Installment #12 of... well, you don't care so why bother

On 2004-05-12, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnca1su9.beb.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-05-11, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web> wrote:
>> >> >> The air started to blur (as if hot) and ripples formed, like the
> ones
>> >> >> on the surface of a lake you just threw a stone in, but water
> doesn't
>> >> >> tend to sit vertically in midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow
> to
>> >> >> it either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Although I start to feel that 'had thrown' fits in
> better...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > *relief*
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> So that makes it...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The air started to blur and ripples formed, like the ones on a
>> > lake
>> >> > you
>> >> >> >> >> had just thrown a stone in, but water doesn't tend to sit
>> > vertically
>> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> midair and rarely has such a ghostly glow to it either.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Note the subtle changes in the rest of the sentence as well.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ehh. Yes... Firstly, rulg.
>> >> >> >> > Secondly, 'into' instead of 'in', thirdly
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Damn. I should already have fixed that.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > 'had' instead of 'has' ('has' is 'direct' present tense, if
> that
>> >> > makes
>> >> >> > any
>> >> >> >> > sense),
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm not so sure about you, but I hardly ever see water sitting in
>> > the
>> >> >> >> middle of air - independent (sp?) from the actual point of time.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hmm... I see what you mean... But it's talking about /then/, and
>> >> > possibly
>> >> >> > even slightly through the lens of his thoughts, not quite the
>> > narrator
>> >> >> > talking directly to the reader. Which is why we don't see
> references
>> > to
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > English countryside, for example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Erm, "English countryside"?
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, that's spelled correctly, believe it or not.
>> >>
>> >> No, that's not it. I have no clue what you are talking about.
>> >
>> > Sorry. But the narrator isn't openly telling the story. There are
> never
>> > (well, almost never, hence this discussion) where suddenly the reader
> gets
>> > yanked out of the story being told and into the world of the
> storyteller.
>>
>> So, where does the "English Countryside" get in there?
>
> It was a random example. You/a narrator could [be] compare/comparing a
> field to it.

Ah, it's just... English countryside doesn't make much sense for me...

>> >> >> > There's an unspoken 'At that point in time' before anything.
> 'From
>> > the
>> >> >> > point of view of that point in time', water rarely had such a
> ghostly
>> >> > glow
>> >> >> > to it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That makes sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thank you. *smiles*
>> >>
>> >> ::bows::
>> >
>> > NAJISBU.
>> >
>> >> >> >> > and I'd suggest 'like those on a lake you had', possibly 'like
>> > those
>> >> >> >> > on a lake that you had'.

NAJISBU

>> >> >> So...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake
> you
>> > had
>> >> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically in
>> >> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either."
>> >> >
>> >> > *chews lip* That seems better in one respect... yes, I think it
> should
>> > be
>> >> > good, though the 'didn't tend to' is a little worrying. *considers*
>> > Ahh, I
>> >> > see it. The 'didn't there has an unspoken 'used to'. That is, 'but
>> > water
>> >> > didn't [used to] tend to sit vertically', or, in other words, it's
>> > implying
>> >> > that it only applied back then, but not now. Whereas the part about
>> >> > throwing is referring to actions /within that time space/.
>> >>
>> >> You mean... wait, *what* do you mean?
>> >
>> > ...I'm not making any sense, am I?
>>
>> Not exactly. Not to me anyway.
>
> Damn. What did you think (at first glance) I meant?

At first glance? At first glance I couldn't make any sense in it, of
course. Not that it is much different now...

>> >> > Ah. Another way to put it: From point of view of unspoken 'back
> then'.
>> >> > 'but back then water didn't tend to sit vertically', versus 'in the
>> > point of
>> >> > time back then, /when the ripples in the air were forming/, they (the
>> >> > ripples) were like such-and-such'. In other words, with the first
> the
>> >> > description is referring to the ripples in the air at that point in
>> > time,
>> >> > while /then/ it separates slightly and talks about what water does.
>> >> >
>> >> > *looks at it again* ....No, I'm still not certain my interpretation
>> > makes
>> >> > sense. Especially since I still think that it should be 'had a
> ghostly
>> >> > glow'... Hrm. Actually, that interesting.
>> >> >
>> >> > ...Right. If there's a way to separate the 'doesn't/has and the
>> >> > 'didn't/had', I can't see it right now. Probably keep it the way it
> is,
>> >> > unless you can see something I can't. *rubs head* Skah,
> complicated.
>> >>
>> >> Erm, keep ikt *which* way? I'm loosing track of the various versions...
>> >
>> > Same here. But I /think/ I mean keep it 'didn't tend to sit vertically'
> and
>> > 'had a ghostly glow'.
>>
>> The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake you had
>> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically in
>> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either.
>
> Wonderful! *much happiness*

