2672 replies to this topic

[Muppetmad]

I think you missed " by those who share my opinion" from the end of your sentence?

 

FYI being a native speaker is often not a good qualifier for understanding your native tongue, particularly for a language like English where the teaching of formal grammar at school stopped in the middle of the last century. 

I'm not clear what you mean by the part in bold. My opinion on what? In any case, the fact you think this is an issue of formal grammar is where I think our disagreement lies.

[RogerStone]

It's all gone a bit Monty Python

https://youtu.be/NDbnkYSLwI0

 

Just need Biggus Dickus to make an appearance..

[ARTGP]

I also feel this is clash is the product of 2 horse racing.  Surely things might be a bit different if these two didn't only have each other to worry about, but the likes of Norris, Leclerc, Russell and so on also mere points away in the WDC table.  Neither driver had much to lose relative to anybody else.

Edited by ARTGP, 16 September 2021 - 13:06.

[KinkyMasta]

Max was never ahead, barely alongside so was Lewis at any point obliged to leave space? 

 

Just glad Hamilton is OK after that. Possibly a life saved by the halo. That was scary. 

 

Ultimately probably a racing incident. Neither driver wanted to cede. But I reckon Max could have done more to avoid contact.

 

"barely alongside".. Maybe at the start of braking, but because he was on the outside he got his nose at the level of Hamilton's front wheels just before crashing.

 

Hamilton gave room to Max at the first corner and then closed it in the second. Either you give room the whole chicane or close the door straight away. . 

 

Look what Gio did on lap 1. 

[jwill189]

So is alonso a good yard stick or not. Or do people pick and choose when drivers opinions count?

 

They only call them biased when it's an opinion that isn't favorable to their driver, but in Silverstone, Alonso defended Hamilton and said it was a racing incident. Of course, back then they weren't saying Alonso's opinion didn't count.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Just need Biggus Dickus to make an appearance..

 

I already have. 

[Paa]

It certainly could be stated generic remark but the words used carry meaning.

 

"That's what happens when you leave no space"

 

When Max said that, the context was that he was talking about himself being left no room so the pronoun "me" becomes implicit.

 

If you say it then the implicit pronoun becomes "them".  This is the same as the "generic" example you gave, which also matches in context.

 

Non-native English speakers are less likely to understand that and so may feel there is a difference when none exists.

 

I have lived NL for many years and this has given me a better perspective on my native tongue.

Particularly how 'lazy' native English speakers are, often using context in place of formal grammar.

 

 

Let me remind you that Max is also a non-native speaker, so analyzing him from this point of view might not be correct.

[Gareth]

There is one simple fact. You edited a quote and presented it as the actual quote. 

 

I'm surprised you're allowed to go on with this and even more surprised you haven't been required to correct yourself. 

Editing a quote and adding your own words (in a manner that you consider has retained the meaning of the original), but making it clear you have done so by placing your edits in brackets, is not uncommon. It is, I think, more usual to use [   ] than (   ), by convention in order to indicate this is what you're doing.

 

FWIW I think the edit clearly changed the meaning. I think "that's what happens when you don't leave [people] space" is a much better interpretation that "that's what happens when you don't leave [me] space". As, it appears, do most.

[sketchy2001]

Sorry, but I disagree. Happy to admit that I am a non-native speaker, but I dont think it's fair to pull that card in this case (adding to that, Max is obviously also a non-native speaker, so I guess in this specific case that means we understand better what he means?   )

 

By adding the word "Me", it makes it appear like it's only applying to him specifically. It implicitly means that if it were somebody else, a crash wouldnt have happened. By removing the word "me" it makes it much more about the situation (a car being left not enough space) than about Max.

 

And I also would be very surprised if there are no native speakers who would have the same understanding. this is the first time I ever saw an argument that non-native speakers are more nuanced in a language...

 

"By adding the word "Me", it makes it appear like it's only applying to him specifically" - So in the instance when Max was describing what had just happened to him, just who was it that had not been left space?  Was he also discussing the incident at turn 3 on lap 1?

