When does many become many?

[Ben]

Hi Vic,

You directly contradicted something I said, prompting me to comment.

But that's bound to happen in discourse of this nature. I disagree with you, as you must have anticipated. In future, I really wouldn't bother anouncing your depature from a thread if you know full well that you won't be able to resist responding to any counter-disagreement.

Yes, usually in the context of qualifiers typically of the form Factors that affect {something} are X, Y, Z and similar [things]

But X, Y and Z would need to have an inherent similarity with eachother already if "and similar things" is to be appended to the end of them, otherwise you're left with a meaningless sentence.

Well you are a lone voice, so "the rest of us" is correct

Vic, I can absolutely guarantee you that the vast majority of casebookers know better than to concern themselves with tedious, point-scoring semantic debates such as these. Of those who do skim through them out of casual boredom, the majority don't post their views.

[Victor]

But that's bound to happen in discourse of this nature. I disagree with you, as you must have anticipated. In future, I really wouldn't bother anouncing your depature from a thread if you know full well that you won't be able to resist responding to any counter-disagreement.

Hi Ben,
True, I was a tad presumptious, but it's not a crime.

But X, Y and Z would need to have an inherent similarity with eachother already if "and similar things" is to be appended to the end of them, otherwise you're left with a meaningless sentence.

No, absolutely wrong. And you have no basis for telling me what I have or have not heard or read before, I understood the sentence as given, even if semantically it was pedantically incorrect.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

even if semantically it was pedantically incorrect.

Exactly, Vic, so if I was "pedantically" correct to address the shortcomings of a syntactically incorrect and confusing sentence, I can't also be "absolutely wrong" to draw attention to it. I don't think I was telling you what you had or hadn't heard so much as expressing surprise that you'd encountered anything similiar (!) before.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"...if I was "pedantically" correct to address the shortcomings of a syntactically incorrect and confusing sentence..."

The sentence was never syntactically incorrect, Ben. We learnt as much from Marit Julien at Lund University. Syntactically incorrect sentences are sentences were the words are joint together in a faulty manner, and this is not the case here at any rate. There is no such "confusion" about.

What you complaint about is the use of the word "similar", and that is another thing altogether. We should also keep in mind two things in that context: Vic tells us that he had no problems at all recognizing that the elements Leander listed were similar to each other IN THE RESPECT THAT THEY ALL COULD CAUSE HANDSTYLE CHANGES, and therefore, he had no problems at all understanding the sentence. The same applies for me and for Sam and Mike, as you know.
Moreover, we have had corroboration from Leander that this was exactly what he meant from the outset.

Therefore, we are left with you pointing out that the elements named by Leander are not similar in the respect that they look like each other, and that you would have preferred if he had chosen the word "other" instead of similar. You are entitled to that desire, Ben. And, just as I have pointed out to you before, when somebody speaks of "earthquakes, volcano eruptions, floodings and similar things", I would be equally entitled to claim that "other" would have been a better choice of word, since these elements have the exact same internal relationship as did Leanders elements - on the surface, they are quite unalike, but they have a built-in quality to unite them.

Now, Ben, that we have all bowed to your wisdom and insights, it is perhaps time to realize that what Vic and I have been telling you is that we both AUTOMATICALLY read Leanders words in the fashion I suggested from the outset, none of us even reflecting over the fact that the elements joined together by their inherent common factor of being able to affect handwriting were actually not "similar" in an overall fashion.
We simply took it for given that the built-in similarity of being able to affect handwriting was what Leander used to tie them together. The rest of those who have offered a wiew on this thread, but for you, obviously did the exact same thing.

It does not make for any statistical overwhelming material to conclude from, but if we put me, Vic, Mike and Sam on the one side and you on the other, it does imply that there may be some sort of possibility that you were wrong. I think you will have to admit that.

And what can we do if we have differing opinions? Well, in this case, we can ask Leander himself what HE meant with his sentence. Though it was perfectly clear to the four of us, it is only fair that you have your differing opinion taken to the protocol and respected, and that you get an answer. That answer was that Leander used the word "similar" not to point to any overall similarity, but instead to point to all the things that shared the similarity of being able to affect the handwriting.

