Lissener's obnoxious behavior in GQ

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=Brynda]
On the subject of whether not being able to ever admit you are wrong is pathological, there is a disorder that I consider when I see that trait:

Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder may include:

Grandiose sense of one’s own abilities or achievements
Fantasies about having exceptional power, attractiveness or success
Believes he or she is special or unique
Need for constant praise
Expectations of special treatment
Exploitation of other people
Lack of empathy for other people
Envy of other people or a belief that you are the subject of other people’s envy
Haughty or arrogant behaviors

Never admitting to being wrong fits nicely with these.

Just saying. It would be wrong of me to diagnose anyone on the basis of their behavior on a board. Besides, I get paid to diagnose. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Just wanted to acknowledge this excellent diagnosis. After watching lissener for years, this is spot on. Cecil himself couldn’t get this mirror-gazer to admit a mistake.

142

Actually, these days, that’s not an invitation to discussion; it usually means “I don’t have any proof for this, and I don’t remember where I heard it, but I’ll toss this opinion into the ring and see if a bunch of people agree with me; hopefully they can provide cites, since I can’t.”

143

Damn, lissener, you really are incapable of admitting you’re wrong, aren’t you?

You know, after reading all this, if you simply don’t understand the mistake, maybe instead of being so militantly defensive, you might ask about the part you’re unclear on so that you can understand the mistake that was made. Oh, and you really ought to apologize for being so thick-headed.

Of course, that’s just me. I could be wrong.

144

[QUOTE=cards]
Just wanted to acknowledge this excellent diagnosis. After watching lissener for years, this is spot on. Cecil himself couldn’t get this mirror-gazer to admit a mistake.
[/QUOTE]

Psychiatrists often can’t correctly diagnose problems sitting right in front of them. I would be wary of diagnosing problems based on posts on a message board.

To be honest, what I saw in the other thread, and the second half of this one, was as much a case of someone who doesn’t speak a second language getting into a fight over translation with people who DO speak second languages, including the one in question. I will admit it’s positively insane for a guy who doesn’t speak Spanish to be arguing with people who do, but the problem is quickly apparent to anyone who speaks any second language, actually.

Learning other languages quickly teaches you that translation is not just a matter of replacing words; translation is in fact an exceptionally delicate science, and even someone who is fluent in two languages can’t necessarily translate perfectly, or even passably well. (This might be especially true of politically or ideologically charged words, such as in, say, a state’s Constitution.) Two very different languages like Spanish and English defy quick transposition of words; there is subtlety and nuance of meaning, false friends and false cognates, different phraseology for similar concepts, structural variations, and a hundred other traps. lissener, bless him, is not so much insisting on the wrong side of the argument as he is fallen into a subject that he doesn’t even comprehend.

As to the other, er, problems he seems to have, beats me. It’s always everyone else, never him.

145

Polycarp, Bambi–it was not, again, my translation. In fact if you check my sites you’ll see that it is in fact the *standard *translation of that document. (I have been able to find *ZERO *examples of translations that use the word “Spanish.”) There are obviously more contexts–most contexts in fact–in which “Spanish” is a more logical translation of the word “castellano.” But the standard translation of the Constitution, for reasons that make sense to me and for the authors of my cites, is “Castilian.”

Ponder, the only way you can still insist I’m “wrong” is if you have totally ignored my cites. I have found authoritative support for every point I have made.

If the only people arguing with me are the ones who insist I pulled that translation out of my own ass, and ignore the fact that I did a little research and *confirmed *that it is, in fact, the standard translation, then I don’t see the point in responding to them anymore. If you’re not gonna read the cites, what’s the point of my continuing to repeat myself?

146

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
:dubious:

Latin-American here, willing to check what the fuss is all about.. reads threads..

I have to say I agree that for GQ, lissener’s posts were either not clear or misleading, the replies to **Colibri ** were not accurate either, lissener’s was confusing the issue really.

One good cite, unfortunately in Spanish, comes from the Austrian university of Insbrook:

http://culturitalia.uibk.ac.at/hispanoteca/index.htm

http://culturitalia.uibk.ac.at/hispanoteca/Lexikon%20der%20Linguistik/c/CASTELLANO%20o%20ESPAÑOL.htm

(Quotes traduced on the fly)

Titled CASTELLANO or ESPAÑOL, it does report what I do remember of the subject. The cites come from the most recent Spanish dictionaries, scholars and EFE, the premier news agency in Spain.

