“(you seem to deliberately misspell the word, why?)”
Imagine it was you. Why might you do it?
‘Well, I agree, but in the same time I think that “quail” is only a philosopher’s noble word for “feel from inside”.’
Didn’t seem that way to me. Some philosophers argue that there are no qualia at all. Others seem to think it’s some sort of magic. And then there’s David Chalmers.
But, you know, “quail” is an inherently funny word. It shouldn’t even be obvious. It should be instinctive. If I changed “coal” to “coil”, I would see why people might not get it. But quail… You know, quail.
Somebody changed every instance of “wand” in Harry Potter to “wang”. Gee, I wonder if he was dyslexic.
Very frequently, someone who is bad at spelling will confuse two homonyms. On occasion, such a person will declare that their convention is correct in the face of all opposition. The comments you—who are amused by word substitutions—have written could equally have been written by an arrogant ignoramus.
If you want to make a joke by substituting “quail” for “quale”, you need to set it up more explicitly.
(Regarding the substitution of “wang” for “wand”: “wang” is not an expected typographical or orthographical error for “wand”—as the letters “d” and “g” are separated and the sounds “nd” and “ng” are likewise distinguished—so the substitution is unlikely to be accidental. That doesn’t hold here.)
I really don’t get why quail is supposed to be an inherently funny word? It’s a small rather uninteresting bird that lays quite tasty eggs. It doesn’t trigger any humour response for me.
When I see the negative karma you’ve got, I regret starting this discussion. But you see, the sense of humour of different people is often incompatible.
If you believe a direct quotation contains a typographical, orthographical, or grammatical error, the polite thing to do is to quote it as it stands with the error labelled by a “[sic]” (written in square brackets, as shown).
For example, if I felt “Imagine it was you. Why might you do it?” should be “Imagine it were you. Why might you do it?”, I would write along the lines of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia “Nagel also suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science.”
“(you seem to deliberately misspell the word, why?)”
Imagine it was you. Why might you do it?
‘Well, I agree, but in the same time I think that “quail” is only a philosopher’s noble word for “feel from inside”.’
Didn’t seem that way to me. Some philosophers argue that there are no qualia at all. Others seem to think it’s some sort of magic. And then there’s David Chalmers.
If I already knew the answer, I wouldn’t ask.
I still think you have an inkling, but I guess I’ll tell you.
BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT’S AMUSING. Because I wanted a pun.
And now people are explaining to me how to sic, with examples. Now that’s what I call smartass.
Athe in heaven.
You ran into a Poe’s-Law type problem: your joke was indistinguishable from stupidity.
But, you know, “quail” is an inherently funny word. It shouldn’t even be obvious. It should be instinctive. If I changed “coal” to “coil”, I would see why people might not get it. But quail… You know, quail.
Somebody changed every instance of “wand” in Harry Potter to “wang”. Gee, I wonder if he was dyslexic.
The real question is whether it’s a tinny word or a woody word.
Very frequently, someone who is bad at spelling will confuse two homonyms. On occasion, such a person will declare that their convention is correct in the face of all opposition. The comments you—who are amused by word substitutions—have written could equally have been written by an arrogant ignoramus.
If you want to make a joke by substituting “quail” for “quale”, you need to set it up more explicitly.
(Regarding the substitution of “wang” for “wand”: “wang” is not an expected typographical or orthographical error for “wand”—as the letters “d” and “g” are separated and the sounds “nd” and “ng” are likewise distinguished—so the substitution is unlikely to be accidental. That doesn’t hold here.)
The joke was further obscured because “quale” and “quail” aren’t homonyms. “Quale” rhymes with “Wally”, not “trail”.
...did not know that, actually. Thanks!
I really don’t get why quail is supposed to be an inherently funny word? It’s a small rather uninteresting bird that lays quite tasty eggs. It doesn’t trigger any humour response for me.
When I see the negative karma you’ve got, I regret starting this discussion. But you see, the sense of humour of different people is often incompatible.
Tiiba, it’s pretty bad form to present an altered version of someone else’s words as a direct quote.
The horror.
If you believe a direct quotation contains a typographical, orthographical, or grammatical error, the polite thing to do is to quote it as it stands with the error labelled by a “[sic]” (written in square brackets, as shown).
For example, if I felt “Imagine it was you. Why might you do it?” should be “Imagine it were you. Why might you do it?”, I would write along the lines of:
Can you name a single philosopher that seems to think it is some sort of magic?
David Chalmers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia “Nagel also suggests that the subjective aspect of the mind may not ever be sufficiently accounted for by the objective methods of reductionistic science.”