Now, I know full well that you want me to stay away from this discussion, and I have at numerous occasions thought that I would be able to do so, since I think I have proven my case over and over again. You have not shared this sentiment, though, as we both know.

This time over, I felt I had to react when you mystically tried to point Leanders sentence out as "syntactically incorrect". Wherever did you get that from? We have had differing opinions about the usefulness of the word "similar", nothing else.

I will round off by asking you a few questions, Ben. You are free to criticize all of the things I have said in this post. You are free to revel in the fact that you were right; I could not stay away from the thread - your claim of "syntactical" failure ensured that. You are even free to try and prove Leanders sentence "syntactically" wrong, if you wish to. But do not forget to provide me with a simple answer to these questions:

Now that we have had Leander telling us that he meant that "similar things" meant to point out things that shared the inherent similarity of being able to affect the handwriting, and not only things similar to "the function of the pen - are you ready to accept that this was what he really meant from the outset, although a case can be made for the elements involved not being "similar" in other respects?

Can we move on, accepting that function of the pen, writing space afforded and age of the writer, although not being similar on the surface, actually share one common factor - that of affecting handwriting, and that this shared similarity was what Leander referred to in his sentence, something I, Vic, Mike and Sam readily accepted without questioning?

Can we work from the stance that we all accept that Leander - in spite of what you saw as a lingustic shortcoming - in fact meant that there could have been many possible reasons for the changes in handstyle inbetween the police report signature and the 1898 wedding signature/the 1911 census signatures?

Or are you still claiming, in spite of the fact that you know that four out of the five participators (you, me, Vic, Sam and Mike) at once recognized that Leander meant that there were many possible reasons for the changes, and in spite of the fact that we have Leander confirming this wiew in his latest post, that this is not enough to settle the argument?

The best,
Fisherman
trying again: Bye, bye! Please..?

[Ben]

And back he came!

Once again, you were completely dishonest about leaving the thread, and once again I predicted it. I honestly don’t know if you’re trying your hand at self-parody now, but either way it’s clear I’m absolutely irresistible to you, and it’s starting to look deeply disturbing. It’s as though we’re in one of your Stride threads all over again. But let’s get you deeply involved and entrenched again with a longer post even than yours. It’s fun, not because it’s my preferred debating strategy, but because you think that excessive verbosity and unnecessary repetitive narration will win the day, and it never, ever will.

“Syntactically incorrect sentences are sentences were the words are joint together in a faulty manner”

And in this instance, the words were most assuredly joined together in a faulty manner, culminating in a sentence that terminated with “and similar things” despite the “things” cited having no similarity with eachother. So we’re left with a meaningless sentence. If he had stated the opposite at the end of his list, i.e. “and other things”, “and many different things” etc, we’ve have an acceptable sentence becoming of an expert. It would also vindicate Marit Julien’s observations, though I should note that she never once claimed to be an expert barometer of similarity, to her eternal credit, of course.

It is only permissible to include “and similar things” if the things in question share a similarity with eachother that is entirely divorced from their influence they just happen to all exert on a specific entity, as we discovered from your examples. The natural disasters listed all share that independent similarity, and any claim to the contrary smacks of obvious desperation. If someone listed a set of natural disasters, you’d spot the theme instantly without having to be told what it is, and you would also be able to provide another example of a natural disaster (a similar thing) without having to give it much thought. Similar is an irrefutably better word than “other” in that case. Not so for age, pen function and available space. Just like rhinos, the Eifel Tower and a meteor, they are not only not “similar things” to eachother, they are incredibly dissimilar, so if I wished to list them all as potentially contributory factors to one’s death, I might list them and many other different things. If I use the word "similar" instead, I'd be saying the opposite of what I actually mean.

It's a simple illustration of the fact that dissimilar things can have the same result, and the fact that the shared result doesn't bestow any more shared similarity amongst those things. The pertinent observation would be that death can be caused by X, Y and Z along with many other different things. We’ve thrashed this all out before, and once again, you think that the “fight fire with fire” repetitive approach is a sensible one.

