Communication Skills for Computer Scientists

Posted by: 753

Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 11:33

Okay, this is driving me insane. We read a Wired Magazine article about cyberpunk by Paul Saffo. Me and my instructor (both of us non-native speakers) had different opinions about the semantics of a certain sentence. His arguments couldn't convince me of his version, neither could mine convince him... so I decided to ask someone who is more proficient at English than me. (Bitt and virtually everybody else on this board. )


This movement in the making has yet to be described, much less named, but eerie parallels between the beatnik and cyberpunk movements offer strong hints of what is to come.
For starters, both movements were given focus by literary fiction. The beatniks took their cue from a handful of "beat writers" (Jack Kerouac, Alan Ginsberg, Gregory Corso, and William S. Burroughs), while cyberpunks found their identity in the cyberpunk science ction genre dened by writers such as William Gibson, Rudy Rucker, Bruce Sterling, and John Shirley.


(a) the movements previously had no focus and were then given focus (direction) by literary fiction
(b) literary fiction concentrated on (or gave attention to) the movements
(c) third opinion?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 11:53

Well, with no context, either choice numbers one or two is correct. Perhaps others, too, as you imply.

Within context, though, it makes no sense. I'm not a beatnik connoisseur, but I know more than a little about cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is a literary genre. Thus, if you deconstruct that sentence to remove non-essential information and also remove the allusion to the beatnik movement, you get:
This particular literary movement was given focus by literary fiction.
That doesn't make any sense. Or, rather, it makes too much sense. It's obvious, and doesn't really mean anything. (Unless you want to make a claim that non-fiction could somehow be related.)

I've always thought of the beatnik movement being a little more, but I don't see anything in cyberpunk beyond literature. Okay, there are some poseurs who like to strut around pretending to be some lame approximation of a cyberpunk-inspired character, but that hardly counts.

I think what the author really means to say is that both movements were insigated by literary fiction, assuming there are any ``movements'' to have been instigated. (Edit: And even then, it's stupid. Of course a literary movement is insigated by writing. I suppose you could have such a movement insigated by thought about the movement -- Pre-Raphaelitism comes to mind as an example -- but that would be the exception, and not the rule.) This most closely lines up with #1.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 11:53

The writer's exact meaning is unimportant: He's simply wrong in his basic premise.
Posted by: cushman

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 11:56

I would say that within the context of the article, choice 2 would be correct. In the next sentence, the author writes:

"The beatniks took their cue"

and then:

"cyberpunks found their identity"

leading me to believe that the movements derived their focus from literary fiction.
Posted by: cushman

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 11:58

Me and my instructor

Do you mean, "My instructor and I"?

Posted by: peter

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 12:18

(a) by a mile; firstly because that'd be a really strange way to express (b) -- why not "were focussed on"? -- and secondly because the following sentence is an elaboration of idea (a) and not of (b).

Peter
Posted by: peter

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 12:23

Okay, there are some poseurs who like to strut around pretending to be some lame approximation of a cyberpunk-inspired character, but that hardly counts.
Surely the point of the article is that people were saying that about the beatniks before it went "mainstream" as hippiedom?

Peter
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 12:35

I was going to argue whether or not that's true, but then realized that that's not the point. I certainly tangentialized enough in my initial post.

You may perhaps be correct in your assumptions about the point of the article. I have not read any more than the snippet posted above.

However, in reference to that, Bohemians, of whom I think Beatniks would be a subculture (sub-subculture?), existed before Beatniks did. It would therefore be possible for the literature to focus some of them into the more cohesive Beatnik culture. However, I'd argue that there were no cyberpunk-inspired poseurs before cyberpunk hit, and it would therefore be hard to focus a nonexistant entity into something else.

Edit: Dammit! I did it anyway!
Posted by: David

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 13:35

>> Me and my instructor
> Do you mean, "My instructor and I"?

Could someone (ok, Bitt) clear this up for me?

Most people insist that 'and I' is the correct form.

However I have heard it said that 'Me and' is actually more grammatically correct; it's just that 'me' doesn't sound like an appropriate way to refer to oneself, so people think it's wrong.

Yet others say 'and myself', but that seems just plain awkward.
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 13:40

I would say that within the context of the article, choice 2 would be correct. [....] leading me to believe that the movements derived their focus from literary fiction.


If the movements derived their focus from literary fiction(LF), they manifested themselves after the works of fiction did, so how could LF shift focus to these movements (which is what choice 2 says) when in fact they were not there before the LF was written? (There is the possibility that there could have existed a few books of this genre without considering LFs focus shifted. Either that or we blame the relativeness of time .)