Not really. Not as far as it concerns me, that is.

"The air started to blur and ripples formed, like a lake's surface after
throwing stones into the water. Water, however, didn't sit vertically in
midair and rarely had such a strange glow to it either."

How does that sound? <d&rlh>

>> Erm, I'm not too sure about, but... wouldn't "you have just thrown a
>> stone" sound better? Probably not. But somehow it still sounds odd...
>
> Here 'not'. To try and answer it specifically, 'you have' is suddenly
> addressing the reader in the present tense. 'ripples formed, like those on
> a lake you have just thrown a stone into' suddenly springs to the reader,
> and the 'suggested case' which it's comparing it to is when the reader--in
> the reader's present--has just thrown a stone into a lake, whether s/he has
> or not.
>
> However, the point is to imagine the reader (though s/he doesn't think of
> himself/herself as 'the reader' at the time) having just thrown a stone into
> a lake /in the abstract/, /at any time/. Namely, grounded in the time of
> the story.
>
> This [explanation] may not make any sense, but it's the best I can do.

It makes sense, it's just... I don't really want to think about it at
this time... Mind boggling(sp?!??) and stuff...
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Installment #12 of... well, you don't care so why bother 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnca70n8.cu3.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x7.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-05-12, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrnca1su9.beb.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-05-11, Refractor Dragon <wanderer.TakeThisOut@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> >> >> The air started to blur (as if hot) and ripples formed, like the
> > ones
> >> >> >> on the surface of a lake you just threw a stone in, but water
> > doesn't
> >> >> >> tend to sit vertically in midair and rarely had such a ghostly
glow
> > to
> >> >> >> it either.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Although I start to feel that 'had thrown' fits in
> > better...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > *relief*
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> So that makes it...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> The air started to blur and ripples formed, like the ones
on a
> >> > lake
> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> >> >> had just thrown a stone in, but water doesn't tend to sit
> >> > vertically
> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> >> midair and rarely has such a ghostly glow to it either.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Note the subtle changes in the rest of the sentence as
well.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Ehh. Yes... Firstly, rulg.
> >> >> >> >> > Secondly, 'into' instead of 'in', thirdly
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Damn. I should already have fixed that.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > 'had' instead of 'has' ('has' is 'direct' present tense, if
> > that
> >> >> > makes
> >> >> >> > any
> >> >> >> >> > sense),
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm not so sure about you, but I hardly ever see water sitting
in
> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> middle of air - independent (sp?) from the actual point of
time.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Hmm... I see what you mean... But it's talking about /then/,
and
> >> >> > possibly
> >> >> >> > even slightly through the lens of his thoughts, not quite the
> >> > narrator
> >> >> >> > talking directly to the reader. Which is why we don't see
> > references
> >> > to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > English countryside, for example.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Erm, "English countryside"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, that's spelled correctly, believe it or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, that's not it. I have no clue what you are talking about.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry. But the narrator isn't openly telling the story. There are
> > never
> >> > (well, almost never, hence this discussion) where suddenly the reader
> > gets
> >> > yanked out of the story being told and into the world of the
> > storyteller.
> >>
> >> So, where does the "English Countryside" get in there?
> >
> > It was a random example. You/a narrator could [be] compare/comparing a
> > field to it.
>
> Ah, it's just... English countryside doesn't make much sense for me...

Sorry. Being in England, such examples tend to come more easily to my mind
than, for example, refences to the Polish countryside. (I've never actually
been in Poland... though since I can't remember whether you're American,
European, Canadian, etc. I don't know whether you have, either.)