 

"It implicitly means that if it were somebody else, a crash wouldnt have happened" - That is certainly not implicit.  Max's statement was made directly after an accident he was involved in.  To extrapolate that statement to encompass any other accident would require explicit language.

 

 "this is the first time I ever saw an argument that non-native speakers are more nuanced in a language... " - The fact I said exactly the opposite rather makes my point for me.  In fact, there are many native speakers of English who do not recognise the nuances of their own language thanks to their education system deciding not to teach it.

 

As for pulling the native/non-native card, the original post that started all this placed the word into the quote and surrounded that word with brackets ("square brackets").

This is a recognised way , in English anyway, to add implicit but omitted words to aid clarity.

 

The point is that what Max actually said had an implicit personal, not general, meaning. 

Given he is not a native speaker, this may not be what he meant but it is what he said.

If he actually meant to say something different, this has not been communicated...

[Marklar]

Didnt Alonso call Silverstone a racing incident too?

[Ivanhoe]

Yeah, was already mentioned a few times.

[Huffer]

Didnt Alonso call Silverstone a racing incident too?

 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

[sketchy2001]

Let me remind you that Max is also a non-native speaker, so analyzing him from this point of view might not be correct.

 

I not analysing him as I am fully aware that he was not speaking in his native tongue. ;-)

 

The situation is that a non-native English speaker used a phrase that contains an implicit but omitted word that he may, or may not, have been aware of.

 

Some people seem to have taken offence when presented with the actual meaning of the words used and have mistakenly attacked the messenger rather than sought clarity from the utterer as to what their intended message was.

[Roadhouse]

Are you actually dissecting the English words of an angry adrenaline driven non-native speaker? 

Drivers utter loads of nonsense during races to get off the hook.

[Heyli]

Editing a quote and adding your own words (in a manner that you consider has retained the meaning of the original), but making it clear you have done so by placing your edits in brackets, is not uncommon. It is, I think, more usual to use [   ] than (   ), by convention in order to indicate this is what you're doing.

 

FWIW I think the edit clearly changed the meaning. I think "that's what happens when you don't leave [people] space" is a much better interpretation that "that's what happens when you don't leave [me] space". As, it appears, do most.

Ok so you summarized it best in 1 sentence... That is exactly what I meant. I guess that's the difference between a native and a non-native speaker!

[milestone 11]

Editing a quote and adding your own words (in a manner that you consider has retained the meaning of the original), but making it clear you have done so by placing your edits in brackets, is not uncommon. It is, I think, more usual to use [   ] than (   ), by convention in order to indicate this is what you're doing.

 

FWIW I think the edit clearly changed the meaning. I think "that's what happens when you don't leave [people] space" is a much better interpretation that "that's what happens when you don't leave [me] space". As, it appears, do most.

Oh! so he may have been referring to himself? There were, after all, only two people involved.

 

Edit,

I agree convention would dictate [ ] rather than ( ). My Kindle, which the message was written on, does not include [ ] on the initial keyboard screen. Laziness on my part.

Edited by milestone 11, 16 September 2021 - 14:04.

[Heyli]

"By adding the word "Me", it makes it appear like it's only applying to him specifically" - So in the instance when Max was describing what had just happened to him, just who was it that had not been left space?  Was he also discussing the incident at turn 3 on lap 1?

 

"It implicitly means that if it were somebody else, a crash wouldnt have happened" - That is certainly not implicit.  Max's statement was made directly after an accident he was involved in.  To extrapolate that statement to encompass any other accident would require explicit language.

 

 "this is the first time I ever saw an argument that non-native speakers are more nuanced in a language... " - The fact I said exactly the opposite rather makes my point for me.  In fact, there are many native speakers of English who do not recognise the nuances of their own language thanks to their education system deciding not to teach it.

 

As for pulling the native/non-native card, the original post that started all this placed the word into the quote and surrounded that word with brackets ("square brackets").

This is a recognised way , in English anyway, to add implicit but omitted words to aid clarity.

 

The point is that what Max actually said had an implicit personal, not general, meaning. 

Given he is not a native speaker, this may not be what he meant but it is what he said.

If he actually meant to say something different, this has not been communicated...

Let's agree to disagree. 

[Raest]

It certainly could be stated generic remark but the words used carry meaning.