Relevant to this discussion, the cite does deal with the issue about the constitution. Officially, the Spanish constitution calls the language of Spain Castellano. However, the whole truth is that that decision was and remains controversial.

Marcos Marín, Francisco, writer of Curso de gramática española said that that line on the constitution “was the most horrid editing of a paragraph ever seen” The original consensus was to use Castellano y Español as synonyms of the official language, Castellano was referring to the regional dialect that gave rise to modern Spanish, it was deemed correct to use because of historical and traditional reasons, but many considered Español was the more correct term, it became Castellano only in the constitution because politics intervened: Even though Franco was dead the extreme right was still around and decided to be divisive as usual, you begin to see why it remains controversial, Using only Castellano was a way to insult not only the Basques and Catalans, but other regions of Spain that contributed to the evolution of Spanish, Castellano was the most important region, but not the only one.

So what the Royal Academy of the Spanish language and EFE do nowadays in their official business? They say that:
Pedro García Domínguez. Departamento de Español Urgente de la Agencia EFE.

-García Mouton, Pilar: Lenguas y dialectos de España. Madrid: Arco/Libros, 1994, p. 24

*Right wingers again IMO
[/QUOTE]
Well, finally, some intelligent input into this debate. I had no idea of the historical context for the choice of that word. Thanks, Gigo.

147

[QUOTE=lissener]
Polycarp, Bambi–it was not, again, my translation. In fact if you check my sites you’ll see that it is in fact the *standard *translation of that document. (I have been able to find *ZERO *examples of translations that use the word “Spanish.”)
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m taking issue with your interpretation of the translation you were given.

These are the definitions for español and castellano given by the RAE:

Español:

“The common language of Spain and of many American nations, also spoken natively in other parts of the world.”

Castellano:

“The Spanish language, especially when one wants to introduce a distinction in regards to other languages also spoken natively in Spain.”

The only time these words are not exactly equivalent is explained in the definition of castellano. At all other times, it’s simply a matter of dialectical word choice. If I had learned Spanish while growing up in Perú, I would call it castellano; if I had done so across the border in Colombia, I’d call it español, but I would undeniably be speaking the same language. One is not “official” over the other, nor is one “the one they speak in Spain” in opposition to “the one they speak elsewhere”. They’re the same language with different names in certain contexts.

An identical situation in English occurs with all the different word choices used in the English dialects versus the American dialects versus the all the other dialects. Boot is not the official word used in preference to trunk, nor is truck preferred to lorry in any sort of official sense. They’re simply different words for the same concept.

148

With respect, Bambi, I am doing very little interpreting here; I am mostly reporting. Any interpreting I’m doing is in trying to explain my understanding of the situation; I’m presenting no “original” interpretations of any kind.

Please check my cites. You will see that very many authoritative sources translate the word “castellano,” in the context of the Constitution’s section on the official languageof the State of Spain, as “Castilian.” I do understand that in almost all other contexts, the word “Spanish” is more appropriate. However, in this context, and largely for political reasons it would seem (as further explained by GIGObuster), the “standard” translation of that passage uses the word “Castilian.” Again, not my interpretation; please check my cites.

If you do a Google search for that phrase from the Constitution, translated with the word “Castilian,” you will get 117 hits. If you substitute the word “Spanish,” you will get zero hits. So again, not my interpretation.

149

So we’re all clear now, are we?

lissener was (in his own words from this thread)

getting the subject back on track

interpreting

quoting a cite

using nuances and technicalities

speaking in context

narrowly defining in a technical sense

peppering with qualifications

adding a layer of detail

getting to the crux of the discussion

using Spanish as a political adjective

speaking politically not linguistically

parroting other sources

analogizing

attempting to divorce the meaning of Spanish as a political umbrella

addressing a technicality of legal terminology.

What he was not, of course, is wrong.
This is equivocation worthy of the Jesuits!

150

[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
So we’re all clear now, are we?

lissener was (in his own words from this thread)

getting the subject back on track

interpreting

quoting a cite

using nuances and technicalities

speaking in context

narrowly defining in a technical sense

peppering with qualifications

adding a layer of detail

getting to the crux of the discussion

using Spanish as a political adjective

speaking politically not linguistically

parroting other sources

analogizing

attempting to divorce the meaning of Spanish as a political umbrella

addressing a technicality of legal terminology.