Given the dissimilarity of the items Leander listed, I assumed he could only have meant similar to the function of the pen, and in doing so, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, because while this would amount to unconventional phraseology, it’s far better than what he’s now claiming he “meant”.

“It does not make for any statistical overwhelming material to conclude from, but if we put me, Vic, Mike and Sam on the one side and you on the other”

Can we please avoid the tedious and immature fallacy that X, Y and Z agrees with me, so that increases the chances of me being right? It’s exceptionally gauche and short-sighted if you think about it. The people you listed all agree with your Toppy stance, and yet we know full well that others agree with my opposing stance, it’s just that most people have neither the time nor the inclination to do battle in a tedious semantic thread that advances nothing in the grander scheme of things, except perhaps a few undeserved egos. Occasionally your bombastic approach can be a bit of a liability for Team Toppy which is why a few of them reluctantly wade in from time to time, but that’s no excuse to keep naming them and claiming they all somehow “gang up” against my view. That’s just silly.

For the record, I find nothing impressive about your ability to somehow “guess” what Leander meant despite his actual words reflecting the very opposite. I found the regularity with which it happened extremely baffling, as you know, especially as the meanings you read into them and the phrases you used would later appear in Leander’s reluctant clarifications, but we’ve been through this all before, and I will never, ever revise my stance, just as I will never ever revise my stance that Leander both revised his stance and used a syntactically incorrect sentence, because he most assuredly did both.

So you’ve got a couple of options with the above in mind. We either behave like adults, resign ourselves to our contrasting views, and move on, or you continue to bluster away, and the latter is not a format in which you've ever been successful.

“are you ready to accept that this was what he really meant from the outset, although a case can be made for the elements involved not being "similar" in other respects?”

I honestly can’t say. If that really was what he meant, I take an exceptionally dim view quite frankly, because what he actually said didn’t convey any such meaning. Of course, hypothetically and strictly speaking, many possible explanations could account for the differences, but since “piece of masonry falling on the page at the church on wedding day” would fall into that category, it’s a rather pointless observation to make.

“trying again: Bye, bye! Please..?”

Are you serious? Do I really have that much power over you that you need me to dictate your internet activity? If “bye bye” reflects your true feelings on the subject, have the fortitude to either stick with it or simply avoid the “bye bye” altogether if you really are too weak to resist.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Once again, you were completely dishonest about leaving the thread"

Let´s get one thing very, very clear, Ben - whenever you add things to a thread that are not true and that go to weaken my argument in an unfair manner, rest assured that I feel very much at liberty to comment on them. I did not leave the thread in order to give you the space to freely insinuate, tamper with the truth or outright lie, I did it because I had proven my point.

Now, I will brighten up your day by being very short:

"in this instance, the words were most assuredly joined together in a faulty manner, culminating in a sentence that terminated with “and similar things” despite the “things” cited having no similarity with eachother"

And that has NOTHING to do with a syntactical error, as I have already pointed out. A syntactically incorrect sentence looks like this, for example: Ben totally was wrong the outset from. THAT is a syntactically faulty sentence, since the flow of the language is tampered with. When the language flows according to the rules, there is no syntactical fault about.
But of course, since you will never admit when you are wrong, we may need to contact Marit Julien again, to once again point out that you do not know what you are talking about. Then again, she may well "fob me off", since I would be repeatedly pestering her, may she not? That is how your logic works, my honest friend, is it not?

"I honestly can’t say. If that really was what he meant, I take an exceptionally dim view quite frankly, because what he actually said didn’t convey any such meaning."

It did not convey such a meaning TO YOU, that is. Exclusively, as far as we know. To me, to Vic, to Sam and to Mike - the only other posters that have commented on the issue! - he conveyed EXACTLY that meaning! Therefore, I humbly suggest that the only dim character around would be the guy who cannot see the relevance in this, and who did not even catch on when Leander HIMSELF asserted that yes, of course that was what he had meant.

Don´t you realize, Ben, that you are saying that we cannot be sure what Leander meant for the simple reason that you yourself could not get it through your skull? Don´t you understand that it means NOTHING, NADA, NIENTE, RIEN DU TOUT what you thought you perceived WHEN LEANDER HIMSELF TELLS YOU THAT YOU WERE WRONG?

