Just a Trip-Drip-Drop-Pop-Day

Tree-Trip-Drop-Hop [engl.]
1: Plastic is dripping over green mountains
drunken a chill-out-beat is murmuring
and ancient voices are choiring [verb from the noun choir] to the synth-rain
slate blue the rain, green is the ground it is falling on

2: Sick makes me the greenness of the chains of hills
Whenever one sinks, I fall upwards
only the rain follows no direction
blows and lashes in the rhythm of a Trip-Pop-Beat

3: Disharmonies are flattening mountains
pulling wind full of clouds out to the sea
sounds of sorrows are lining [verb, noun the line of a poem] a counterpoint
and mordantly a tune is breaking and smoothening the waves

4: Your eyes are blue
Like the sea I’m leaning on
Flowing around me between Skären and the Gulf of Botthnia
I’m fadíng away in the scratching of this intoxicated blueness

5/3: The bells of the sea are ringing, organing [verb for the noun the organ] seagull screeching
The sea breaks out, the storm is jangling
Only in between are monophonic bass-lines
But analouge howling screams polyphonic flat waves away

6/2: I reach out my hand
I want to go back – your eyes are blue
If God also wants tomorrow
If God wants to, I am – or not

7/1: The metronomic pulse of rain drops
Tick-Tack-Tack-Tick – hours by and backwards
are standing still at the same time and sample space and time
Back in the wet slate blue woods

8/4: My eyes are green, I have never seen the sea
A tree knows rain, snow, but no waves
My eyes are green like a sea of woods
Your eyes are blue, where will I meet the sea?

(reverberant) [If I am(so I am) – if God wants to
Then my eye sare blue – if God wants to
then your eyes are green – if God wants to
Between Skären, you and I, blue-green……]

Hello World

Da ich beim ersten Mal zu doof zum Bloggen war, hier mein Commentblogboard:

dermbg	Gesendet am 13.05.2009 um 21:47 Okay, just start with the phrase “Hey World, hey readers that I don’t have!” Wow, what a semantic turn…world is lexem that consists of the marker ‘readers’ and they do not exist? Is this language philosophy or just the daily grind of a semantic scientist?? I think both is right: Semantic scientist like me just think about everything they say and right and while we think about this, we are considering about this what we want to express. And there we go: Every expressions opens a big world of meaning, of social and communicational functions. While one expression is for me right, for another person it could be anything else, i.e. aggressive, strange, stupid or even not necessary. While this reflection on meaning and expression we create social relationships and those are so complex, while we’re not speaking about the same meaning, but about the same expression. And so we live in different worlds…with one concept we might share but that still divides us. So we are living conceptional world, which are always worlds of différences! Thanks to you Jacques! The world is so always a world of readers, that not exist in my world, but suppose to do so. Okay, just start with the phrase „Hey World, hey readers that I don’t have!“ Wow, what a semantic turn…world is lexem that consists of the marker ‚readers‘ and they do not exist? Is this language philosophy or just the daily grind of a semantic scientist?? I think both is right: Semantic scientist like me just think about everything they say and right and while we think about this, we are considering about this what we want to express. And there we go: Every expressions opens a big world of meaning, of social and communicational functions. While one expression is for me right, for another person it could be anything else, i.e. aggressive, strange, stupid or even not necessary. While this reflection on meaning and expression we create social relationships and those are so complex, while we’re not speaking about the same meaning, but about the same expression. And so we live in different worlds…with one concept we might share but that still divides us. So we are living conceptional world, which are always worlds of différences! Thanks to you Jacques! The world is so always a world of readers, that not exist in my world, but suppose to do so.
David	Gesendet am 14.05.2009 um 9:25 Hi, interesting thoughts you have there. Did you ever consider writing something about misreading intentions in internet conversation? Or could you recommend me something concerning this? Because it is one of those things you have to deal with on an almost daily basis when you are an admin on an internet forum. Somebody writing something and having the best intentions in mind but not thinking of how other people could read that. Would be nice for me to have a scientific view on that and as I am way more into literature I don’t think I could do it myself. BTW: Blogs work much better if you post your work as article and not as a comment. Regards, David Hi, interesting thoughts you have there. Did you ever consider writing something about misreading intentions in internet conversation? Or could you recommend me something concerning this? Because it is one of those things you have to deal with on an almost daily basis when you are an admin on an internet forum. Somebody writing something and having the best intentions in mind but not thinking of how other people could read that. Would be nice for me to have a scientific view on that and as I am way more into literature I don’t think I could do it myself. BTW: Blogs work much better if you post your work as article and not as a comment. Regards, David
	Gesendet am 14.05.2009 um 10:47 Hejsan David, you’re totally right! But in the less time I had I try to make an article but only found the way how to write a comment. I was very proud that I could do this so far. I try to answer your comment: Literature to this topic is hard to find: Internetbasiere Kommunikation is a new deal to linguistic science – but a very interesting (for semantic, textlinguistics, pragmatics and sociallinguistic studies). Perhaps this helps to get a start in this topic: Tagungsbericht Missverständnis: versteh’ mich richtig, es geht um Kommunikation / Malentendu: bien entendu, une affaire de communication. 31.05.2007-03.06.2007, Köln. In: H-Soz-u-Kult, 29.08.2007, http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=1695. http://www.verlagdrkovac.de/3-8300-1988-2.htm http://www.michael-beisswenger.de/pub/index.html Gerit Götzenbrucker, Roman Hummel (2001): Zwischen Vertrautheit und Flüchtigkeit. Beziehungsdimensionen in computervermittelten Konversationen am Beispiel von Chats, MUDs und Newsgroups. In: Beißwenger, Michael (Hrsg.): Chat-Kommunikation. Sprache, Interaktion, Sozialität & Identität in synchroner computervermittelter Kommunikation. Perspektiven auf ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsfeld. Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart, S. 201–224 So far! The problem you deal with is first a general problem of communication. And there you have some principles: 1. Every speechact has more than one intentions. 2. This set of intentions can’t be totally analyzed. 3. A person you talk with will only understand a few or one intentions of this speechact. 4. Based on 3: The person you talk with thinks he/she understands you 100% – and you either think she/he understands 100%. 5. 4 isn’t true, it’s just a belief we have. A normal case is that we don’t understand fully a communication. 6. But normaly this way of disaccording will not be apparently. 7. The case that a disaccord is broached to the issue of communication is the big chance to reclaim the big set of intentions of one speechact. 8. While do we have so much disaccordings at internetbased communication? There we have to differentiate between language of distance and language of closeness. The language of closeness is most time realized in spoken language and language of distance is written. We call this medial literality and medial orality. 9. Communication can differ: So a speech of professor is medial orality but the concept is written. And a love letter ist medial written and conceptional oral produced. We call this conceptional literality and conceptional orality. 10. Chat and internetbased communication is conceptional orality but medial literality. I think most people don’t realize that they communicate in a way of orality and expect from their partner a literality based (conceptional/medial) response. and so they interpretate bad intentions, because they have not the competence of using the media ‘internetbased communication’. The expect literality and get orality without gestics, mimics and proxemity and so they don’t understand irony or subtle communication. We need a new aware of media and communication. Like Marshall Mc Luhan says: The medium is the message. Hejsan David, you’re totally right! But in the less time I had I try to make an article but only found the way how to write a comment. I was very proud that I could do this so far. I try to answer your comment: Literature to this topic is hard to find: Internetbasiere Kommunikation is a new deal to linguistic science – but a very interesting (for semantic, textlinguistics, pragmatics and sociallinguistic studies). Perhaps this helps to get a start in this topic: Tagungsbericht Missverständnis: versteh’ mich richtig, es geht um Kommunikation / Malentendu: bien entendu, une affaire de communication. 31.05.2007-03.06.2007, Köln. In: H-Soz-u-Kult, 29.08.2007, http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/tagungsberichte/id=1695. http://www.verlagdrkovac.de/3-8300-1988-2.htm http://www.michael-beisswenger.de/pub/index.html Gerit Götzenbrucker, Roman Hummel (2001): Zwischen Vertrautheit und Flüchtigkeit. Beziehungsdimensionen in computervermittelten Konversationen am Beispiel von Chats, MUDs und Newsgroups. In: Beißwenger, Michael (Hrsg.): Chat-Kommunikation. Sprache, Interaktion, Sozialität & Identität in synchroner computervermittelter Kommunikation. Perspektiven auf ein interdisziplinäres Forschungsfeld. Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart, S. 201–224 So far! The problem you deal with is first a general problem of communication. And there you have some principles: 1. Every speechact has more than one intentions. 2. This set of intentions can’t be totally analyzed. 3. A person you talk with will only understand a few or one intentions of this speechact. 4. Based on 3: The person you talk with thinks he/she understands you 100% – and you either think she/he understands 100%. 5. 4 isn’t true, it’s just a belief we have. A normal case is that we don’t understand fully a communication. 6. But normaly this way of disaccording will not be apparently. 7. The case that a disaccord is broached to the issue of communication is the big chance to reclaim the big set of intentions of one speechact. 8. While do we have so much disaccordings at internetbased communication? There we have to differentiate between language of distance and language of closeness. The language of closeness is most time realized in spoken language and language of distance is written. We call this medial literality and medial orality. 9. Communication can differ: So a speech of professor is medial orality but the concept is written. And a love letter ist medial written and conceptional oral produced. We call this conceptional literality and conceptional orality. 10. Chat and internetbased communication is conceptional orality but medial literality. I think most people don’t realize that they communicate in a way of orality and expect from their partner a literality based (conceptional/medial) response. and so they interpretate bad intentions, because they have not the competence of using the media ‚internetbased communication‘. The expect literality and get orality without gestics, mimics and proxemity and so they don’t understand irony or subtle communication. We need a new aware of media and communication. Like Marshall Mc Luhan says: The medium is the message.
David	Gesendet am 14.05.2009 um 11:41 Those ten points you mention are exactly the things I’ve experienced in my attempts to solve those problems. I do also think that the main problem is the written form of an oral conversation and the lack of all the information that normally come with it in face-to-face situations. The interesting thing now would be how to avoid it. Maybe Forums with video logs. But there the technical hurdle would be too high and I am almost sure that this will bring up some other problems. So it is again up to the moderators… Those ten points you mention are exactly the things I’ve experienced in my attempts to solve those problems. I do also think that the main problem is the written form of an oral conversation and the lack of all the information that normally come with it in face-to-face situations. The interesting thing now would be how to avoid it. Maybe Forums with video logs. But there the technical hurdle would be too high and I am almost sure that this will bring up some other problems. So it is again up to the moderators…
dermbg	Gesendet am 14.05.2009 um 18:01 Hejsan David, you’re right. New technicals would be one approach. But I think there are some technicals the writers use like emoticons or telling their feeling in ** *mit dem Kopf nickt* to close the gap of written communication. But I think the best competence everybody should get is an awareness of language and how I act with language and do I act with language in diffrent medias. We just need a Textsortenkompetenz. And also the interesting forms of communication, where media and conceptions builds out new ways of writetalking an interesting place to advance these competences. But as first we need an analysis of all these problems which are behind these communication/ living form (that’s a term of Wittgenstein: communication is embedded in social networks). For language students is this interesting point for doing researches and the results could be used for text strategies, that could avoid the problems you named. Ha det så bra – and enjoy ya weekend! mbg

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!