> >> >> >> > There's an unspoken 'At that point in time' before anything.
> > 'From
> >> > the
> >> >> >> > point of view of that point in time', water rarely had such a
> > ghostly
> >> >> > glow
> >> >> >> > to it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That makes sense.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank you. *smiles*
> >> >>
> >> >> ::bows::
> >> >
> >> > NAJISBU.
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > and I'd suggest 'like those on a lake you had', possibly
'like
> >> > those
> >> >> >> >> > on a lake that you had'.
>
> NAJISBU
>
> >> >> >> So...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake
> > you
> >> > had
> >> >> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically
in
> >> >> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *chews lip* That seems better in one respect... yes, I think it
> > should
> >> > be
> >> >> > good, though the 'didn't tend to' is a little worrying.
*considers*
> >> > Ahh, I
> >> >> > see it. The 'didn't there has an unspoken 'used to'. That is,
'but
> >> > water
> >> >> > didn't [used to] tend to sit vertically', or, in other words, it's
> >> > implying
> >> >> > that it only applied back then, but not now. Whereas the part
about
> >> >> > throwing is referring to actions /within that time space/.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean... wait, *what* do you mean?
> >> >
> >> > ...I'm not making any sense, am I?
> >>
> >> Not exactly. Not to me anyway.
> >
> > Damn. What did you think (at first glance) I meant?
>
> At first glance? At first glance I couldn't make any sense in it, of
> course. Not that it is much different now...

Skah. Well, on the 'You mean...' what was it that you /thought/ I meant,
before it dissolved into confusion and you asked me?

> >> >> > Ah. Another way to put it: From point of view of unspoken 'back
> > then'.
> >> >> > 'but back then water didn't tend to sit vertically', versus 'in
the
> >> > point of
> >> >> > time back then, /when the ripples in the air were forming/, they
(the
> >> >> > ripples) were like such-and-such'. In other words, with the first
> > the
> >> >> > description is referring to the ripples in the air at that point
in
> >> > time,
> >> >> > while /then/ it separates slightly and talks about what water
does.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > *looks at it again* ....No, I'm still not certain my
interpretation
> >> > makes
> >> >> > sense. Especially since I still think that it should be 'had a
> > ghostly
> >> >> > glow'... Hrm. Actually, that interesting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...Right. If there's a way to separate the 'doesn't/has and the
> >> >> > 'didn't/had', I can't see it right now. Probably keep it the way
it
> > is,
> >> >> > unless you can see something I can't. *rubs head* Skah,
> > complicated.
> >> >>
> >> >> Erm, keep ikt *which* way? I'm loosing track of the various
versions...
> >> >
> >> > Same here. But I /think/ I mean keep it 'didn't tend to sit
vertically'
> > and
> >> > 'had a ghostly glow'.
> >>
> >> The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake you
had
> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically in
> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either.
> >
> > Wonderful! *much happiness*
>
> Not really. Not as far as it concerns me, that is.

Eh. Just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean it's not important.
*nod nod*

> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like a lake's surface after
> throwing stones into the water. Water, however, didn't sit vertically in
> midair and rarely had such a strange glow to it either."
>
> How does that sound? <d&rlh>

*buries face in hands*

That makes it sound as if it's the lake's surface that's just thrown stones
into the water. 'after stones had been thrown into'.

> >> Erm, I'm not too sure about, but... wouldn't "you have just thrown a
> >> stone" sound better? Probably not. But somehow it still sounds odd...
> >
> > Here 'not'. To try and answer it specifically, 'you have' is suddenly
> > addressing the reader in the present tense. 'ripples formed, like those
on
> > a lake you have just thrown a stone into' suddenly springs to the
reader,
> > and the 'suggested case' which it's comparing it to is when the
reader--in
> > the reader's present--has just thrown a stone into a lake, whether s/he
has
> > or not.
> >
> > However, the point is to imagine the reader (though s/he doesn't think
of
> > himself/herself as 'the reader' at the time) having just thrown a stone
into
> > a lake /in the abstract/, /at any time/. Namely, grounded in the time
of
> > the story.
> >
> > This [explanation] may not make any sense, but it's the best I can do.
>
> It makes sense,

*relief* That's good.