You honestly can´t say? You HONESTLY can´t say? What would it take for you to "honestly" be able to say that Leander meant "many", Ben? What? Fortyfive more linguistic experts? Thirtyeight more assertions from Leander that he did mean what he says he meant and what the rest of us on the thread immediately realized that he meant with no effort at all? A hundred and seventyseven more examples where "similar" are used in listings of things that are only similar in the respect that they have an inherent common factor? What?

Fisherman
Bye-bye? It´s high time, Ben...!

[Ben]

You think it's not true.

I think it's completely true.

So where to go from here? More "Yes it is", "No it isn't"? 600 more pages?

If Leander meant what you're now claiming he meant, then his sentence was a confusing one, and since the structure of sentences is directly allied to the meaning of the words included therein, then we're dealing with a syntactically flawed sentence that failed to convey its true meaning. That's an indisputable, inescapable fact as far as I'm concerned, and it is why I will never revise that stance. So you would be wasting your time and energy if you did anything other than take the lead in agreeing to disagree, especially if you’re claiming that I won’t admit that I’m wrong. I'm sure you will continue to pester these sources in your typically brash, in-your-face manner, and you'll probably be rude enough to ignore any subsequent requests from those sources not to be asked to elaborate further as Leander did.

And all for the sake of scoring those unwinnable points in a silly little semantic debate about nothing.

It did not convey such a meaning TO YOU, that is. Exclusively, as far as we know. To me, to Vic, to Sam and to Mike - the only other posters that have commented on the issue!

Oh good, we’re returning to that amusingly fallacious strategy of listing people who agree with you as though it increases the likelihood of them being right. They’ve contributed most probably because you need their help. That’s why you’re encouraged to reel things in and take a break fairly often, and that’s why they take it upon themselves to do the clarifying and condensing that eludes you. They don’t want an embarrassing fight-picking liability like you damaging a cause they subscribe to, and I can hardly blame them. But don’t keep listing other people as though you're representative of some big to-be-taken-seriously army.

“Don´t you understand that it means NOTHING, NADA, NIENTE, RIEN DU TOUT what you thought you perceived WHEN LEANDER HIMSELF TELLS YOU THAT YOU WERE WRONG?”

Wrong about what? I realize that’s your favourite word, and that you obsessively follow me around the message board in a futile attempt to claim I’m “wrong”, but you’re not making yourself clear here. Are we to embrace the faintly ludicrous “How dare you not realize that when I said that, I secretly meant the opposite?” and use that as evidence of my alleged wrongness? I observed many posts ago that Leander either meant similar to the last mentioned (i.e. pen function) or he didn’t convey his true meaning. Turned out I was right.

“Bye-bye? It´s high time, Ben...!”

Right, so either stop lying about your swan-song-like intentions to leave a thread and have the balls to stick to those guns or have the maturity and commonsense to resign yourself to a stalemate and stop pursuing me all over the place.

[Fisherman]

Ben again, unable to admit that he does not know what syntax is about:

"If Leander meant what you're now claiming he meant, then his sentence was a confusing one, and since the structure of sentences are directly allied to the meaning of the words included therein, then we're dealing with a syntactically flawed sentence that failed to convey its true meaning."

1. His sentence (allegedly) confused one reader - you. The rest are as unconfused as ever.

2. Syntactical errors remain errors where the flow of the language is obstructed. And Leanders sentence flows eminently. There is no syntactical error even CLOSE to it. Which word is malplaced, and should have had an other position? Pray tell me, master!

3. It did NOT fail to convey it´s true meaning - but I am glad you realize that there is a true meaning about, as opposed to your "truth". It conveyed EXACTLY what Leander told us it was meant to convey to all those who have commented on it but you, remember?

"I observed many posts ago that Leander either meant similar to the last mentioned (i.e. pen function) or he didn’t convey his true meaning."

...and the rest of us involved observed that you were wrong, and we have had it corroborated. Eiffel tower, anybody?

By the way, a further linguistic errand: A stalemate is when there are two equal sides in a conflict. It is not when the loneliest islander in the world has problems understanding why nobody will join him on the beach.

