Languages ( was : Yiddish translation of Gita

[winnie fellows]

---
>Powerful over-analysis of a pretty simple situation.

Not at all. The debate which followed treated fundamental questions in
linguistics.

>>Of course it was a fair conclusion to draw for that post festum remark and
>> it was  addressed exactly to the one made it and  not to those who did
not
>> participate in the debate.
>
>That fellow did not participate in the debate; you addressed it to him, and
in
>doing so characterized him unfairly and probably incorrectly.

I just replied to his fully mis-placed remark. But in the same manner as I'm
open to reconsider the "value" of my first remark I have the absolute
sincerity of saying that his remark was out of place, as it was with yours.
>
>> In some schools of spirituality certain
>> provocations are made on purpose just to stir some underlying some major
>> feature up.
>
>"...Some schools of spirituality...?"  Powerful over-analysis of a pretty
simple
>situation.  What you're describing is called, to use a 'Net expression,
>flame-baiting.

I can understand that you don't want to see beyond. Anyway,
you may characterize it with any superficial internet label you wish. I
still fully maintain the interpretation of the whole issue exactly as I did.

It was a callous and chauvinistic
>remark, and you were rightly called on it.

I don't see it at all as callous and chauvinistic. And I answered to the
replies at the same bon ton I think they deserved. What really interests me
is the healthy debate and I'm not afraid of making remarks which may flow
from my inner sincerity and thereafter go through the discussion of its
content, reconsidering if necessary.
>
>> If the intention is not related to negative emotion or
>> ideological hostility- and my original  remark WAS NOT- then the
important
>> is that what follows.
>
>I'm sure your original remark was not meant "negatively" or with overt
>ideological hostility.  Yet it smacked of both nonetheless.


It may have but in that case the fault is not mine.

 At best, it was a
>carelessly worded question.

To a certain extend it may even have been, but it holds a style and an
intention which although sometimes clumsy  runs accepted  risks of being
overly misunderstood.

Really, you have over-analyzed a pretty simple
>situation.  I'm not interested in an on-going e-mail battle with you; I've
spent
>enough time on this issue as it is.

Neither do I,  since my main interest is around the richness of debates
around important issues.

  I think you were wrong in both your initial
>remark and your outright and mis-placed hostility when that fellow offered
>perfectly valid criticism of your initial remark.

The question of bein wrong or not is not affecting my ego or my intellectual
pride  and *that* remak of mine, a posteriori, may indeed have been hostile
for I considered the criticism  out of place.

 That's pretty simple.
>
>
>Pie

Perhaps here is one of our differences: what seems to be simple to you is
not that simple to me  and what is not simple to you is just simple for me.
I have the feeling that we are looking at the finger and not at the moon.

Jesualdo Correia

Jesualdo Correia

>