is obviously flawed, then it's not very generous (or constructive, IMO) to attack the flawed interpretation.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)
by Nadya on Tuesday July 05, 2016 @07:56PM
(#12040348)
You speak of the principle of charity [0]. Something that has long vanished on many internet forums, where people are quick to take the most absurd and least likely interpretation of a statement and argue against it. Especially when being pedantic about certain word phrasing or word choices (to which the OP would often respond with "You know what I meant.")
My best friend is Australian, the idioms are often nonsensical or require a bit of thinking due to being a variant of an idiom I'm familiar with. e.g "a roo loose in the top paddock"