Fisherman
Bye? Yes? Yes?

[Ben]

1. His sentence (allegedly) confused one reader - you. The rest are as unconfused as ever.

You don't provide a list of dissimilar things, and then add "and similar things" afterwards if you want to make your intended meaning clear, especially when purporting any type of expertise. If he meant that there were many other different reasons, he should have said so. He "meant" the opposite of what he actually said, in essence. Even Vic was circumspect enough to acknowledge that I was "pedantically correct" on that score.

Which word is malplaced, and should have had an other position? Pray tell me, master!

The word "similar", because it was "malplaced" to give the erroneous impression that all the aforementioned "things" were similar to eachother.

It conveyed EXACTLY what Leander told us it was meant to convey to all those who have commented on it but you, remember?

Factually incorrect, and again, conjuring up a perceived army of Fish-followes only makes you look desperate, as your journalistic studies should have informed you long ago.

It is not when the loneliest islander in the world has problems understanding why nobody will join him on the beach.

Nobody will join him? How about the tiresome little crab who keeps scuttling out of the rockpools to nip at my heels?

[Fisherman]

Right then, let´s begin by clearing your misconception about syntactical errors up once and for all!

The word syntax is derived from the Greek word "synta´sso", meaning "join together". Syntax is by definition, and I quote from the Swedish National Encyclopedia: "The part of grammar that deals with how words or their inflected forms are joint to groups of word and sentences."

What you rave on about, Ben, is that you think that one of the words - similar - carries the wrong meaning. That has nothing to do with syntax. I can say "African Americans are generally white", and that would form a syntactically perfect sentence. Factually, though, it would be wrong, since they are generally black. But that does not mean that the word "white" was used in the wrong space.
Therefore, when you say "The word "similar" ... was "malplaced" to give the erroneous impression that all the aforementioned "things" were similar to eachother", you are not touching on any syntactical error, but instead what you mistakenly believe to be a factual error. Putting it differently, factual errors are at hand when you use the wrong word in the right space, whereas syntactical errors come about by using the right word in the wrong space.
Rounding it off, I spoke to our lady Julien at the University over the phone, and her verdict about Leanders sentence was that it was, and I once again quote, "syntactically flawless". When I asked her what would happen if the word "similar" was a term that did not apply, she said "but that has nothing to do with any syntactical error". End of story.

To me, this very point has been immensely useful. In this case, there can be no "interpretations" as to whether any syntatic error has occurred or not, since we are dealing with absolute factualities. In that context, it is very interesting to observe your total inability to admit that you stand corrected! You have been given the choice of quickly admitting that you were wrong, or simply denying it - and choosing the latter alternative is simply moronic. There can be no other term for it.
It can be proven - and has been so - that you were wrong; there never was any syntactic error.

What does this do for you? I will tell you what it does: It once again points out your total and utter inability to admit being wrong, and as such it colours ALL of your judgement. It reinforces what Stephen said on the 1911 thread: "The man´s a genius - he cannot be wrong". If you think that was a sign of high esteem, let me inform you that it was a sarcasm. Obviously, he had been through the same sort of pantomime as you have tried to subject me to. The result of that should be obvious by now.

Now that we´ve established that we are dealing with a man who does not even know his grammar, and who is unable to admit mistakes - both traits being distinctly unflattering to anybody who claims to do honest research - let´s move on!

"You don't provide a list of dissimilar things, and then add "and similar things" afterwards if you want to make your intended meaning clear, especially when purporting any type of expertise."

...unless you are presenting a list of things with an inherent common factor, such as writing space afforded, function of the pen and the writers age, all with the common denominator of being able to affect handwriting, or, for that matter, earthquakes, floodings and forest fires, all with the common denominator of being natural disasters.
Both groupings represent the exact same thing: A dissimilarity on the surface, but a common factor within them. Therefore, there is no factual error about in Leanders sentence - the common factor of affecting handwriting was the element he used to tie things together. And just as we are allowed to speak of earthquakes, floodings, forest fires and similar things, owing to the inherent common factor, so we are allowed to do the same thing about the writers age, writing space afforded and function of the pen and similar things.
Just like the leaning of the table is dissimilar to the function of the pen and the writers age on the surface of things, so is a volcano eruption to a flooding or a forest fire. As long as we have a common denominator, though, and as long as the discussion and/or context revolves around a topic that makes it clear which common denominator we are using, we are on dry land.

