A matter of expression
-
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so: You: I don't think He : No, you don't do you?
Not if you preface it with "Hey dipshit..."
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. -
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so: You: I don't think He : No, you don't do you?
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Not if you preface it with "Hey dipshit..."
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
All true, but PIEBALD's example is certainly more insulting.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The problem with the former is that it gives the other party the opportunity to interrupt like so:
:doh: You: I think He: I really don't care what you think. :-\ You can always be interrupted.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
You: I He: "I I I", no matter the context, it's always about you you you.
-
You: I He: "I I I", no matter the context, it's always about you you you.
-
They say the same thing. It is just a moving of the negative. Some people may respond differently, but that is not because the statements mean differently. It is more about psychology of the context. We can see this by not having a person as the "object". "I think the lights should be on" vs. "I do not think the lights should be off" They mean the same thing. However when listening and placing the statement in context they provide more pyshchology to the statement. For example maybe the context here is watching a movie. The first may create a psychological effect of implying I think the lights should be on for a specific reason, e.g. better for your eyes. The second has the psychological effect of implying I have a reason for the lights not being off, e.g. teenage children watching a movie. However, both are not truely implied. There is a difference between implied meaning and pyschologically implied. An implied meaning is like this, Context it is 4:30 PM at the end of the day. A collegue enters your cube and begins talking about work. You say "I am sorry but I must pick up my child from school". The implied information is you must do this now. The reasoning is the implication came from context and adding it back it did not change the meaning in any way. You would not have said that if you had to pick up your child tomorow (unless the conversation was about tomorow), so adding in the 'now' does not change the meaning. However in the case of the lights it does somewhat change the meaning. For the psychologcial implication could be many different reasonings of which would all be assumption about my thoughts on the situation.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
They say the same thing.
they don't.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is just a moving of the negative.
it's not. "I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement. "I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement. the implied lack of confidence is generally intentional (though usually not truthful), and it implies a touch of deference to the listener. it also diffuses the issue a little by letting the lack of confidence make the prospect of non-agreement seem like something that's still up for debate (even though it might not be) - after all, if i was really confident about something, i'd just tell you what i think; i wouldn't tell you about the negative of what i don't think. and because meaning is that which language communicates, and because they communicate different things, they mean different things. "I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
They say the same thing.
they don't.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is just a moving of the negative.
it's not. "I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement. "I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement. the implied lack of confidence is generally intentional (though usually not truthful), and it implies a touch of deference to the listener. it also diffuses the issue a little by letting the lack of confidence make the prospect of non-agreement seem like something that's still up for debate (even though it might not be) - after all, if i was really confident about something, i'd just tell you what i think; i wouldn't tell you about the negative of what i don't think. and because meaning is that which language communicates, and because they communicate different things, they mean different things. "I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
Again, you are talking about psychologic implications. By definition they are the same. The implications are even stronger when using a secondary person as the object. Removing the secondary person as the object and replacing with a non person (e.g. a light) the grammer is still the same but it should become apparent that there is no difference other than psychological implications.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
This is simply another case of psychological implications. The statement by definition is the same. Contractions[^]do not c hange the meaning of the sentance (when used correctly). However they are often associated with other psychological implications. For example sarcasm can change the meaning of a phrase to essentially the opposite of its true definition. This does not mean that the phrase itself has a different meaning, as the sarcasm and pyschological context are what did that.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement.
"I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement.You have already put your context in your mind to deduce this. I can create a context where the psychological implication is different. For example, 2 friends choosing a bar to attend. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B: "Your right I think we won't agree but I really want to meet up with Joe at Charlies". vs. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B" "Your right, I don't think we will agree. You choose" So in case one the wording was as you say "more confident" but I placed it in a context in which it was used to say "But I am still going to debate this". Where as the later it used the "less confident one" to conceed. Pyshcological implications are always about context. The raw meaning of the sentances are still the same but can be altered like they can with sarcasm. But that do
-
You: I He: "I I I", no matter the context, it's always about you you you.
Chicken to egg*: Of course you came first, you always come first, that's why I never come at all. * Or it could be the other way around -- if I recall correctly, it's from a Caldwell cartoon back in the 70s. http://caldwellcartoons.com/index.html[^]
-
Again, you are talking about psychologic implications. By definition they are the same. The implications are even stronger when using a secondary person as the object. Removing the secondary person as the object and replacing with a non person (e.g. a light) the grammer is still the same but it should become apparent that there is no difference other than psychological implications.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
This is simply another case of psychological implications. The statement by definition is the same. Contractions[^]do not c hange the meaning of the sentance (when used correctly). However they are often associated with other psychological implications. For example sarcasm can change the meaning of a phrase to essentially the opposite of its true definition. This does not mean that the phrase itself has a different meaning, as the sarcasm and pyschological context are what did that.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement.