 

"That's what happens when you leave no space"

 

When Max said that, the context was that he was talking about himself being left no room so the pronoun "me" becomes implicit.

 

 

Well it depends on what you mean by implicitly referring to him. If you mean that this sentence implicitly refers to his crash then I can see your point (even though it's obvious as the whole interview was taken in the context of the crash). If you mean that he implicitly means that this will be the outcome every time he (specifically) is not given the space he thinks is entitled to on the track then you are wrong. He is referring to something that claims to happen in general (in order) to justify why it happened in this occasion. In no way can this perceived as him referring to himself only (as inserting a "me" in the sentence would)

"That's what happens (a crash) when you (2nd person PoV) leave no space".

Meaning: "The object of the sentence (the crash) happens when no space is left (in general), I (could have been anyone else) was left with no space ergo we crashed"

Edited by Raest, 16 September 2021 - 14:09.

[sketchy2001]

Editing a quote and adding your own words (in a manner that you consider has retained the meaning of the original), but making it clear you have done so by placing your edits in brackets, is not uncommon. It is, I think, more usual to use [   ] than (   ), by convention in order to indicate this is what you're doing.

 

FWIW I think the edit clearly changed the meaning. I think "that's what happens when you don't leave [people] space" is a much better interpretation that "that's what happens when you don't leave [me] space". As, it appears, do most.

 

Why do you think it is a "much better interpretation"?  Is it because it soothes your cognitive dissonance?

 

Ironically, the quote is actually "That's what you get when you don't leave the space".

 

So what way should we interpret that? :-D

[sketchy2001]

Well it depends on what you mean by implicitly referring to him. If you mean that this sentence implicitly refers to his crash then I can see your point (even though it's obvious as the whole interview was taken in the context of the crash). If you mean that he implicitly means that this will be the outcome every time he (specifically) is not given the space he thinks is entitled to on the track then you are wrong. He is referring to something that claims to happen in general (in order) to justify why it happened in this occasion. In no way can this perceived as him referring to himself only (as inserting a "me" in the sentence would)

"That's what happens (a crash) when you (2nd person PoV) leave no space".

Meaning: "The object of the sentence (the crash) happens when no space is left (in general), I (could have been anyone else) was left with no space ergo we crashed"

 

It does feel that you are emotionally invested in this argument.  The fact that the context of the supposed quote was specific to a particular incident would make extrapolating to claim it applies to every incident a rather foolish decision.

 

Given that the actual quote was "That's what you get when you don't leave the space" then we can start a whole new conversation about how inaccurate that statement is or is not?

Maybe we could focus on the use of 2nd person meaning "everyone apart from me" or just make any old junk up to support our bias?

Or maybe they are just words uttered by someone paid to drive a car fast and not think too deeply about anything other than winning?

[Gareth]

Why do you think it is a "much better interpretation"?

I guess because I see the choices as:

 

1. Max was saying that he is a uniquely aggressive driver, and thus this is very specifically what will happen if you do not leave him (and only him) sufficient space

 

2. Max was trying to criticise Lewis Hamilton and say that the accident was his fault because that's what will happen if you do not leave space generally in F1, and in his view Lewis Hamilton did not leave space

 

I think it's much more likely that Max was trying to get across the message in point 2 than point 1.

[Requiem84]

Editing a quote and adding your own words (in a manner that you consider has retained the meaning of the original), but making it clear you have done so by placing your edits in brackets, is not uncommon. It is, I think, more usual to use [   ] than (   ), by convention in order to indicate this is what you're doing.

 

FWIW I think the edit clearly changed the meaning. I think "that's what happens when you don't leave [people] space" is a much better interpretation that "that's what happens when you don't leave [me] space". As, it appears, do most.

 

Fair comments, thanks for summarizing and clarifying. Typically when you edit a comment, you also indicate that you did edit it (which I don't think was the case). Because the additions in brackets can also relate to parts that are almost inaudible for example. 

[Ivanhoe]

It looks like this thread has run it's course, all that's worthwhile has been discussed (and admittedly mostly in a good way), but unfortunately it has taken a downhill route. Thread closed.