Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Maths at Cambridge.

Announcements Posted on
We're up for a Webby! Vote TSR to help us win. 10-04-2014
Interview Discussion 30-01-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I had to google so many words haha
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You may get an irrational sense of annoyance from reading his writing style, but to tell the author that is pointless.

    What I think of their writing is irrelevant, if the OP wants to write like that what on Earth is the problem?

    It may or may not be that he or she sounds to some as if they are deliberately trying to make himself sound posher than he or she is in order to put people down, but having read the OP's responses I genuinely don't think that is the case (although perhaps I'm wrong, of course). I think there's something wrong with criticising him/her when he/she had no intention of offending anyone.

    If we were to penalise someone for using this flamboyant language when it's simply the way that they've been educated, isn't that just as bad as discriminating against someone for talking in, for instance, a regional dialect or a camp way?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Junaid96)
    Why did you use the word acquiescing? WHY? Not many people know it so it's just plain stupid. Communication and language involves conveying ideas to others, and you're not going to be able to do that if you're practically speaking a foreign language to them. I'm not going to start talking to you by saying "I actually zustimmen with you my good kumpel. Vllt wenn you decided to ranger your wohnung you'd be able to faire what you wunchst"

    Well that's a lesson learnt for you. If you want people to include you in their circles you have to learn to integrate with them.

    One of your chums posted a message to your profile which I thought sums you up quite nicely:
    "When I am old, my hoary beard and sesquipedalian conversations will allow me to be smug and philistine."
    Are you serious?

    Whatever it is the OP has written, it has been in English. I admire the OPs use of diction, albeit obsolete in many cases. It shows he has a grasp of the language, which is commendable and should not in any case be discouraged. The fact that many of these words are somewhat outdated and unused is a great shame, as they are infinitely more eloquent than the typical language which is now so commonplace.

    Your comparison to adding random words in a different language is utterly buffoonish and requires no additional commentary.

    --

    OP, I would advise you to prepare as if you were going to apply for the Maths Tripos at Cambridge. It would be most fortuitous to gain entry onto such a prestigious course otherwise, and moreover, it should be apt preparation for their Natural Sciences course, or, indeed, any theoretical physics course elsewhere.

    On a subsidiary note, I feel you ought to learn to articulate your ideas in a very much more colloquial manner, as it is in your best interests to ensure that any interviewers you may have can understand you. Many of these will not command the English language as strongly as you purportedly do.
    • 68 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astronomical)
    Are you serious?

    Whatever it is the OP has written, it has been in English. I admire the OPs use of diction, albeit obsolete in many cases. It shows he has a grasp of the language, which is commendable and should not in any case be discouraged. The fact that many of these words are somewhat outdated and unused is a great shame, as they are infinitely more eloquent than the typical language which is now so commonplace.

    Your comparison to adding random words in a different language is utterly buffoonish and requires no additional commentary.

    --

    OP, I would advise you to prepare as if you were going to apply for the Maths Tripos at Cambridge. It would be most fortuitous to gain entry onto such a prestigious course otherwise, and moreover, it should be apt preparation for their Natural Sciences course, or, indeed, any theoretical physics course elsewhere.

    On a subsidiary note, I feel you ought to learn to articulate your ideas in a very much more colloquial manner, as it is in your best interests to ensure that any interviewers you may have can understand you. Many of these will not command the English language as strongly as you purportedly do.
    Codswallop. If someone's speech is incomprehensible, it's as good as foreign. Why do you think you will often hear people commenting on regional dialects of languages as being "almost like another language"?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Junaid96)
    Codswallop. If someone's speech is incomprehensible, it's as good as foreign. Why do you think you will often hear people commenting on regional dialects of languages as being "almost like another language"?
    The important distinction is that it their speech is not incomprehensible, it is merely incomprehensible to you, or so you complain. To criticise someone on those grounds alone is harsh. You would only have a point if no-one, or very few people, could understand the speech.
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llewellyn)
    The important distinction is that it their speech is not incomprehensible, it is merely incomprehensible to you, or so you complain. To criticise someone on those grounds alone is harsh. You would only have a point if no-one, or very few people, could understand the speech.
    I would say very few people could easily understand his speech tbh.
    • 68 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llewellyn)
    The important distinction is that it their speech is not incomprehensible, it is merely incomprehensible to you, or so you complain. To criticise someone on those grounds alone is harsh. You would only have a point if no-one, or very few people, could understand the speech.
    It was, though.