"I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement.You have already put your context in your mind to deduce this. I can create a context where the psychological implication is different. For example, 2 friends choosing a bar to attend. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B: "Your right I think we won't agree but I really want to meet up with Joe at Charlies". vs. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B" "Your right, I don't think we will agree. You choose" So in case one the wording was as you say "more confident" but I placed it in a context in which it was used to say "But I am still going to debate this". Where as the later it used the "less confident one" to conceed. Pyshcological implications are always about context. The raw meaning of the sentances are still the same but can be altered like they can with sarcasm. But that do
I think they don't mean the same. I don't think they mean the same. Both imply that the "they" is not the same, but have different overall meanings. The first expresses positive affirmation of what one thinks, that they're not the same. The second expresses doubt over the sameness.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Again, you are talking about psychologic implications. By definition they are the same. The implications are even stronger when using a secondary person as the object. Removing the secondary person as the object and replacing with a non person (e.g. a light) the grammer is still the same but it should become apparent that there is no difference other than psychological implications.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
This is simply another case of psychological implications. The statement by definition is the same. Contractions[^]do not c hange the meaning of the sentance (when used correctly). However they are often associated with other psychological implications. For example sarcasm can change the meaning of a phrase to essentially the opposite of its true definition. This does not mean that the phrase itself has a different meaning, as the sarcasm and pyschological context are what did that.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement.
"I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement.You have already put your context in your mind to deduce this. I can create a context where the psychological implication is different. For example, 2 friends choosing a bar to attend. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B: "Your right I think we won't agree but I really want to meet up with Joe at Charlies". vs. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B" "Your right, I don't think we will agree. You choose" So in case one the wording was as you say "more confident" but I placed it in a context in which it was used to say "But I am still going to debate this". Where as the later it used the "less confident one" to conceed. Pyshcological implications are always about context. The raw meaning of the sentances are still the same but can be altered like they can with sarcasm. But that do
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again, you are talking about psychologic implications.
all human communication is a matter of psychology. there is no human communication, no human language, without it. common English usage distinguishes between the two forms in question, regardless of the fact that they can be mechanically parsed to basically the same thing.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Contractions[^]do not c hange the meaning of the sentance (when used correctly).
in actual usage, as used by actual people, in real life, they do. it does not change the literal meaning, but the use or non-use of contractions is a conscious decision of the speaker and is intended to convey meaning by means of drawing attention to words, aka "emphasis". emphasis affects how people hear and interpret the text, and interpretation is how meaning is formed in the listener. but that's not the point here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
but I placed it in a context in which it was used to say "But I am still going to debate this
and i could just as easily reverse that by changing your text further. but neither are what the OP asked. the OP asked about a specific common English idiom.
-
Try: 'You are an idiot'. I find this less ambiguous than either of your examples. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
I think you forgot the joke icon. ;P
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I think they don't mean the same. I don't think they mean the same. Both imply that the "they" is not the same, but have different overall meanings. The first expresses positive affirmation of what one thinks, that they're not the same. The second expresses doubt over the sameness.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunYou are correct sir. However, out of context neither confidence levels can be determined. For then they are equivilent. Both have confidence levels, "I Think" has some unknown confidence. It is not the same as I Know (but even I Know has confidence level that can be adjusted by context). With out context you can either assume they are drastically different confidences or slightly more or the same. These are just your 'feelings' and assumptions though. Gramatically they are equivilent. I think I am right. I don't think I am wrong. They mean the same thing. If you add in context and how I say it and to whom it is said you can say they have different meanings. But that is the context that caused it. Not the actual grammer.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again, you are talking about psychologic implications.
all human communication is a matter of psychology. there is no human communication, no human language, without it. common English usage distinguishes between the two forms in question, regardless of the fact that they can be mechanically parsed to basically the same thing.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Contractions[^]do not c hange the meaning of the sentance (when used correctly).
in actual usage, as used by actual people, in real life, they do. it does not change the literal meaning, but the use or non-use of contractions is a conscious decision of the speaker and is intended to convey meaning by means of drawing attention to words, aka "emphasis". emphasis affects how people hear and interpret the text, and interpretation is how meaning is formed in the listener. but that's not the point here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
but I placed it in a context in which it was used to say "But I am still going to debate this
and i could just as easily reverse that by changing your text further. but neither are what the OP asked. the OP asked about a specific common English idiom.
