well, it's quite hard to interpret that statement any other way, so I can understand the request for clarification including a direct contradiction of the obvious interpretation.
That's your interpretation of an ambiguous sentence. If your interpretation was correct, shouldn't the person you replied to have been informed of that possibility?
You can rephrase it that way, sure: "After all this (being explicitly told that there is an inverse case), you still weren't capable of understanding what was written."
The first half of your comment does not logically precede that, though. There is no such implication.
Hence my response. It clarifies my intent. Your response to me indicates that you are now aware of what I'm communicating. Thus it might be a worthwhile exercise to address that rather then go on some needless tangent on some misinterpreted wording.
Additionally grammar matters. Technically the english meaning of my sentences do not imply what most people believed I said.
Wasn't trying to be pedantic; whatever is "entirely clear in context" is not entirely clear to me at all. Did he use a term that I'm unfamiliar with or did he use the term I'm familiar with in a way that is incongruent with my understanding?
I did not say there is no possible way that anyone could understand what is going on.
Nor did I attribute such a view to you. I said you assumed there's no possible way anyone could understand what's going on and not share your view. Omitting that last clause completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
Let me word it another way: I think you assume that anyone who does understand what's going on would, as a matter of course, share your opinion. I think a person could be just as well-informed as you are but hold an opinion that differs from yours. I hope that's clearer than my previous statement.
What do you mean? Apparently it is. Many people here had no idea what it was supposed to be, and many people had a different interpretation of what it is.
I believe that you read it that way. I believe that it's a difficult to understand sentence that doesn't appear to properly articulate the message the writer was attempting to convey and that maybe different word choice would provide greater clarity to their point and further the overall discussion.
TL;dr- we deep enough down the semantics rabbit hole and I'm tapping out. Words, amirite?
It seems that we interpret language in radically different ways. This last comment of yours brings that home, as I find your analysis of the poster’s statements wildly off the mark. If you had simply disagreed with my interpretation initially when I said “Since this must be clear to you”, I could have retracted my characterization and we’d have been done. As it is, I must acknowledge that what seemed obvious to me might not be obvious to you, and, therefore, it is possible you were not being intentionally disingenuous. I’m sorry if my inferences wounded you; I should have taken more care in considering alternative possible, even if unlikely, readings.
>I kind of disagree. If I "parrot" (Accurately repeat) the original statement, it does not in any way demonstrate understanding, only memorization/note-taking.
>Restating, summarizing, or paraphrasing, shows that I understand sufficiently that I can describe it in my own words rather than memorization.
That's absolutely correct. Restating the concept(s) presented definitely provides confirmation that they have been heard and understood[0].
I'd only add that doing so may also alert the other party to a lack of understanding, requiring further discussion, which is arguably as or more useful than just assuming you are understood.
I'm not exactly sure how you thought I was interpreting it -- that's exactly how I understood the original comment and I still think that was leeoniya's point.
I should have used the word "elucidating" instead.
reply