> it's just... I don't really want to think about it at
> this time... Mind boggling(sp?!??) and stuff...

Sympathy. Good luck.

Oh, and I think you spelled 'boggling' correctly. *smiles*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Installment #12 of... well, you don't care so why bother 

And when it was 2004-05-14, illusion
<c82hk7$910$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer DeleteThis @beeb.web>
uttered in alt.games.creatures:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnca70n8.cu3.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x7.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> > Hmm... I see what you mean... But it's talking about /then/,
> and
>> >> >> > possibly
>> >> >> >> > even slightly through the lens of his thoughts, not quite the
>> >> > narrator
>> >> >> >> > talking directly to the reader. Which is why we don't see
>> > references
>> >> > to
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > English countryside, for example.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Erm, "English countryside"?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Actually, that's spelled correctly, believe it or not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, that's not it. I have no clue what you are talking about.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry. But the narrator isn't openly telling the story. There are
>> > never
>> >> > (well, almost never, hence this discussion) where suddenly the reader
>> > gets
>> >> > yanked out of the story being told and into the world of the
>> > storyteller.
>> >>
>> >> So, where does the "English Countryside" get in there?
>> >
>> > It was a random example. You/a narrator could [be] compare/comparing a
>> > field to it.
>>
>> Ah, it's just... English countryside doesn't make much sense for me...
>
> Sorry. Being in England, such examples tend to come more easily to my mind
> than, for example, refences to the Polish countryside. (I've never actually
> been in Poland... though since I can't remember whether you're American,
> European, Canadian, etc. I don't know whether you have, either.)

Well, with my serious problems with the English language I'll hardly be
American. (Then again...) Anyway, I'm pretty much German. It's not
that's it's a secret or something.

>> >> >> >> So...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake
>> > you
>> >> > had
>> >> >> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically
> in
>> >> >> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > *chews lip* That seems better in one respect... yes, I think it
>> > should
>> >> > be
>> >> >> > good, though the 'didn't tend to' is a little worrying.
> *considers*
>> >> > Ahh, I
>> >> >> > see it. The 'didn't there has an unspoken 'used to'. That is,
> 'but
>> >> > water
>> >> >> > didn't [used to] tend to sit vertically', or, in other words, it's
>> >> > implying
>> >> >> > that it only applied back then, but not now. Whereas the part
> about
>> >> >> > throwing is referring to actions /within that time space/.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You mean... wait, *what* do you mean?
>> >> >
>> >> > ...I'm not making any sense, am I?
>> >>
>> >> Not exactly. Not to me anyway.
>> >
>> > Damn. What did you think (at first glance) I meant?
>>
>> At first glance? At first glance I couldn't make any sense in it, of
>> course. Not that it is much different now...
>
> Skah. Well, on the 'You mean...' what was it that you /thought/ I meant,
> before it dissolved into confusion and you asked me?

I'm stupid./WTF

>> >> >> > Ah. Another way to put it: From point of view of unspoken 'back
>> > then'.
>> >> >> > 'but back then water didn't tend to sit vertically', versus 'in
> the
>> >> > point of
>> >> >> > time back then, /when the ripples in the air were forming/, they
> (the
>> >> >> > ripples) were like such-and-such'. In other words, with the first
>> > the
>> >> >> > description is referring to the ripples in the air at that point
> in
>> >> > time,
>> >> >> > while /then/ it separates slightly and talks about what water
> does.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > *looks at it again* ....No, I'm still not certain my
> interpretation
>> >> > makes
>> >> >> > sense. Especially since I still think that it should be 'had a
>> > ghostly
>> >> >> > glow'... Hrm. Actually, that interesting.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ...Right. If there's a way to separate the 'doesn't/has and the
>> >> >> > 'didn't/had', I can't see it right now. Probably keep it the way
> it
>> > is,
>> >> >> > unless you can see something I can't. *rubs head* Skah,
>> > complicated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Erm, keep ikt *which* way? I'm loosing track of the various
> versions...
>> >> >
>> >> > Same here. But I /think/ I mean keep it 'didn't tend to sit
> vertically'
>> > and
>> >> > 'had a ghostly glow'.
>> >>
>> >> The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake you
> had
>> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically in
>> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either.
>> >
>> > Wonderful! *much happiness*
>>
>> Not really. Not as far as it concerns me, that is.
>
> Eh. Just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean it's not important.
> *nod nod*

Sorry for letting you down.

>> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like a lake's surface after
>> throwing stones into the water. Water, however, didn't sit vertically in
>> midair and rarely had such a strange glow to it either."
>>
>> How does that sound? <d&rlh>
>
> *buries face in hands*

Um, sorry? ...
::backs off and makes a break for it::

> That makes it sound as if it's the lake's surface that's just thrown stones
> into the water. 'after stones had been thrown into'.

Let's get back to the other one and keep it at that.

>> >> Erm, I'm not too sure about, but... wouldn't "you have just thrown a
>> >> stone" sound better? Probably not. But somehow it still sounds odd...
>> >
>> > Here 'not'. To try and answer it specifically, 'you have' is suddenly
>> > addressing the reader in the present tense. 'ripples formed, like those
> on
>> > a lake you have just thrown a stone into' suddenly springs to the
> reader,
>> > and the 'suggested case' which it's comparing it to is when the
> reader--in
>> > the reader's present--has just thrown a stone into a lake, whether s/he
> has
>> > or not.
>> >
>> > However, the point is to imagine the reader (though s/he doesn't think
> of
>> > himself/herself as 'the reader' at the time) having just thrown a stone
> into
>> > a lake /in the abstract/, /at any time/. Namely, grounded in the time
> of
>> > the story.
>> >
>> > This [explanation] may not make any sense, but it's the best I can do.
>>
>> It makes sense,
>
> *relief* That's good.
>
>> it's just... I don't really want to think about it at
>> this time... Mind boggling(sp?!??) and stuff...
>
> Sympathy. Good luck.
>
> Oh, and I think you spelled 'boggling' correctly. *smiles*

Well, at least one thing I did right.

FILE CLOSED.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Installment #12 of... well, you don't care so why bother 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncabk90.4ad.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
> And when it was 2004-05-14, illusion
> <c82hk7$910$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
> stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web>
> uttered in alt.games.creatures:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrnca70n8.cu3.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x7.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> > Hmm... I see what you mean... But it's talking about
/then/,
> > and
> >> >> >> > possibly
> >> >> >> >> > even slightly through the lens of his thoughts, not quite
the
> >> >> > narrator
> >> >> >> >> > talking directly to the reader. Which is why we don't see
> >> > references
> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > English countryside, for example.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Erm, "English countryside"?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Actually, that's spelled correctly, believe it or not.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, that's not it. I have no clue what you are talking about.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry. But the narrator isn't openly telling the story. There
are
> >> > never
> >> >> > (well, almost never, hence this discussion) where suddenly the
reader
> >> > gets
> >> >> > yanked out of the story being told and into the world of the
> >> > storyteller.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, where does the "English Countryside" get in there?
> >> >
> >> > It was a random example. You/a narrator could [be] compare/comparing
a
> >> > field to it.
> >>
> >> Ah, it's just... English countryside doesn't make much sense for me...
> >
> > Sorry. Being in England, such examples tend to come more easily to my
mind
> > than, for example, refences to the Polish countryside. (I've never
actually
> > been in Poland... though since I can't remember whether you're
American,
> > European, Canadian, etc. I don't know whether you have, either.)
>
> Well, with my serious problems with the English language I'll hardly be
> American. (Then again...)

<dry voice>Quite.</voice>

> Anyway, I'm pretty much German. It's not
> that's it's a secret or something.

Ahh. *attempts to remember* Just because something isn't a secret doesn't
mean that it's automatically known.

