Important Philosophical Questions + POLLS

Samraku · October 27, 2020, 9:14pm

As precise and unambiguous as is necessary to communicate your meaning, and no more. Said communication should, relatedly, take into account the assumption that what you are trying to communicate is relevant, and that your conversational partner knows this, and knows that you know this, and that you can therefore leave unstated in the text otherwise vital information if it may be readily surmised by the prior knowledge of your conversational partner and their knowledge that what you are saying is relevant.

I understand that there are competing models, and that this model does not account for all conversation, but I think it’s a decent rough sketch of the implicit assumptions we have when communicating: Grice’s Maxims of Conversation: The Principles of Effective Communication – Effectiviology.

mark5000 · October 27, 2020, 9:38pm

As simple as needed to say your meaning and no more. Your words should suggest that what you are trying to say fits the conversation (and that both you and your conversation friend know this), and so you can suggest other key things in the words, if your conversation friend can easily guess it given what they know and that your words fit the conversation.

(Sorry friend! I couldn’t help myself. This version passes https://splasho.com/upgoer5)

Samraku · October 27, 2020, 10:26pm

Though that is an intriguing and illuminating linguistic constraint, I think in communication it is analogous to avoiding “E” in your writing. No book, including for young kids, has such a constraint.

That said, you did word my import succinctly, contrasting my own try.

yebellz · October 27, 2020, 11:28pm

Samraku · October 27, 2020, 11:32pm

Exceptions do not invalidate the rule; neither would it be charitable to say that “See Dick run. Dick runs fast. …” uses less than 1000 words: those (“See Dick run.”) kinds of books may as well be written by Markov Chains, lacking as they are in any appreciable literary value.

bugcat · October 29, 2020, 3:09pm

What’s the singular of pasta?

Piece of pasta
Pasta shape
Pasta
Pasto
Pastum
Pasticule

0 voters

Vsotvep · October 29, 2020, 3:10pm

It’s uncountable again

bugcat · October 29, 2020, 3:15pm

I’m asking you to name the component piece of pasta.

eg. sand is uncountable, but its component piece is a grain of sand; bread is uncountable but its component piece is a crumb of bread.

I admit my answer pasto is whimsical, as the correct phrase is really piece of pasta or pasta shape, pasta indeed being uncountable.

Haze_with_a_Z · October 29, 2020, 3:29pm

Tbh I know that I call the plural of “leaf” just “leafs”. This kinda reminds me of it just taking out the s.

Vsotvep · October 29, 2020, 4:01pm

Alright, I get the intention, but it’s not what you asked, since that’s not what “singular of” means.

I’m not sure if crumb of bread is the usual way to count a component piece of “bread”, it’s not like bread is just an assembly of crumbs. Why not a loaf of bread? Or a slice of bread? It depends what you want to denote.

I’d say pasta can refer to two countable concepts: it can be the idea of a type of pasta, like “I bought pasta at the store, to be specific, I bought spaghetti, penne and lasagne.” Alternatively, it could refer to a pasta dish, like “Which pasta do I take, the Bolognese, Puttanesca or Arrabiata?”. In both of these cases pasta is already singular, and the plural would possibly be the Italian paste or the general English plural pastas.

Alternatively, pasta can be used uncountably in English, like “I boiled the pasta in salted water”. There’s not 300 pasta that you put in the water, it’s just uncountable.

I would never use pasta to refer to a single piece of pasta, though. I’d say it depends on the kind of pasta. In English, I could refer to a sheet of pasta in case of lasagne, a strand of pasta in case of spaghetti, a tube of pasta in case of penne, and so on.

Note that English uses the plural forms to refer to the Italian pasta types: spaghetti (plural of spaghetto), lasagne (plural of lasagna), penne (plural of penna), cannelloni (plural of cannellone), etc.

Starline · October 29, 2020, 4:50pm

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

yebellz · October 29, 2020, 5:13pm

What happens when you split or break a piece of pasta in two? You just get two pieces of pasta, right? You could do that again to each of those, and now you have four, don’t you? But, could you keep doing that forever? What happens as you keep going and the pasticules get smaller and smaller? Does it stop becoming pasta at some point? Does it go back to becoming semolina and/or flour along the way? When is it no longer even flour? When you are breaking the chemical bonds? When you are ripping apart the molecules at the atomic level? Where does this all end? How do you break this vicious cycle? What frees you from the relentless burden of this perpetual chore? Do you beg for sweet release as you split the atoms in hope of unleashing the furious power of a thousand suns?

Gia · October 29, 2020, 5:27pm

I count pasta in servings, when I’m civilized, and in “am I full yet?” when I’m me.

square.defender · October 29, 2020, 5:32pm

no
everything is pasta

Barbanaira · October 29, 2020, 5:38pm

It’s pasta all the way down.

mark5000 · October 29, 2020, 6:07pm

I think it stops being pasta when you start breaking apart the starches and proteins.

Gia · October 29, 2020, 6:22pm

Does it have faded, agonizing, distant memories of once having been part of something great?..

Atorrante · October 29, 2020, 6:40pm

In Robert A. Heinlein’s The Number of the Beast the time travellers visit " a world almost identical to ours except for the fact that there is no letter J in the alphabet there".

KAOSkonfused · October 30, 2020, 10:04am

It’s noodle, stupid.

Gia · October 30, 2020, 10:43pm

I wonder if we could have a sitewide live tournament, to celebrate Christmas or something.

With a mass mail invitation to everyone, and whoever shows up. Like an event.

Probably not, but it doesn’t hurt to philosophically question.