A blue hippo eh? So we have a Wondercow talking about blue hippos in a thread about a multi-touch patent and I should wonder why YOU are confused?
I'm not confused. I am a linguist and the way in which you defend your writing simply shows a lack of quality understanding of the English language on your part. I'll point out that I'm not holding to some little-known rules of grammar or language that have been all but dormant for centuries—the conclusions you reach in defense of your sloppiness are breaches of basic rules of language.
How many times should I repeat myself about the thread topic matter before it sinks in that's what I'm talking about? The meaning is IMPLIED when I say touch screen.
Really? I want to talk about a touch-screen, not a multi-touch touch screen, how do I set this apart?
I think that this debate is silly; I mean, a touch-screen device is common these days, so common that the next natural step of evolution would be a touch-screen. First the touch-screen then the touch-screen then a better touch-screen that has touch-screen features. Obviously the touch-screen is better than the touch-screen and ever since the touch-screen the touch-screen has been on the horizon. A touch-screen patent for a touch-screen?
It's like using a pronoun. I don't have to say "Wondercow" every time I refer to you. Or do I? Maybe I do.
A pronoun is a definite part of speech and has a defined place in the language, including rules for usage. When one uses a pronoun as per the rules of English the meaning is clear
Henry is a wonderful guy; he gave his time to the orphanage. We understand the meaning of the sentence because we know from its structure and linguistic rules that
he refers to Henry.
The team hated to travel in the new buses—they were dirty and smelled of diesel fumes. Here the pronoun "they" could mean either
the team or
the buses (ambiguous reference and implied antecedents).
In your writing there is nothing denoting that you mean "multi-touch touch-screen" when you say "touch-screen". You follow no rules for clearing up the ambiguity. You could have made any number of simple modifications to accomplish this but you chose to remain vague.
In response to: A paragraph break usually indicates a change in subject, while still within the overall topic of the discussion
Not if it's in a paper about a single subject. . . .
Most certainly so! A paper about power steering may refer to standard methods of steering, a comparison with power breaks, or the impact of power steering on the fuel economy of the car. Each would be required to be set apart in separate paragraphs (and each would be devoted more than one paragraph as the subjects were further defined).
. . . This thread is about multi-touch. I mentioned multi-touch . . .
But not the "over and over and over" you claimed.
. . . I talked about it; I made a comparison. Where did the overall thread subject change?
When you failed to make a clear reference. You'll note that many others in this thread have discussed subjects other than multi-touch proper. Do you think that each and every one of those posts and their references were IMPLYING (to use your emphasis) a definite and presupposed link to "multi-touch"?
Why would I suddenly start talking about single touch when it has zero relevance?
You tell us since you did it.
It'd be like suddenly talking about blue hippos for no rhyme or reason instead of implied connecting logic from one point to the next.
Like I said, I want a multi-touch hippo. That topic does not have "no rhyme or reason"; the thread is about multi-touch so there is "implied connecting logic" is there not? Of course you'll disagree because a multi-touch hippo is silly and seems wholly irrelevant, whereas a "touch-screen" is so close to the topic that you assumed people would make the connection that you had in your head. The problem is that speaking generically of a noun or adjective that can stand on its own causes problems such as this. When one uses a generic noun one must remove all ambiguity for the listener lest he get confused as to the meaning.
In response to:
MVM: now I can't have touch screens in the car that make my life easier because Apple is anti-competition (as usual).
WC: There was no mention of multi-touch.
There doesn't need to be. "Now" is a connecting conclusion from the previous paragraph (as does [sic; is?] 'easier', which implies making things simpler than they are now with existing single touch devices), which flat out states and agrees with the thread subject matter that I'm talking about Apple's multi-touch patent.
There does need to be to remove ambiguity:
Let's talk about "losing screws". Magnus hit his head on the table and a screw fell out of it!. The topic is clearly stated, but which object has a screw loose?
Now is first and foremost an adverb meaning "at the present time" or "as a result of a recent happening". It is also a conjunction. As a conjunction it should be avoided at the beginning of a sentence unless it is entirely clear that it doesn't mean "at the present time." This holds especially true for the beginning of a paragraph since
a paragraph begins a new subject. Need me to illustrate it?
As a result of Apple's multi-touch patent I can't have touch screens in the car that make my life easier This implies that Apple's patent somehow covers regular touch-screen devices. (FWIW "easier" is an adjective and doesn't function as a conjunction. It simply describes the quality of the noun "life". And if I want to get
really pedantic: your statement is actually that the
car makes your life easier.)
Why would I imply something like a Garmin unit could be made EASIER in a future tense when they already exist with single touch?
<pedantic>English does not have a future tense. A verb changes tense through a modification (i.e. a suffix, or lack thereof) of the word itself (e.g.
I run to the store, I ran to the store,
I bob for apples, I bobbed for apples). In English we generally speak of future events in present tense using modal verbs:
I will go to the store Here "will" is the present tense but it signifies a future even.... or does it?
I will go to the store tomorrow—future event,
I will go to the store right now—present event,
I would go to the store tomorrow but my car broke down—Past
and future! ("Would" is the past tense of "will".)</pedantic>
Once again, logic dictates an implied connection to the subject matter, which is "Apple Awarded iPhone and Multi-Touch Patent". Where do you see or how do you even conclude that SINGLE-Touch comes from MULTI-Touch? Apparently, you need it spelled out for you. I cannot imply your name with "he"; I have to say "Wondercow" EVERY TIME. I'll note that for future reference so the Wondercow is not confused.
See above on grammatical rules of pronouns, ambiguous connections, etc.
I think it's more like Wondercow does not think about what Wondercow reads. Wondercow cannot apparently make logical connections.
(So) "now" implies a link Wondercow. Is this now becoming clear to Wondercow or does Wondercow need more help?
That could also be considered a method of formal speech (albeit to an extreme). That's third-person singular but I bet you were trying to drive home a point about second-person singular.
I'll let you know when I find the spare time to read the "mammoth 358 page" (as Mac Rumours itself describes it) document of which you speak. Somehow I do not believe for one second that you yourself have read it either.
I never said nor implied that I have read it. I responded within my field of expertise to an attack (and an asinine one at that) that you made against another poster. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you'd like to debate the intricacies of the English language I'm more than happy to do so—I rarely find the opportunity to teach anymore and it would prove a refreshing distraction.