What he was not, of course, is wrong.
This is equivocation worthy of the Jesuits!
[/QUOTE]

You left out “providing multiple authoritative sources.”

Seriously, dude, by even the strictest of SDMB standards, I have long ago proven beyond any kind of equivocation that I was not “wrong.” I have never seen a thread where the wholesale ignoring of cited support has been so cheerfully connived at.

With all the cites I’ve provided, it seems blatantly clear to me that the refusal-to-admit-when-you’re-wrong shoe is now on the other foot.

151

[QUOTE=lissener]
Um, as far as I read that, it agrees 100% with what I’ve been trying to say; with why the writers of the constitution chose to use the word castellano instead of the word espanol. That paragraph explains it much more clearly than my attempts have.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the point you keep missing is that the other languages mentioned are only “Spanish” in that they’re spoken in Spain. I’m no expert but it seems to me that they have Portugese or French influences. Catalan is native to Spain, France, and the princiality of Andorra–does that make it Spanish, French, or Andorran?

152

[QUOTE=lissener]
I was trying to draw a parallel between the word British, and its sense of including ethnically English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Manx, etc., people
[/QUOTE]

Unlike everyone else on here (apparently), I don’t know you well enough to start chucking insults around. However, backing up ignorant statements about the Spanish with ignorant statements about the British is surely not going to do you any great favours. Since when was “Irish” a subset of “British”, for God’s sake? Ther reason the UK is properly called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” is that GB does not already contain NI. The Republic of Ireland (Eire) is a wholly independent state. But I rather hope that you already knew that.

153

[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
Yeah, but the point you keep missing is that the other languages mentioned are only “Spanish” in that they’re spoken in Spain.
[/QUOTE]

That’s exactly, and the only, point I’ve made. Several, several times.

154

[QUOTE=Twotwofive]
Unlike everyone else on here (apparently), I don’t know you well enough to start chucking insults around. However, backing up ignorant statements about the Spanish with ignorant statements about the British is surely not going to do you any great favours. Since when was “Irish” a subset of “British”, for God’s sake? Ther reason the UK is properly called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” is that GB does not already contain NI. The Republic of Ireland (Eire) is a wholly independent state. But I rather hope that you already knew that.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, apparently I was wrong about the Irish. I did not look it up. I just dragged my WAG of which “ethnicities” are subsumed under the political rubric “British.” I just pictured the British Isles in my head and tried to remember what their makeup was. Per 225, please subtract the “Irish” part of my analogy.

155

[QUOTE=lissener]
If you do a Google search for that phrase from the Constitution, translated with the word “Castilian,” you will get 117 hits. If you substitute the word “Spanish,” you will get zero hits.
[/QUOTE]
That’s probably because “Spanish is the official Spanish language of the State” is redundant. Remove the second “Spanish” and you will get hits.

156

[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
That’s probably because “Spanish is the official Spanish language of the State” is redundant. Remove the second “Spanish” and you will get hits.
[/QUOTE]

If you remove the second “Spanish” you get mostly hits on other other spanish-speaking states; lots of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, for example.

157

[QUOTE=lissener]
You left out “providing multiple authoritative sources.”

Seriously, dude, by even the strictest of SDMB standards, I have long ago proven beyond any kind of equivocation that I was not “wrong.” I have never seen a thread where the wholesale ignoring of cited support has been so cheerfully connived at.

With all the cites I’ve provided, it seems blatantly clear to me that the refusal-to-admit-when-you’re-wrong shoe is now on the other foot.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but you were WRONG in your very first post to that thread.

158

[QUOTE=lissener]
That’s exactly, and the only, point I’ve made. Several, several times.
[/QUOTE]
Is it? Then you’re the only one who considers “Spanish” to be a generic term for all languages spoken in Spain.

159

[QUOTE=lissener]
If you remove the second “Spanish” you get mostly hits on other other spanish-speaking states; lots of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, for example.
[/QUOTE]
I get 15 hits, 10 for Latin American countries, and 5 for Spain.

160

[QUOTE=lissener]
If you remove the second “Spanish” you get mostly hits on other other spanish-speaking states; lots of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, for example.
[/QUOTE]

… and at least one instance of Spain
(by the Basque government, no less) (WARNING: PDF)