Actually, I think you maybe just mixed (a) and (b) up? At least your reasoning sounds to me like you were going for (a), correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: cushman

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 13:46

You are correct, sir.

I meant choice (a), but said choice 2, which was incorrect.

Posted by: peter

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 13:46

Most people insist that 'and I' is the correct form.
It's "I" if it's the subject of the verb (the do-er of the action) and "me" if it's the object of the verb (the done-to of the action).

Thus "My instructor and I think that..." and "It seemed to me and my instructor..." are both correct. (There is no grammatical reason to prefer "My instructor and I" to "I and my instructor" or vice versa, but the former is more usual.)

It's exactly the same distinction as between "he" and "him", which for some reason are far less often misused.

Peter
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 13:50

Yeah. One of my bad habits. Thanks for telling me.
I usually don't get this wrong in other languages. Actually, I am a bit confused about this issue. (like David, who posted below)
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 13:56

There is no grammatical reason to prefer "My instructor and I" to "I and my instructor" or vice versa, but the former is more usual.

The grammatical situation is the same in German, yet "I and my instructor" is considered to be more polite. They actually taught us in school that "only the twit puts himself first".
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:01

(a) by a mile; firstly because that'd be a really strange way to express (b) -- why not "were focussed on"?


I made the exact same argument.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:04

It's exactly the same distinction as between "he" and "him", which for some reason are far less often misused.
At some point it became in vogue to use ``I'' everywhere. This may or may not have been due to the fact that people formerly ended up getting corrected from misusing ``me'', but not misusing ``I'', so it may have seemed safer to use the one that seemed more often correct.

Note that the formal ``do-er'' vs. ``done-to'' nomenclature is, respectively, ``nominative case'' (or, less commonly, ``subjective case'') and ``objective case''. This usually means that whatever comes before the verb is nominative and whatever comes after is objective, but there is one prime example where this is not true. The verb ``to be'' is always intransitive, which means that it does not take an object. That means that a noun or pronoun that is after the verb is not a direct object (done-to thing), but, rather, a predicate nominative (something that renames or recasts the subject). This means that the correct sentence isn't ``It's me'' but ``It's I''. I'm sure that there are some other examples that fit this (inclusing the trivial exercises of replacing ``I'' and ``me'' with ``he'' and ``him'', ``she'' and ``her'', or ``they'' and ``them''.), but this is, by far, the most common example.

Also, back to more normal rules, the object of any preposition is in objective case. That is things are done ``to me'', ``through me'', ``above me'', ``about me'', ``inbetween me'', etc., and never ``through I'', etc. But most people get that one right.
Posted by: peter

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:04

I usually don't get this wrong in other languages.
Does it work the same way in other languages? The only other language I know any of is French, which also declines personal pronouns by case, but "je et mon ami allons aux magasins" looks wrong to me even though "on a vu mon ami et moi" looks fine.

Peter
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:06

"I and my instructor" is considered to be more polite. They actually taught us in school that "only the twit puts himself first".
I think you got that backwards.

It's the same in English, which is probably something of a vesitge of the deferential nature of German, although we're no longer left with two differently formal pronouns for ``you''.
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:14

I think you got that backwards.


Awh, twice in a single thread. Even happened while talking about it.
Didn't know it was gonna be that hard to get rid of my bad habits.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:18

Yet others say 'and myself', but that seems just plain awkward.
No one else has touched on this. ``Myself'' is a ``reflexive'' pronoun. They are used only when the pronoun refers to the same thing as the subject of the sentence.

Thus, ``He did that to me'', ``I did that to myself', ``He did that to himself'', and ``I did that to him'', but not ``He did that to myself'', ``I did that to me'', ``He did that to him'' (unless the antecedents for ``he'' and ``him'' are different, in which case it would be probably be awkward unless spoken using fingers ), and ``I did that to himself''.

Note that the subject need not be another pronoun: ``Bob did that to himself''.

Edit: I stated a fact imprecisely, due to an initial glitch in my memory. Better get that checked.
Posted by: davec

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:29

Oh man I'm having a flashback... Mrs. Neilsen is that you???
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:32

Ummm. No. And I don't appreciate the implication.
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:36

Well, with no context, either choice numbers one or two is correct.


Interesting. I had been wondering if it's possible to achieve the meaning of (b) in such a passive construct (with a suitable context).