    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    I would say very few people could easily understand his speech tbh.
    +1 Wiggum. How did you manage to snap up that username?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    I would say very few people could easily understand his speech tbh.
    I'm fine with people using a wider vocabulary*, or using unusual words. In fact, it's more interesting. But only if it still makes sense.

    I've now read his original post before he changed it and actually some of the words he's used are actually incorrect. Sorry I didn't read that before commenting, I agree with you.

    *I'm okay with someone saying "huge" instead of "big" but when someone (basically when someone writes with a thesaurus instead of a dictionary) and starts to use words like "copious" in the same way, which in fact have a different meaning, then a problem arises.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Junaid96)
    It was, though.
    Sorry, I read what he originally wrote and I agree with you. But I don't agree with the sentiment that using more complex vocabulary is wrong, unless the meaning changes to the point where it does not make sense (as this one did).
    • 68 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llewellyn)
    Sorry, I read what he originally wrote and I agree with you. But I don't agree with the sentiment that using more complex vocabulary is wrong, unless the meaning changes to the point where it does not make sense (as this one did).
    Using vocabulary which the people you're talking to 'don't know' is wrong. When you're in the street and you ask for directions from a local butcher, you don't put on a top hat and start communicating in a 'most proper' manner, instead you speak 'his language' which he can understand.

    I guarantee the OP wouldn't talk like that to a child, and why? Because the child wouldn't understand if you asked for the "extravagant contraption with the intricate mechanism". What you should ask for is "that cool toy". It's the same with most people. Most people know alternative vocabulary which is more commonly used - this guy seems to have focused his efforts on obscure posh words. It's nothing to be ashamed about if you don't know these sort of words as they're useless and irrelevant to everyday life. The vast majority of English words don't even exist in other European languages, mainly because they barely exist in English (in the sense that they're never used apart from people like the OP).
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Junaid96)
    Using vocabulary which the people you're talking to 'don't know' is wrong. When you're in the street and you ask for directions from a local butcher, you don't put on a top hat and start communicating in a 'most proper' manner, instead you speak 'his language' which he can understand.

    I guarantee the OP wouldn't talk like that to a child, and why? Because the child wouldn't understand. It's the same with most people, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Most people know alternative vocabulary which is more commonly used - this guy seems to have focused his efforts on obscure posh words.
    I'm not saying people should make a conscious effort to make every other word at least 4 syllables long, I'm just commenting that saying "swift" instead of "fast" or "hilarious" instead of "funny" should not be looked down upon in any way.

    I know as a kid the one thing I hated above all else was people treating me different because they assumed that I wouldn't understand or be able to cope.

    I disagree that language is all about communication. I think that language is about expression.

    This guy is either retarded or is purposely trying to use more extravagant language in order to sound smart.
    • Thread Starter
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    What's humorous is that none of you can comprehend that the English language maintains archaic semantics of words. Seventeenth century Philosophers wrote with words that were obsolete and antediluvian.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sorry OP but I'm confused.
    • 68 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Above.The.Empyrean)
    What's humorous is that none of you can comprehend that the English language maintains archaic semantics of words. Seventeenth century Philosophers wrote with words that were obsolete and antediluvian.
    You see? I had to look up antediluvian thanks to your arrogance and stubborn attitude in refusing to speak my language. I maintain that speaking in German to you would be exactly the same - in both cases one wouldn't understand the other due to the other using words and phrases unknown to them.



    (Original post by Above.The.Empyrean)
    What's humorous is that none of you can comprehend that the English language maintains archaic semantics of words. Seventeenth century Philosophers wrote with words that were obsolete and antediluvian.
    Maybe, but not on TSR to 21st Century commoners they didn't... no, they wrote either to themselves without expecting anyone to read what they wrote, or to other academics. Feel free to speak how you do with other eccentric characters, but there's no reason whatsoever to bring that sort of language here.

    There's a guideline here on TSR to translate any foreign posts to English. I think you ought to obey that guidline (I don't believe google translate will help you with a conversion between Arrogant English and Normal English, though).
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As this thread doesn't appear to be asking a serious question and is now only a discussion of semantics I'm going to close it
Updated: June 14, 2012
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.