Talk:Sociolinguistics

In constructing an article which is viewed as application of the one to be Talked about, the conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis was conceived as

May He go. I have no use for Him. Prince-Archbishop Count Colloredo

Hear-say has it that this particular instance of language use is systematized as

" singularis subordinatus " (simply swamped).

Can this assertion be confirmed or denied (also towards Talk:Pluralis Majestatis), or otherwise instruct the naming of this parrticular instance --- please?

Thanks, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 15:21 PST.

p.s.

The instruction by which to evaluate and name the sociolinguistic instance under consideration is that

One individual (here Colloredo) adressing another individual (there Mozart) as if (the former) were in the middle of a crowd of several, addressing them all at once.

(Therefore also a conjugate relation to Pluralis Majestatis, where one individual presumes to speak for many.)

Also, since the initial example is Not:original but only a translation from the German

Mag Er geh'n, Ich brauch' Ihn nicht!

the notion to be named has been viewed as invariant in considering the alternative

May He Leave, I'll miss Him not!

Frank W ~@) R,			Jan. 5, 16:26 PST.

p.s. Alternatively, Google just reminded me to improve the German counterpart to

(Dann) Geh' Er doch, I brauch' Ihn nicht!

which is Here nevertheless commensurate; though perhaps not conveying all aspects. Please provide some canonical English examples ...

---

The following doesn't make sense:

Direct applications:
Sociolinguistics instructs derivative sciences and popular pastimes such as the study of Seinfeldisms resulting from self-reference, and Seinfieldism arising in Seinfeld as an instance of self-reference, arguably by allusion.

As for: ... doesn't make sense ...

Would You kindly investigate or suggest what did or what ought to instruct the (as of this writing) apparently linked articles instead?

Thanks, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 9th, 7:09 (PST).

Your question does not make sense either. I don't understand what you mean when you say "instruct". Neither does anyone else. -- Tarquin

As for: I don't understand what you express when you write "instruct".

{Borrowing the confines of WikiProject Encyclopedic Network, I may express my preference that

[`[[[Instruction:can be conceived as]]:not mere ideosynchratic intuition,|but explicit mutual construction, as expressed by Hangul, for example],]

[`[[[Instruction:can be conceived as]]:not readiliy reneggable|within the supposed instructor's lifespan],]

together.}

As for: Neither does anyone else.

I may not be able to express my preference for this to be an overstatement as readily as you can make this statement itself.

Otherwise your question does not make sense either. Would You prefer to deny the (for lack of a better word) linguistic similarity between encyclopedia, instruction (noun), and to instruct (verb)?

Regards, (Frank W ~@) R 16:45 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)).

Well, concerning the sentence:

Would You kindly investigate or suggest what did or what ought to instruct the (as of this writing) apparently linked articles instead?

I do not understand why the word "instruct" is preceded by a "what." Books or movies may be instructive, but only people can instruct. Either the use of the word "what," or the use of the word "instruct," is inappropriate. Also, people instruct other people, not things. A person cannot instruct an article (a person can read or write an article, and even read or write an instructive article, but cannot instruct an article). So I too have no idea what this sentence means. Finally, I have no idea what any of this has to do with sociolinguistics -- the issues here seem concerned with semantics and structural linguistics... Slrubenstein

As for: I do not understand why the word "instruct" is preceded by a "what." [...]

To express a question. For example, (courtesy Google), given the statement:

... In laying out the opposing position, you should observe the "Principle of Charity"- a sort of golden rule of reason which instructs us to treat all other ... (per www.ciesin.org/metadata/TOC/standards.html),

I'd consider the question

What does, or what ought to, instruct us to treat all other [...]?

well-posed, and eliciting the answer: "Principle of Charity"- a sort of golden rule of reason.

Similarly, given:

... by Executive Order 12906, "Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure," which instructs US federal agencies ... (at www.biodiversityassociates.org/ general/enews/en1jun02.html),

I'd consider the question

What does, or what ought to, instruct US federal agencies [...]?

well-posed, and eliciting the answer: Executive Order 12906 [...].

However, having tried to look up questions of the form I meant to ask Tarquin, I find that questions of the form

What did, or what ought to, inform ...?

appears perhaps more frequently.

As for: A person cannot instruct an article (a person can read or write an article, and even read or write an instructive article, but cannot instruct an article).

Agreed; that's why I was asking about What instructs [...]?

as in Which impersonal principle or fact allowed the links under consideration to persist; rather than Who instructs [...]?.

I had imagined the reply to be understood that, roughly, the occurence of the string "Seinfield", in the link labels above as well as in the Seinfeld article (and/or in related files)...

As for: Finally, I have no idea what any of this has to do with sociolinguistics --

Please review (whether and) how Seinfieldism arises in the Seinfeld article. AFAIU it does, due to a certain (social?) stratification amongst the viewership of this sitcom.

As for: the issues here seem concerned with semantics and structural linguistics

Possibly. It'd be nice if you could address my initial question on this page; especially if you have at your command scientifically instructive and distinctive aspects of language.

Thanks, Frank W ~@) R 08:37 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC).

gynocentric

Has anyone bothered to read the male-female sociolinguistic differences in their entirety? If so, do they not sound feeble and narrowminded? There are emotionally and normativelly laden words for every characteristic, distributed on the basis of the stereotypical assumption that women are striving for intimacy, while men born to compete. This is the old Darwinian view of evolution, applied to a petit-bourgeois society which divides the nuclear family into the house labour unit and the provider unit. Look at the biased results it produces. With such results sociolinguistics doesn't even have a claim to science. It's pure reproduction of stereotypes- with the new trend to be gynocentric. It would be one thing to seek to distribute the light between men and women, its another when the males are described as aggresive conversationalists vs. the democratic (hence "good") peaceful women. Bunk!