an interesting conversation mike and i had regarding the previous post:
[15:45] mrgoldsoft: A lot is two words.
[15:46] mrmopwater: i know
[15:46] mrmopwater: i like it better as one though.
[15:46] mrgoldsoft: What is alot then?
[15:46] mrmopwater: alot is a visual representation of the concept it represents
[15:46] mrgoldsoft: Is it a Japanese potato?
[15:46] mrgoldsoft: Japanese potato, in other words.
[15:46] mrmopwater: no.
[15:47] mrmopwater: a lot does less to signify its concept than alot
[15:47] mrgoldsoft: I disagree.
[15:47] mrmopwater: the space between "a" and "lot" implies a lack.
[15:47] mrgoldsoft: The lack of a space implies a lack.
[15:47] mrgoldsoft: A lot implies so much that you need a space.
[15:47] mrmopwater: no.
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: Alot implies smallness, scrunching.
[15:48] mrmopwater: the reverse
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: Alot is smaller than a lot.
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: How can it be more if it's smaller?
[15:48] mrmopwater: no
[15:48] mrmopwater: it is bigger
[15:48] mrmopwater: a lot
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: That isn't actually.
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: True.
[15:48] mrmopwater: is two words
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: Right.
[15:48] mrmopwater: and alot
[15:48] mrmopwater: is bigger
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: Which is one more word than alot.
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: No.
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: It's smaller.
[15:48] mrgoldsoft: It's only one word.
[15:48] mrmopwater: yes
[15:49] mrmopwater: but it derives its power from the combination of two words
[15:49] mrmopwater: implying its concept.
[15:49] mrgoldsoft: It sucks two words together, implying that it's a party with no standing room.
[15:49] mrgoldsoft: Which is not the concept of a lot.
[15:49] mrgoldsoft: Nothing is different than a lot.
[15:49] mrgoldsoft: Nothing is less than a lot.
[15:50] mrmopwater: a lot is more ambiguous than alot
[15:50] mrgoldsoft: Not in context.
[15:50] mrmopwater: a lot could refer to a lot
[15:50] mrmopwater: oh context!
[15:50] mrmopwater: now we're going to bring context into the discussion?
[15:50] mrmopwater: well!
[15:50] mrgoldsoft: WELL!
[15:51] mrgoldsoft: I don't know where my watch is.
[15:51] mrmopwater: if we're going to discuss signifiers as signifiers you are not allowed to bring context into the equation.
[15:52] mrgoldsoft: Alot is more ambigious than "a lot" because it has a history of error; it introduces thoughts and criticisms about grammar rather than the concept, which is lotfullness.
[15:52] mrgoldsoft: And that is regardless of context.
10 comments:
Hi Randy, thank you for finding us. This is the blog on which Bryan and I post anything significant.
Kind of like a toaster makes anything the same, except toasted.
Yeah, like that.
you guys are so gay.
and a toaster will not make a turtle the same a book or poetry except that they are toasted.
oh alex!
your impeccable grammar!
god loves you for it!
also: thank you for referring to us as gay!
sincerely,
bryan
No, I meant this: if I put a turtle in the toaster, it would still be a turtle, just a toasted turtle.
If I put Henry Fonda in a toaster, he would still be Henry Fonda, just toasted.
If I put a putting green in a toaster, it would still be a putting green, just toasted.
And so on.
i think he knows.
he's just being an asshole (albeit one w/o proper syntax.)
this is important.
I suppose you could have a toasted toast if your toast was alcoholic. Irish coffee, for example.
Seemed appropriate.
Angela
p.s. you should drink more.
no doubt.
we agree.
we SHOULD drink more.
(well mike should anyway. he'd be better able to answer this at 3 AM)
i am not equipped to discuss such profound things this late!
egads!
my poetry is not devoid of allusions!
Every time you say 'egads' Bryan, I think of Pinky and the Brain.
Were you being allusive??!
(Sorry, I'll stop being a dick and go to Black Sheep now)
Post a Comment