it's a Hebrew thing originally, according to Wikipedia. So it plays well on IMCT.matedog wrote:I've never heard of it. Why do they call it "schwa"? "Uh" would be better. That's why I am a better person and study real things like math and numbers and not reading under a tree.tepista wrote:I've heard of it, but I can't remember what it is. School was a long time ago.eumaas wrote:
Teps, rcs--you guys are consummate laymen when it comes to this shit--have you ever heard of the schwa?
Christ, don't be so defensive. Seriously, it's not a big deal. People poke at each other all the time. I get it plenty of times. Am I supposed to audit every one of my posts to make sure no feelings will be bruised?eumaas wrote:Does that mean I should stop and audit every post in case someone doesn't know what I'm talking about? I agree it's good to try and reach a wide audience (and I endeavor to do that in many of my posts, even on esoteric shit like aesthetics and political philosophy), but I don't see that it's necessary all the time. One brief post in technical language, and I get Thought Police on my case.Dr. Medulla wrote:Board culture has never had it that posts are not for general consumption. Once it's up, it's there for comment.
Based on the comments here, I stand corrected. I'm surprised because, as I said, it was something covered in elementary school, so I assumed it would be for everyone else. Oh well.I think you'll find that the schwa is mostly unknown to laymen.
Are you arguing that effective communication consists of the reader stopping, going off and acquiring additional knowledge, then coming back to re-read the passage? It may be edifying, but nothing I would counsel writers to do.1. How is something exclusionary that can be discovered within a few seconds?
If one doesn't have the shared dialect—that is, it's exclusive to the writer—it's unclear.2. If I were to grant it as exclusionary (defined I guess as anything that references something outside of common lay knowledge), when did "exclusionary" and "unclear" become synonyms?
Perhaps—I won't claim to have a perfect record in clarity. But what you describe as flak was a couple snarky throwaway lines that, at least in my case, was also self-deprecatory. You're the one who has escalated this into being some assault on your character. As I said above, people poke at each other all the time and it shouldn't be taken to heart. When Wolter posts about theatre, people make snarky comments. When Hoy posts about [pick a Hoy topic], people make snarky comments. I get a disproportionate amount of SRP jibes thrown at me. If you'd like to be excluded from snark in the future, let me know and I'll refrain from here on.I still feel like, if this were one of the sciences valorized around here like physics or evolutionary biology, I wouldn't get so much flak for utilizing scientific terms in a post.
Flex wrote:it's a Hebrew thing originally, according to Wikipedia. So it plays well on IMCT.matedog wrote:I've never heard of it. Why do they call it "schwa"? "Uh" would be better. That's why I am a better person and study real things like math and numbers and not reading under a tree.tepista wrote:I've heard of it, but I can't remember what it is. School was a long time ago.eumaas wrote:
Teps, rcs--you guys are consummate laymen when it comes to this shit--have you ever heard of the schwa?
nsc wrote:
Colorado ranks 51st in public education spending behind Puerto Rico.Wolter wrote:I learned about the schwa in 3rd grade.* But I also don't really have a problem with eummie using his terminology. I was just jerking his chain.
*In fucking South Carolina public school, no less. You people should all know it. No excuses.
Didn't in 1984. When I learned what a schwa was.Flex wrote:Colorado ranks 51st in public education spending behind Puerto Rico.Wolter wrote:I learned about the schwa in 3rd grade.* But I also don't really have a problem with eummie using his terminology. I was just jerking his chain.
*In fucking South Carolina public school, no less. You people should all know it. No excuses.
At least you beat Guam.Flex wrote: Colorado ranks 51st in public education spending behind Puerto Rico.
That was a year before I was born.Wolter wrote:Didn't in 1984. When I learned what a schwa was.Flex wrote:Colorado ranks 51st in public education spending behind Puerto Rico.Wolter wrote:I learned about the schwa in 3rd grade.* But I also don't really have a problem with eummie using his terminology. I was just jerking his chain.
*In fucking South Carolina public school, no less. You people should all know it. No excuses.
HAHA! You're young.Flex wrote:That was a year before I was born.Wolter wrote:Didn't in 1984. When I learned what a schwa was.Flex wrote:Colorado ranks 51st in public education spending behind Puerto Rico.Wolter wrote:I learned about the schwa in 3rd grade.* But I also don't really have a problem with eummie using his terminology. I was just jerking his chain.
*In fucking South Carolina public school, no less. You people should all know it. No excuses.
You're old! (my original response)Wolter wrote:HAHA! You're young.Flex wrote:That was a year before I was born.Wolter wrote:Didn't in 1984. When I learned what a schwa was.Flex wrote:Colorado ranks 51st in public education spending behind Puerto Rico.Wolter wrote:I learned about the schwa in 3rd grade.* But I also don't really have a problem with eummie using his terminology. I was just jerking his chain.
*In fucking South Carolina public school, no less. You people should all know it. No excuses.
According to my extensive Wikipedia skimming, yes.eumaas wrote:Schwa comes from sheva, right?
Wow, my uncle was right, all non-Christian religions are the same.Flex wrote:According to my extensive Wikipedia skimming, yes.eumaas wrote:Schwa comes from sheva, right?
