|
Real0ne -> RE: NY Police Threaten to Frame Protestor as Terrorist (11/7/2007 6:33:36 PM)
|
lucky ugh is nothing more than a "pause in thought" and is meaningless to the context of what was said.
She does not work for the state department so what she said is not official nor have I ever claimed her statement was "official".
So then what you really want here is for her to show you her degrees. Its not "what" is said but who says it.
ok let me give you an example. Here is her work:
quote:
Sorry. I get your meaning now. And you're right, and the word "And" is part of the linguistic flag here:
pull it = demolish the building
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it (to demolish the building).' And they made that decision to pull (to demolish) and then we watched the building collapse."
Linguistic evidence
If we assume that pull it means to pull (the plug on) the operation, to stop the operation, then the second pull doesn't fit grammatically, because it would have to carry the same meaning. It'd have to be "....they made the decision to pull out ...", a different verb altogether.
The problem here, or rather the apparent problem, is the phrase pull it. It's ambiguous, that is, it has two potential meanings:
1) to end an operation, to pull out of an operation
2) to demolish a building
If the idiom pull it means to pull out of an operation, then its base verb form to pull should follow semantically. That is, in order to keep the same meaning, which is evident by the speaker's use of the conjunction "And" which connects the two sentences, to pull would have to be to pull out.
In short, you are correct. Good eye! Pull in pull it and to pull means to demolish, not to pull out.
To pull is short for pull it.
Now take a look at it ok.
Language has a structure, just like math. Math has proofs and so does language.
For instance if I give you a problem say 0 = 7-((sqrt145^2)/(3+4)). The answer can be immediately proven by anyone who understands math.
You do not need to see the credentials of who wrote the formula or told you the answer was 0 because it stands by itself. Language is the same way.
So when you come out here and need to see credentials for what should be obvious to anyone who understands language you are broadcasting that you do not understand the language as many out here have repeated told you.
So in this one post I will give you the benefit of a doubt that maybe you were not aware of that, and that said
So if you can show an alternative linguistic proof I will be happy to send it off to her. I wont beother her with garbage like ugh because not only would it get you laughed at but me too.
The statement stands by itself exactly as a mathematical equation and you either can understand or you cannot.
(here is a website with the video edit your own version with all the ughs to your hears content and if you can show evidence that it changes the context I will send it to her)
WTC 7 - Silverstein's 'Pull It' Explanation Examined
|
|
|
|