I agree with you on all points. Even the last. However what my point was is context is important. One could be considered more rude than the other depending on the situation and context around it. With out the context we have nothing but the said grammer. And the said grammer is equivilent in that neither is wrong and we can not deduce one will leave other implications unless given the full context (i.e. the specific case)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Again, you are talking about psychologic implications. By definition they are the same. The implications are even stronger when using a secondary person as the object. Removing the secondary person as the object and replacing with a non person (e.g. a light) the grammer is still the same but it should become apparent that there is no difference other than psychological implications.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I do not think we'll agree" is different than "I don't think we'll agree" because it's non-standard in common English. when someone deliberately leaves out a contraction they do it to draw specific attention to the non-contracted words.
This is simply another case of psychological implications. The statement by definition is the same. Contractions[^]do not c hange the meaning of the sentance (when used correctly). However they are often associated with other psychological implications. For example sarcasm can change the meaning of a phrase to essentially the opposite of its true definition. This does not mean that the phrase itself has a different meaning, as the sarcasm and pyschological context are what did that.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"I think we won't agree" - the speaker is confident of eventual non-agreement.
"I don't think we'll agree" - the speaker is not confident of eventual agreement.You have already put your context in your mind to deduce this. I can create a context where the psychological implication is different. For example, 2 friends choosing a bar to attend. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B: "Your right I think we won't agree but I really want to meet up with Joe at Charlies". vs. Friend A: "Let me choose cause last time we spent hours debating where to go" Friend B" "Your right, I don't think we will agree. You choose" So in case one the wording was as you say "more confident" but I placed it in a context in which it was used to say "But I am still going to debate this". Where as the later it used the "less confident one" to conceed. Pyshcological implications are always about context. The raw meaning of the sentances are still the same but can be altered like they can with sarcasm. But that do
Language has a lot of psicological content. When people ask me about the differences of "past perfect" and "simple past" on spanish I always use the same example: My dog died 3 months ago (Speaker got through it and continued with normal life) My dog has died 3 months ago (speaker is still affected by the loss) I don't know if on english is the same. I just wanted to point out that I am agree with what Chris says. Sintaxis is not the same as meaning. Several options can "mean" the same and be gramatically correct, but there might be differences due to psicological implications using one form or the other
Regards. -------- M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
You are correct sir. However, out of context neither confidence levels can be determined. For then they are equivilent. Both have confidence levels, "I Think" has some unknown confidence. It is not the same as I Know (but even I Know has confidence level that can be adjusted by context). With out context you can either assume they are drastically different confidences or slightly more or the same. These are just your 'feelings' and assumptions though. Gramatically they are equivilent. I think I am right. I don't think I am wrong. They mean the same thing. If you add in context and how I say it and to whom it is said you can say they have different meanings. But that is the context that caused it. Not the actual grammer.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
I also agree with what you say, but I think a certain amount of information can be gotten even without context. Also, saying "I think" vs "I don't think" implies something too.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
To a native speaker of English, I would say "I don't think ...". In Britain, saying the other one is too direct, confrontational. But I deal with Germans a lot in my daily work, so I like to be more direct so that there is less chance for misunderstanding. So with a German correspondent I might well use something like the second. In fact I would use "disagree" because it's the most tightly-coupled way of inverting "agree".
-
Language has a lot of psicological content. When people ask me about the differences of "past perfect" and "simple past" on spanish I always use the same example: My dog died 3 months ago (Speaker got through it and continued with normal life) My dog has died 3 months ago (speaker is still affected by the loss) I don't know if on english is the same. I just wanted to point out that I am agree with what Chris says. Sintaxis is not the same as meaning. Several options can "mean" the same and be gramatically correct, but there might be differences due to psicological implications using one form or the other
Regards. -------- M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
I think you have said essentially the same thing I did. Grammatically (syntax) they are equivilent. If you are further deducing meaning than that it depends on context. Again your example is out of context so you (in your mind placed it in context) giving it further meaning. I can add additional context and reverse it, My dog died 3 months ago and I feel it is too soon for another pet. My dog has died 3 months ago so why do I still have his toys laying around? You see now that in this context it has been reversed (the feeling of mourning). Such pyschology is contextual and unless you have the full case you can not deduce that one is more XYZ than the other. That is purely pyschological context. In Chris' last post he stated you can not remove it from the language. While this is mostly true we do and must remove it when the statement is out of context. The reason being is poor assumptions are made otherwise. People react to expressions out of context and react in a wrong manner. Take for example the media with political spin. Very often they use context removal with speech blips of political figures to paint a picture (bad or good). When placed in context we see that we were maniplulated with pychological context. My true point was simple. The OP was asking which is better or correct. While most agree that both are correct, many responded one is better. My point was they are both equivilent and neither is better as we do not know the context.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I also agree with what you say, but I think a certain amount of information can be gotten even without context. Also, saying "I think" vs "I don't think" implies something too.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunYes they can imply something... But what they imply is different depending on the context.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