> >> >> >> >> So...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a
lake
> >> > you
> >> >> > had
> >> >> >> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit
vertically
> > in
> >> >> >> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > *chews lip* That seems better in one respect... yes, I think
it
> >> > should
> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> > good, though the 'didn't tend to' is a little worrying.
> > *considers*
> >> >> > Ahh, I
> >> >> >> > see it. The 'didn't there has an unspoken 'used to'. That is,
> > 'but
> >> >> > water
> >> >> >> > didn't [used to] tend to sit vertically', or, in other words,
it's
> >> >> > implying
> >> >> >> > that it only applied back then, but not now. Whereas the part
> > about
> >> >> >> > throwing is referring to actions /within that time space/.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You mean... wait, *what* do you mean?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ...I'm not making any sense, am I?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not exactly. Not to me anyway.
> >> >
> >> > Damn. What did you think (at first glance) I meant?
> >>
> >> At first glance? At first glance I couldn't make any sense in it, of
> >> course. Not that it is much different now...
> >
> > Skah. Well, on the 'You mean...' what was it that you /thought/ I
meant,
> > before it dissolved into confusion and you asked me?
>
> I'm stupid./WTF

Oh. Well, it was likely at least half my fault at wording it unclearly
(though I'm not certain how it should be worded).

> >> >> >> > Ah. Another way to put it: From point of view of unspoken
'back
> >> > then'.
> >> >> >> > 'but back then water didn't tend to sit vertically', versus 'in
> > the
> >> >> > point of
> >> >> >> > time back then, /when the ripples in the air were forming/,
they
> > (the
> >> >> >> > ripples) were like such-and-such'. In other words, with the
first
> >> > the
> >> >> >> > description is referring to the ripples in the air at that
point
> > in
> >> >> > time,
> >> >> >> > while /then/ it separates slightly and talks about what water
> > does.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > *looks at it again* ....No, I'm still not certain my
> > interpretation
> >> >> > makes
> >> >> >> > sense. Especially since I still think that it should be 'had a
> >> > ghostly
> >> >> >> > glow'... Hrm. Actually, that interesting.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ...Right. If there's a way to separate the 'doesn't/has and
the
> >> >> >> > 'didn't/had', I can't see it right now. Probably keep it the
way
> > it
> >> > is,
> >> >> >> > unless you can see something I can't. *rubs head* Skah,
> >> > complicated.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Erm, keep ikt *which* way? I'm loosing track of the various
> > versions...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Same here. But I /think/ I mean keep it 'didn't tend to sit
> > vertically'
> >> > and
> >> >> > 'had a ghostly glow'.
> >> >>
> >> >> The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake you
> > had
> >> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically in
> >> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either.
> >> >
> >> > Wonderful! *much happiness*
> >>
> >> Not really. Not as far as it concerns me, that is.
> >
> > Eh. Just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean it's not
important.
> > *nod nod*
>
> Sorry for letting you down.

Erm, what? *confusion*

> >> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like a lake's surface
after
> >> throwing stones into the water. Water, however, didn't sit vertically
in
> >> midair and rarely had such a strange glow to it either."
> >>
> >> How does that sound? <d&rlh>
> >
> > *buries face in hands*
>
> Um, sorry? ...
> ::backs off and makes a break for it::

*pat pat*

> > That makes it sound as if it's the lake's surface that's just thrown
stones
> > into the water. 'after stones had been thrown into'.
>
> Let's get back to the other one and keep it at that.

That sounds good, I think. *nods*

> >> >> Erm, I'm not too sure about, but... wouldn't "you have just thrown a
> >> >> stone" sound better? Probably not. But somehow it still sounds
odd...
> >> >
> >> > Here 'not'. To try and answer it specifically, 'you have' is
suddenly
> >> > addressing the reader in the present tense. 'ripples formed, like
those
> > on
> >> > a lake you have just thrown a stone into' suddenly springs to the
> > reader,
> >> > and the 'suggested case' which it's comparing it to is when the
> > reader--in
> >> > the reader's present--has just thrown a stone into a lake, whether
s/he
> > has
> >> > or not.
> >> >
> >> > However, the point is to imagine the reader (though s/he doesn't
think
> > of
> >> > himself/herself as 'the reader' at the time) having just thrown a
stone
> > into
> >> > a lake /in the abstract/, /at any time/. Namely, grounded in the
time
> > of
> >> > the story.
> >> >
> >> > This [explanation] may not make any sense, but it's the best I can
do.
> >>
> >> It makes sense,
> >
> > *relief* That's good.
> >
> >> it's just... I don't really want to think about it at
> >> this time... Mind boggling(sp?!??) and stuff...
> >
> > Sympathy. Good luck.
> >
> > Oh, and I think you spelled 'boggling' correctly. *smiles*
>
> Well, at least one thing I did right.