I think what the author really means to say is that both movements were insigated by literary fiction, assuming there are any ``movements'' to have been instigated. (Edit: And even then, it's stupid. Of course a literary movement is insigated by writing. I suppose you could have such a movement insigated by thought about the movement -- Pre-Raphaelitism comes to mind as an example -- but that would be the exception, and not the rule.)


Good point. I will bring up the topic again next week. *sighs* I wish my instructor(s) were as knowledgeable as the folks on here.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:40

BTW, it seems the full article is available.
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 14:47

BTW, it seems the full article is available.


I have a link to the full article (wired.com) in my initial post. Didn't know Saffo had a website.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 15:01

Oh. Duh. (I seem to have gotten some more tunnel-vision.)

I assume that this was for English class. Let me assure you that this is not the prime of English writing. The article, while never grammatically incorrect, as far as I noticed, is hardly good. I think it has factual errors, makes claims it never supports, uses terms it never defines, and is rife with ``I think''-type terminology. (Note how I've just broken most of those rules myself. )

Unless you're trying to learn how to interpret poor writing (which is a valuable skill), this wasn't a good example.
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 15:29

I assume that this was for English class.
Yup, I took it this semester to get two easy ECTS-Points. I'm a bit disappointed though. Unfortunately I haven’t got the professor himself (other groups do), one of his assistants is my instructor. While sometimes this is a good thing (my C++ Course Instructor seems to be more knowledgeable than the professor), this time it appears to be not.
Unless you're trying to learn how to interpret poor writing (which is a valuable skill), this wasn't a good example.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 15:32

It occurs to me that that may have come across as if I were insulting you. I did not intend it that way at all. I intended to insult Mr. Saffo.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 15:59

This movement in the making has yet to be described, much less named, but eerie parallels between the beatnik and cyberpunk movements offer strong hints

Like, baby! I am mostly, notly GRAMMATICALIZING this whole trip. MAN, I just do NOT dig mostly, maybe where *that* whole trip is going. You dig? But, man, I am, like, in a FOG on this whole "Eerie Parallels" trip. Where is this cat Saffo going??? Daddy-O, It's Craaaazy!
Posted by: 753

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 02/04/2003 16:08

It occurs to me that that may have come across as if I were insulting you. I did not intend it that way at all. I intended to insult Mr. Saffo.

I did not feel insulted at all, Bitt. The only ones you have justifiably criticised were (a) Mr. Saffo for bad writing style and (b) my instructor for choosing a bad example.
As a side note: I am not easily offened. It's actually pretty hard to insult me, my tolerance-levels on multiple fronts are high. Maybe because I am a pretty unemotional person, driven more by logic than gut-feelings, with a sense for sarcasm. At least I want to believe that.

However... The opposite is true. I have to thank you and everyone else who responded for saving my sanity.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 03/04/2003 08:42

Yes, in Croatian we have seven cases (although sometimes not all seven are different, especially for pronouns). Latin uses six, IIRC.
Posted by: Roger

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 03/04/2003 09:21

Latin uses six, IIRC.

Yep: Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative and Ablative.

Ancient Greek doesn't have Ablative -- instead it merges the senses of dative and ablative.

Don't ask me to remember what they're used for, though. It's been a while.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 03/04/2003 09:33

Yep: Nominative, Vocative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative and Ablative.

Ancient Greek doesn't have Ablative -- instead it merges the senses of dative and ablative.

Don't ask me to remember what they're used for, though. It's been a while.

Croatian splits ablative further into locative and instrumental (BTW, you got your order wrong: is it Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Vocative, Ablative - how else could you recite examples of declinations by heart ). I can remind you of usage if you want, but I would have difficult times doing that in English
Posted by: TheRhino

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 03/04/2003 12:22

So, Bitt, since you're from the south, is it "Yall and me..." or "Me and yall..." or "Yall and I..."?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 03/04/2003 13:55

I don't believe I've ever heard ``y'all'' ever used in that way. (Some might claim that ``we'' would be the proper pronoun to use in that instance, myself included. ) But if it were, the proper way would still always be to refer to yourself last.
Posted by: TheRhino

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 03/04/2003 15:48

I don't believe I've ever heard ``y'all'' ever used in that way

What? You've never been to the LongBranch?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Communication Skills for Computer Scientists - 03/04/2003 16:32

I can proudly say that I've never been to the LongBranch, although I have shared the use of the Oak City Diner (now, sadly, closed) with many of its patrons on many occasions. It's hard to believe that people willingly wear pearl-snap cowboy shirts.