Therefore, from beginning to end, you are off the mark. And speaking about "syntactical errors" only goes to reinforce that - it was a blatant mistake or an equally blatant lie. If we were to let such things through, it would implicate Frank Leander as a man who could not even join an understandable sentence together, and that would of course suit you just fine.
The trouble about it is that it has never had any anchoring in real life - just like your other antics have no such thing in this errand. Thank you for pointing us all in that direction with your "syntactical error" example. It has been most illuminating.

"Nobody will join him? How about the tiresome little crab who keeps scuttling out of the rockpools to nip at my heels?"

A crab? You need to be careful with that, Ben; crabs are scavengers - they feast on fallen people. When they are done, the only thing left to fade in the merciless sunshine is the bare skeleton. Nasty little buggers, they are...

The best,
Fisherman
Off we go? Bye-bye? Yes?

[Victor]

If he meant that there were many other different reasons, he should have said so. He "meant" the opposite of what he actually said, in essence. Even Vic was circumspect enough to acknowledge that I was "pedantically correct" on that score.

Hi Ben,

"Pedantically correct" or only correct if you are pedantic enough to enforce it. Sensible people use logic and don't enforce those draconian, outmoded, excessively strict rules any longer.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

Y’know, I clung to the hope that you were just a pitifully infatuated, bumptious, strutting baboon with a fixation for certain members of Casebook. I’m starting to wonder if it isn’t rather more sinister, if not potentially dangerous than that now. I mean, you did get one of your children to pose as the defiled corpse of Mary Kelly which you then photographed and posted on the website in an effort to score those desperately cherished points over me, so I can’t help but wonder.

“Syntax is by definition, and I quote from the Swedish National Encyclopedia”

Oh, I think we’ve spent far too long listening to Swedes, and their flagrant torturing of my language. Let’s listen instead to Wikipedia: “In linguistics, syntax (from Ancient Greek συν- syn-, "together", and τάξις táxis, "arrangement") is the study of the principles and rules for constructing sentences in natural languages.”

Or we can go straight to the dictionary: “the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language.”

In this case, the sentence was syntactically incorrect if the intention behind the sentence was to convey the impression that there were many possible explanations for the differences between handwriting samples, since the word similar, when appended to the end of the sentence, gave the impression that the aforementioned “things” were similar to eachother. His use of syntax (which concerns the structure of sentences and the placement of words within that sentence) was responsible for conveying the opposite impression of what he allegedly “meant”.

As such, the confusion is inextricably linked with syntax – the placement of words within a sentence. The placement of the word “similar” conveyed the opposite impression to the one intended by the source. Your example concerning African Americans being white isn’t analogous at all. But then we learn the distressing reality that you’ve been pestering other people on the telephone, and I think we’re entitled to make certain guesses as to what that consisted of: “Oh, let me tell you everything about that nasty so-called ripperologist from England. You tried to help, but he thinks he’s better than you! What have you to say to that, huh!?” I have to wonder at the level of mental energy that can healthily be spent on me when two people I’ve never met are discussing me and my perceived shortcomings over the phone in a different country and a different language.

For the record, I didn’t use the expression “syntactical error”. I spoke of a sentence that was syntactically incorrect for the intention – the alleged meaning – behind Leander’s sentence. Once again, I’m not at loggerheads with your mate, so kindly refrain from inventing a quote, pretending I was responsible for it, and then using it as evidence for my alleged wrongness. It just makes you look desperate, but such is your maniacal fixation with trying to prove me wrong that most of us knew that already.

“It reinforces what Stephen said on the 1911 thread: "The man´s a genius - he cannot be wrong". If you think that was a sign of high esteem, let me inform you that it was a sarcasm. Obviously, he had been through the same sort of pantomime as you have tried to subject me to. The result of that should be obvious by now.”

