User:Stevertigo/Notes on Linguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The context of this message is:

(entertaiment <=> linguistics > essayism/poetry > prose > bad).

Should Good context clauses be prefixed or postfixed? The utility of context clauses shows a preference for the prefixed variation, while postfixed and midfixed variants would indicate a preference for stylistics. Hence from any abuse of stylistics, in phonetic analogs, one can infer a context of native language capacity.

For example:

The Ambiguity of Context-free Beauty(:),

Where (:) Indicates Plurality

In the context of Idiomatic Classification, Universal idioms (serve the need) to the punish the usage of such metaphoric elegiastic elevations and alleviations, to henceforth be persistent in their interlocuity and finalize the penchants of performace of this here there done foundling perfectable punditry.

Henceforth thus this be proof of phonetic analogues' failure for the purposes of utility, (and by the way not to mention the proof of semantic ideologues failure for purposes of ambiguity. Success rather.). Among the many golden Rules is:

__________"Let no explanationism imply __ insult" 
___________ / (no) (semanticism) __ | _______ |          
(context, discussion, permission)(perception) |       
_________________ (value judgement, personal, negative) 

And then somebody said something like 'It's the Heistenberg (uber)unprincibility stuple!' To which I replied with endearing silence. I mean, who buys[2] my poetry anymore?

Should Good context clauses be prefixed or postfixed? I dunno. The question itself lacks sufficient context. For my taste[2>a] anyway. Theologians are context stylists.

User:Stevertigo // etc. etc.

[edit] in context

In the sentence phrase they are wrong(<)
in semantic context, the wrongness of they is a value judgement
which is limited to the usage of the term. wrongness(value judgement)

their values are unimportant (
()the value of they is unimportant (the subject of)
their value is unimportant
the values of them are unimportant 
the values of they are unimportant

1. the meaning of they, wrong, and importance is important!
2. redundancy is important
3. importance = vital(*) = conceptualization = appeal to abstraction, higher principle
4. conceptualization breaks a destructive semantic loop
5. wild conceptualization is destructive to semantic

[edit] < convolution and its opposite >

++++++++++
[
  >+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-
] The initial loop to set up useful values in the array
>++. print 'H'
>+. print 'e'
+++++++. 'l'
. 'l'
+++. 'o'
>++. space
<<+++++++++++++++. 'W'
>. 'o'
+++. 'r'
------. 'l'
--------. 'd'
>+. '!'
>. newline

你好世界!

好日界!