Shower me with your base function

[DirectorAbbie]

Try to keep your creative function out of it.

[DirectorAbbie]

I firmly believe there is a problem with the English alphabet. Namely, the letters C, Q, and X. The letter C may make the S or K sound, but has no sound of its own. It obviously needs to go. The letter Q has the strange need of the letter U after it in most instances. This is inefficient. The letter Q itself only makes the KW sound, which KW does as well as QU. The Q obviously needs to go. The letter X makes the KS sound. This letter is also unecessary. It obviously needs to go.

Another problem is the lack of a letter to signify the SH, TH, and CH sounds. These sounds are seperate sounds, and it is illogical to make them by combining two letters whose sounds are not the sound made.

I propose that the alphabet be altered in order to make phonetics more efficient and practical. The C can make the SH sound, the Q can make the TH sound, and the X can make the CH sound. This will solve the above problems without needing to relearn the alphabet.

[717495]

The motion of the ocean is, in essence, an unfrozen potion. The notion that comes to fruition, which is to poison who I'd earlier chosen as the spokesman, is indifferent to the condition I wished I'd won from the spoken solon I had stolen from.

[Jarno]

The motion of the ocean is, in essence, an unfrozen potion. The notion that comes to fruition, which is to poison who I'd earlier chosen as the spokesman, is indifferent to the condition I wished I'd won from the spoken solon I had stolen from.

Go home

[Trevor]

Director Abbie is demanding, very demanding. Can this lady ever be pleased.

[pianosinger]

I went to the thrift store with the boys today with the intention of finding some pants for my 3 yo. I ended up buying several toys instead to hide away for Christmas. Except one of the toys was a bubble machine, which of course my son asked to play with right away. So, I told him we'd go to the nearest store that might have bubbles (a grocery store, but they also have some toys there). Packed up the boys and went to the grocery store; didn't find bubbles, but there were Hotwheels cars on clearance, and so I bought two for each boy (they've been fighting over the same cars at home, since they're supposed to share, so now they each have a couple to call their own); while at the grocery store I also thought to buy a bucket of ice cream since we had some rootbeer in the fridge at home and then we could have root beer floats tonight.

enough?

[pianosinger]

I firmly believe there is a problem with the English alphabet. Namely, the letters C, Q, and X. The letter C may make the S or K sound, but has no sound of its own. It obviously needs to go. The letter Q has the strange need of the letter U after it in most instances. This is inefficient. The letter Q itself only makes the KW sound, which KW does as well as QU. The Q obviously needs to go. The letter X makes the KS sound. This letter is also unecessary. It obviously needs to go.

Another problem is the lack of a letter to signify the SH, TH, and CH sounds. These sounds are seperate sounds, and it is illogical to make them by combining two letters whose sounds are not the sound made.

I propose that the alphabet be altered in order to make phonetics more efficient and practical. The C can make the SH sound, the Q can make the TH sound, and the X can make the CH sound. This will solve the above problems without needing to relearn the alphabet.

I like this After just reading the first paragraph, I thought, "gosh, I've been saying the same thing about the letter C for a while now...but awww, I love Q and X, I wouldn't want to see them go..." Then I got to the end and thought, "Genius!"

[DirectorAbbie]

enough?

Heh. That sounds like the way my IEE dad shops. enough.

[Creepy-male]

Warm clothes are really nice

[Words]

I firmly believe there is a problem with the English alphabet. Namely, the letters C, Q, and X. The letter C may make the S or K sound, but has no sound of its own. It obviously needs to go. The letter Q has the strange need of the letter U after it in most instances. This is inefficient. The letter Q itself only makes the KW sound, which KW does as well as QU. The Q obviously needs to go. The letter X makes the KS sound. This letter is also unecessary. It obviously needs to go.

Another problem is the lack of a letter to signify the SH, TH, and CH sounds. These sounds are seperate sounds, and it is illogical to make them by combining two letters whose sounds are not the sound made.

I propose that the alphabet be altered in order to make phonetics more efficient and practical. The C can make the SH sound, the Q can make the TH sound, and the X can make the CH sound. This will solve the above problems without needing to relearn the alphabet.

Maths?