I realize you have a mini-orgasm whenever you read anyone disagreeing with me or casting sarcastically negative aspersions in my direction, but I can assure you I’ve never been able to hypnotize Stephen into prolonged cyber-wranglings as I do with you. In fact, the only back-and-forth debate we’ve had concerned the issue of whether the investigation was solved and discreetly closed in the aftermath of the Kelly murder, and we parted most amicably, as non-obsessed adults tend to do. I could, of course, have my own little field day and mention all the negative comments about you that cropped up in the Stride threads, but I won’t lower myself to your sickly standards. And as for me not knowing my grammar, you are generally one of the worst communicators on the message board, eliciting the mirth even of those who agree with you and admit feeling awkward and embarrassed about doing so.

“...unless you are presenting a list of things with an inherent common factor, such as writing space afforded, function of the pen and the writers age, all with the common denominator of being able to affect handwriting, or, for that matter, earthquakes, floodings and forest fires, all with the common denominator of being natural disasters.”

Well, that consists entirely of repetition, so let’s just locate the relevant couter-smack. Here it is: It is only permissible to include “and similar things” if the things in question share a similarity with eachother that is entirely divorced from their influence they just happen to all exert on a specific entity, as we discovered from your examples. The natural disasters listed all share that independent similarity, and any claim to the contrary smacks of obvious desperation. If someone listed a set of natural disasters, you’d spot the theme instantly without having to be told what it is, and you would also be able to provide another example of a natural disaster (a similar thing) without having to give it much thought. Similar is an irrefutably better word than “other” in that case. Not so for age, pen function and available space. Just like rhinos, the Eifel Tower and a meteor, they are not only not “similar things” to eachother, they are incredibly dissimilar, so if I wished to list them all as potentially contributory factors to one’s death, I might list them and many other different things. If I use the word "similar" instead, I'd be saying the opposite of what I actually mean.

It's a simple illustration of the fact that dissimilar things can have the same result, and the fact that the shared result doesn't bestow any more shared similarity amongst those things. The pertinent observation would be that death can be caused by X, Y and Z along with many other different things. We’ve thrashed this all out before, and once again, you think that the “fight fire with fire” repetitive approach is a sensible one.

That was fun. That was easy.

“Therefore, from beginning to end, you are off the mark. And speaking about "syntactical errors" only goes to reinforce that - it was a blatant mistake or an equally blatant lie.”

Oh deary me. Inventing a quote, pretending it originated from me and then using that as a basis for calling ME a liar. Won’t do at all.

“A crab? You need to be careful with that, Ben; crabs are scavengers - they feast on fallen people. When they are done, the only thing left to fade in the merciless sunshine is the bare skeleton. Nasty little buggers, they are...”

That wouldn’t be you finally having the balls to admit to your pugnacious and point-scoring approach to historical debate, would it? That’s certainly the closest you’ve come, and “nasty little bugger” similarly smacks of a new self-awareness. Think I’ll have this particular crab for lunch, however.

No bye byes accepted, I'm afraid. Here, boy. Back you come.

[Ben]

Hi Vic,

"Pedantically correct" or only correct if you are pedantic enough to enforce it.

But fundamentally, bottom line, correct would be the central bullet point there. That's really all I was interested in, although I wouldn't agree that there's anything strict or draconian about the basic premise that several dissimilar things shouldn't really be described as similar.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Wrong again, Ben! Syntax only relates to the position of the words in a sentence. Therefore miss Julien can tell us without a shred of doubt that Leanders sentence was syntactically flawless.

And that applies not only in Sweden, but also in Britain, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, the Scottish Highlands and Brunei. And the rest of the world - but for one tiny island far out in the Pacific, inhabited by a man running increasingly desperate circles around his little heap of sand, chased by a crab ...

It´s truly interesting how you can get desperate enough to believe that syntax would not be the same to a Swede as it is to any other person (well, Ben, any other person BUT YOU, that is...!) I used the word "moronic" in my last post, and you certainly bolster it as best as you can, poor. Thanks for that! You even fail to see that your own dictionary tells you the exact same thing: “the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language" - in other words, it´s about GRAMMAR, and matters like the wrong choice of words do not apply, have nothing to do, does not touch upon, never was about and never will be a question of syntax. Syntax is and remains a question of the order in which you write the words. If you write them in the wrong order, you have made a syntactical error.