Hoowah!

> FILE CLOSED.

Ooo. *goes to look at other thingamajig*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 >> Stay informed about: Installment #12 of... well, you don't care so why bother 

And when it was 2004-05-15, illusion
<c85cjo$oa5$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web>
uttered in alt.games.creatures:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncabk90.4ad.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
>> And when it was 2004-05-14, illusion
>> <c82hk7$910$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
>> stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer RemoveThis @beeb.web>
>> uttered in alt.games.creatures:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrnca70n8.cu3.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x7.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> >> > Hmm... I see what you mean... But it's talking about
> /then/,
>> > and
>> >> >> >> > possibly
>> >> >> >> >> > even slightly through the lens of his thoughts, not quite
> the
>> >> >> > narrator
>> >> >> >> >> > talking directly to the reader. Which is why we don't see
>> >> > references
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > English countryside, for example.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Erm, "English countryside"?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Actually, that's spelled correctly, believe it or not.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, that's not it. I have no clue what you are talking about.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sorry. But the narrator isn't openly telling the story. There
> are
>> >> > never
>> >> >> > (well, almost never, hence this discussion) where suddenly the
> reader
>> >> > gets
>> >> >> > yanked out of the story being told and into the world of the
>> >> > storyteller.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, where does the "English Countryside" get in there?
>> >> >
>> >> > It was a random example. You/a narrator could [be] compare/comparing
> a
>> >> > field to it.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, it's just... English countryside doesn't make much sense for me...
>> >
>> > Sorry. Being in England, such examples tend to come more easily to my
> mind
>> > than, for example, refences to the Polish countryside. (I've never
> actually
>> > been in Poland... though since I can't remember whether you're
> American,
>> > European, Canadian, etc. I don't know whether you have, either.)
>>
>> Well, with my serious problems with the English language I'll hardly be
>> American. (Then again...)
>
><dry voice>Quite.</voice>

Yes, pretty much.

>> Anyway, I'm pretty much German. It's not
>> that's it's a secret or something.
>
> Ahh. *attempts to remember* Just because something isn't a secret doesn't
> mean that it's automatically known.

Well, I just thought you'd have remembered. Point for me

>> >> >> >> >> So...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a
> lake
>> >> > you
>> >> >> > had
>> >> >> >> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit
> vertically
>> > in
>> >> >> >> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either."
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > *chews lip* That seems better in one respect... yes, I think
> it
>> >> > should
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> > good, though the 'didn't tend to' is a little worrying.
>> > *considers*
>> >> >> > Ahh, I
>> >> >> >> > see it. The 'didn't there has an unspoken 'used to'. That is,
>> > 'but
>> >> >> > water
>> >> >> >> > didn't [used to] tend to sit vertically', or, in other words,
> it's
>> >> >> > implying
>> >> >> >> > that it only applied back then, but not now. Whereas the part
>> > about
>> >> >> >> > throwing is referring to actions /within that time space/.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You mean... wait, *what* do you mean?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ...I'm not making any sense, am I?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not exactly. Not to me anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> > Damn. What did you think (at first glance) I meant?
>> >>
>> >> At first glance? At first glance I couldn't make any sense in it, of
>> >> course. Not that it is much different now...
>> >
>> > Skah. Well, on the 'You mean...' what was it that you /thought/ I
> meant,
>> > before it dissolved into confusion and you asked me?
>>
>> I'm stupid./WTF
>
> Oh. Well, it was likely at least half my fault at wording it unclearly
> (though I'm not certain how it should be worded).

Yeah, I know that problem.

