h a l f b a k e r yCeci n'est pas une idée.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Explanation mark
A punctuation symbol at the end of a sentence which automatically makes the meaning clear. | |
This is not magic. Bear with me.
People learning to read and write, chiefly children because they're more open to such things, should be told that there is a special punctuation mark which, when placed at the end of a sentence which cannot be easily understood, will make the meaning clear - the "explanation
mark". Since they accept that this is so, a sort of placebo effect will increase their confidence in getting the gist of any obscure sentence, thus enabling them to understand it more easily. This will greatly increase the efficiency of education, because any obscure text will be eased in its passage into the brain by the liberal use of explanation marks¡
This has the added benefit that any English speaker reading Spanish will be able to understand any sentence prior to an exclamation in that language¡
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
So the explanation mark is a hypertext link to the
wikipedia article? |
|
| |
No, it's a ruse to increase people's confidence that
they can grasp the meaning of a sentence. |
|
| |
This fills a much needed gap in the punctuation
market¡ |
|
| |
This idea makes perfect sense and I can see absolutely no
flaws with it¿ |
|
| |
This is the punctual equivalent of SAYING IT AGAIN
LOUDER as a way of making yourself understood to
someone who didn't get it the first time. |
|
| |
Ironic that nobody understands this idea. Don't worry [19thly] I understand your misunderstood idea about a puntuation mark that helps people understand ideas that they would have otherwise misunderstood. |
|
| |
+1 for [rcarty] saying puntuation mark even if I don't understand anything |
|
| |
This idea could be extended further to include a sequential set¹ of explanation marks², which refer to notes at the end of the page³. |
|
| |
I don't think the placebo effect works as described
here, but this might actually be of some benefit by
allowing an author to point out to readers the tricky
concepts that may warrant extra attention. So [+].
The Mark could be doubled or tripled to warn about
higher levels of difficulty••• |
|
| |
/So a sufficiency mark then?/ |
|
| |
Confusion mark. Has exactly the opposite effect—it
renders intelligible sentences incomprehensible. |
|
| |
Aye, the interrobang, tragically missing from the HB's
character repertoire. |
|
| |
Hmm. If it made people think, that might have the
opposite effect to what was intended, because the
use of the mark would engender fear. A possible
alternative would be to construe the full stop as a
punctuation symbol which signals the end of a
comprehensible sentence, which is in fact what it's
supposed to be. |
|
| |
//the end of a comprehensible sentence// sp: 'the end of a sentence'.
So the comprehension mark would act as a sort of sink plunger for the brain, clearing blockages and letting the knowledge flow in? Sounds good to me. Could we also invent a 'decursor'. A punctuation mark that takes the curse out of inflammatory statements so that you can read them without grinding your teeth or having your eyes bleed? |
|
| |
Oh indeed, and it should look like a sideways i-beam. |
|
| |
// sp: 'the end of a sentence'. // On the contrary, the end of a comprehensible one. If you miss it off, the sentence shouldn't be comprehensible, and sometimes wouldn't be in current usage because it would then run into the next sentence. Having it at the end of a comprehensible one would, possibly falsely, signal that it made sense and possibly end up forcing it to make sense in the reader's mind. |
|
| |
[nineteenthly], you're starting to worry me with this descent into semantic despair. You're shrinking the signal-to-noise ratio of written language, just for the hell of it. [-] |
|
| |
Condensed form of ending every sentence with "you see", you see. |
|
| |
I don't get it, but I don't know if that's part of the idea. |
|
| |
I have heard that in the past, some people developed some quite well established NLP techniques that involve changing the tense/tambre of a sentence halfway through in order to take you on a cognitive journey where you can just imagine how your emotions will leap into vivid focus making you will understand how great life will be in the future. |
|
| |
In all of the confusion of the warped (broken) sentence structure, you are supposed to be more likely to respond to the commands directly embedded into the text.
No punctuation required. |
|
| |
Clearly [zen-tom] was affected by the anti-[zen-tom] punctuation surreptitiously included. |
|
| |
I say, the aforementioned symnbol, a mark which may otherwise be known as a punctuation mark, or otherwise be known to others, serves a single purpose: as to render a sense of clarification to a hiterto seemingly quite unclear statement, or seemingly so; maybe¡ |
|
| |
"6.3611
We cannot compare any process with the "passage of time" -- there is no such thing -- but only with another process (say, with the movement of the chonometer)¡ |
|
| |
Hence the description of the temporal sequence of events is only possible if we support ourselves on another process¡ |
|
| |
It is exactly analogous for space. When, for example, we say that neither of two events (which mutually exclude one another) can occur, because there is no cause why the one should occur rather than the other, it is really a matter of our being unable to descibe one of the two events unless there is some sort of asymmetry. And if there is such an asymmetry, we can regard this as the cause of the occurrence of the one and of the non-occurrence of the other¡" |
|
| |
R.D. Lang
I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. But I do not and never have and never will see your experience of me. Just as you cannot "see" my experience of you. My experience of you is not "inside" me. It is simply you, as I experience you. And I do not experience you as inside me. Similarly, I take it that you do not experience me as inside you¡ |
|
| |
"My experience of you" is just another form of words for "you-as-l-experience-you", and "your experience of me" equals "me-as-you-experience-me". Your experience of me is not inside you and my experience of you is not inside me, but your experience of me is invisible to me and my experience of you is invisible to you¡" |
|
| |
I'm more convinced than ever that this is not only a good idea, but a fucking great idea. This mark is essential for not only indicating that you do understand, but that sufficient information has been given up to that point, to sincerely feign understanding. All to often have I been in lectures or seminars and people have started nodding well ahead of any discernible logic having taken place. |
|
| |
I'm familiar with the various nods, including nodding off and the smile-and-nod, and can discern an I'm following nod from a knowing nod or an in agreement nod. |
|
| |
I'm searching for an example, but am coming up short - but would be a statement with no necessary inference. It would be really helpful if you could simply perform one of those agreement nods right now. |
|
| |
Luckily I don't understand sarcasm. |
|
| |