Is it slowly seeping through to you? Forming the same sort of logical picture that it has done to the rest of the world, throughout history, ever since the word syntax was invented? Yes? No?

My own guess would be no - you have displayed such a thick attitude that I genuinely believe that you etiher need a language expert - no. wait a minute, I engaged Julien and that did not make you see the light - or a shrink, specializing in illusions of grandeur.
I´d opt for the latter choice if I were you.

"It is only permissible to include “and similar things” if the things in question share a similarity with eachother that is entirely divorced from their influence they just happen to all exert on a specific entity, as we discovered from your examples. The natural disasters listed all share that independent similarity"

...was, is and remains balderdash - the natural disasters share the similarity of being destructive in one way or another, and they share the similarity of having beed formed into a group of occurences which we call natural disasters.
Leanders listed bits share the similarity of affecting the handstyle, and they share the similarity of having been formed into a group of occurences that we may use to explain why a handstyle can be changed.

Inbetween these groups, other groups exist that in varying degrees represent formations that are more or less often grouped together because of some inherent common factor.

Therefore, wind, sun, humidity and similar things may affect the skin, for example; although they are not similar things on the surface, they share a similarity in the context given, and nobody but far-away islanders would come up with an idea that only things similar to humidity would be allowed for.
What you are doing - and what Vic tells you you should NOT be doing - is trying to take the possibilities of interpretation into the realms of sillyness. That has afforded you Vic´s wise wording that you are "pedantically correct" - meaning that you are incorrect in practice. If you need to say that distant cousins cannot live together, because they would no longer be distant, you would be "pedantically correct" too...

"Similar is an irrefutably better word than “other” in that case"

No, it is not - if we need to be pedantical, we need to realize that natural disasters are totally dissimilar to each other - they involve fire and water, for example - and so, we need to say "related" or "other" instead of similar. The good thing about it all is that we MAY use the word similar when we speak about ANY grouping where we recognize an inherent common factor. If we use very indiscriminating things like, for example, hedgehogs, Jerry Lewis and whisky as being "similar" since they cheer you up, the possibility becomes a much more remote one since it all becomes far-fetched and generally people will refrain from using the terminology in such a case. But in Leanders construction, we all KNEW pretty damn well that he mentioned age of the writer as an example of things that may affect the handwriting, he mentioned space afforded as an example of things that may affect the handwriting and he mentioned function of the pen as an example of things that may affect the handwriting. Plus he did so in an ongoing discussion about handwriting and in the role of a handwriting expert. That is more than enough do justify the use of the word similar - albeit you think you are scoring points by claiming the opposite. You are not - you are stripping to the bone.

Now, go read that dictionary again, and try - TRY! - to understand. Then answer me the questions:

1. Would miss Julien be able to tell if a sentence is syntactically correct or not?

2. Is the sentence "Afro-americans are generally white" factually or syntactically incorrect? Hmm? Am I placing the words in the wrong order making my statement, or am I merely using the wrong term to describe the colour of Afro-americans? Am i faulting FACTUALLY or GRAMMATICALLY???

Ooough - tough call, innit...?

The best
Fisherman
Got there? Sinking in? Bye? Yes? YESSSSS?

[Fisherman]

Ben, in desperation, realizing that Vic never was too fond of his slithering::

"fundamentally, bottom line, "correct" would be the central bullet point there"

"Correct" would only be "correct" in an alternative role, Ben - it would be as correct as to say that distant cousins can not come geographically close to each other. It is correct to point out that "distant" means "far away from", but it is not correct to use it in any other repsect than the one relating to blood relation. That is why Vic speaks of draconian, outmoded and excessively strict interpretations on your behalf. It is also, by the way, the reason for his suggesting that a sensible approach to the topic would be not to be "correct" in the manner you choose to.

But by all means, keep stripping, Ben. I´m not going anywhere.

Fisherman
Over and out? Hmm? Yes?