>> >> >> >> > Ah. Another way to put it: From point of view of unspoken
> 'back
>> >> > then'.
>> >> >> >> > 'but back then water didn't tend to sit vertically', versus 'in
>> > the
>> >> >> > point of
>> >> >> >> > time back then, /when the ripples in the air were forming/,
> they
>> > (the
>> >> >> >> > ripples) were like such-and-such'. In other words, with the
> first
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > description is referring to the ripples in the air at that
> point
>> > in
>> >> >> > time,
>> >> >> >> > while /then/ it separates slightly and talks about what water
>> > does.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > *looks at it again* ....No, I'm still not certain my
>> > interpretation
>> >> >> > makes
>> >> >> >> > sense. Especially since I still think that it should be 'had a
>> >> > ghostly
>> >> >> >> > glow'... Hrm. Actually, that interesting.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ...Right. If there's a way to separate the 'doesn't/has and
> the
>> >> >> >> > 'didn't/had', I can't see it right now. Probably keep it the
> way
>> > it
>> >> > is,
>> >> >> >> > unless you can see something I can't. *rubs head* Skah,
>> >> > complicated.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Erm, keep ikt *which* way? I'm loosing track of the various
>> > versions...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Same here. But I /think/ I mean keep it 'didn't tend to sit
>> > vertically'
>> >> > and
>> >> >> > 'had a ghostly glow'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The air started to blur and ripples formed, like those on a lake you
>> > had
>> >> >> just thrown a stone into, but water didn't tend to sit vertically in
>> >> >> midair and rarely had such a ghostly glow to it either.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wonderful! *much happiness*
>> >>
>> >> Not really. Not as far as it concerns me, that is.
>> >
>> > Eh. Just because it doesn't concern you doesn't mean it's not
> important.
>> > *nod nod*
>>
>> Sorry for letting you down.
>
> Erm, what? *confusion*

Pushing you in the great chasm of despair opening up everytime I start
arguing English with wath obviously is a catastrophe? Does that sound
familiar.

>> >> "The air started to blur and ripples formed, like a lake's surface
> after
>> >> throwing stones into the water. Water, however, didn't sit vertically
> in
>> >> midair and rarely had such a strange glow to it either."
>> >>
>> >> How does that sound? <d&rlh>
>> >
>> > *buries face in hands*
>>
>> Um, sorry? ...
>> ::backs off and makes a break for it::
>
> *pat pat*

Thanks, that's what I needed right now.

>> > That makes it sound as if it's the lake's surface that's just thrown
> stones
>> > into the water. 'after stones had been thrown into'.
>>
>> Let's get back to the other one and keep it at that.
>
> That sounds good, I think. *nods*

Good.

>> >> >> Erm, I'm not too sure about, but... wouldn't "you have just thrown a
>> >> >> stone" sound better? Probably not. But somehow it still sounds
> odd...
>> >> >
>> >> > Here 'not'. To try and answer it specifically, 'you have' is
> suddenly
>> >> > addressing the reader in the present tense. 'ripples formed, like
> those
>> > on
>> >> > a lake you have just thrown a stone into' suddenly springs to the
>> > reader,
>> >> > and the 'suggested case' which it's comparing it to is when the
>> > reader--in
>> >> > the reader's present--has just thrown a stone into a lake, whether
> s/he
>> > has
>> >> > or not.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, the point is to imagine the reader (though s/he doesn't
> think
>> > of
>> >> > himself/herself as 'the reader' at the time) having just thrown a
> stone
>> > into
>> >> > a lake /in the abstract/, /at any time/. Namely, grounded in the
> time
>> > of
>> >> > the story.
>> >> >
>> >> > This [explanation] may not make any sense, but it's the best I can
> do.
>> >>
>> >> It makes sense,
>> >
>> > *relief* That's good.
>> >
>> >> it's just... I don't really want to think about it at
>> >> this time... Mind boggling(sp?!??) and stuff...
>> >
>> > Sympathy. Good luck.
>> >
>> > Oh, and I think you spelled 'boggling' correctly. *smiles*
>>
>> Well, at least one thing I did right.
>
> Hoowah!
>
>> FILE CLOSED.
>
> Ooo. *goes to look at other thingamajig*

Good.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 >> Stay informed about: Installment #12 of... well, you don't care so why bother 

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncacoq5.fr.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
> And when it was 2004-05-15, illusion
> <c85cjo$oa5$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
> stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer.DeleteThis@beeb.web>
> uttered in alt.games.creatures:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrncabk90.4ad.the_emmel*whatever*@storm.mlnet...
> >> And when it was 2004-05-14, illusion
> >> <c82hk7$910$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> was created,
> >> stating that Refractor Dragon <wanderer.De