[CloudCuckooLander]

Like... what if televisions were really Martian spying devices, planted here to keep tabs on us, and sap away all of our precious bodily fluids as we watch? How would we deal with the Martians? If Martian Kryptonite is silly-putty, we could cover Area 51 in it, and then the Martians would come out and be all "FUCK YOU!" Then we'd capture them and tell them to restore our precious bodily fluids to their proper state, then artificially inseminate cows to produce cow-man hybrids to serve as footsoldiers against the Martian menace!

[Aleksei]

WOOOOOO PARTY IN DA HOUSE! Come on guys drinks are on MEEEEE!

[glam]

Warm clothes are really nice

that's !

[Creepy-male]

that's !

It is?

[glam]

It is?

it's because saying that you find warm clothes "very nice" was just talking about your feelings about them, telling us that warm clothes are pleasing to you.

would be more something more sensual, like talking about the physical characteristics of the clothes and their effect on your body/senses.

[Jimbean]

It is easier for me to do Ti than anything else:

Fascism: Fascism is a political philosophy that is ill defined overall. The most apparent characteristic is collectivism motivated by nationalism, more specifically by the pretext of being attacked whether from within the nation itself or outside the nation. Therefore, if the society emphasizes the state over the individual because the belief changes to that the individual benefits most by protecting the nation, regardless of property rights or individual liberty, then the political environment has at least one major trait of fascism.

[Creepy-male]

it's because saying that you find warm clothes "very nice" was just talking about your feelings about them, telling us that warm clothes are pleasing to you.

I'd turn that around and say it's because I make no point of reference. I just say they're nice, like it's a Fact, not a personal sentiment. Object vs Field.

[Marie84]

You're a amicable person, I like you. I'd prefer if more people showed such consideration for others as you do. I hate when people don't stop to think about how they affect others

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I love dolphin yes I do,
so true and big hearted and very blue
Loves and heals and holds and protects
fights and jealousies and scars and rejects
all the sides I love, change not a thing
who you are and who I am

Met together in the starry sky wind.

[Nowisthetime]

would be more something more sensual, like talking about the physical characteristics of the clothes and their effect on your body/senses.

But Si is not talking about Si. Considering that the original post came from a SEI, I think it was good, because SEIs usually don't talk about their Si-experiences. Or if they do, they say something fuzzy like "it is nice", like Thanksarthur just did.

[1981slater]

Take that , Abbie!

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

ein,zwei,drei,go die! (i'm SEE for the day)

[Galen]

Regardless of the physical manifestations that objects may take, there are aparent, all-encompassing characteristics that all things of a specific item share, and those common characteristics infinitely outweigh the specific, varying intricacies of their physicality when defining such an object.


Good enough?

[glam]

But Si is not talking about Si. Considering that the original post came from a SEI, I think it was good, because SEIs usually don't talk about their Si-experiences. Or if they do, they say something fuzzy like "it is nice", like Thanksarthur just did.

hm okay yeah, i can see that.

(i don't think Gul is SEI though regardless, but he already knows that )

[DirectorAbbie]

Like... what if televisions were really Martian spying devices, planted here to keep tabs on us, and sap away all of our precious bodily fluids as we watch? How would we deal with the Martians? If Martian Kryptonite is silly-putty, we could cover Area 51 in it, and then the Martians would come out and be all "FUCK YOU!" Then we'd capture them and tell them to restore our precious bodily fluids to their proper state, then artificially inseminate cows to produce cow-man hybrids to serve as footsoldiers against the Martian menace!

Mix some in there?

that's !

No; it's . I'm good at comments like that, and there's nothing emotional about them.

[Krig the Viking]

But Si is not talking about Si. Considering that the original post came from a SEI, I think it was good, because SEIs usually don't talk about their Si-experiences. Or if they do, they say something fuzzy like "it is nice", like Thanksarthur just did.

Si language consists of descriptions of physical sensations, including smell ("aroma", "stinky", "smelly", "putrid"), touch ("smooth", "rough", "sharp", "dull", "dry", "wet", "hot", "cold"), taste ("sweet", "sour", "delicious", "disgusting", "fresh", "crisp", "juicy"), and so forth. Alpha SFs respond to these sensations emotionally, while Delta STs consider these sensations in practical terms.

On the other hand, this post is an example of how Ti categorizes phenomena according to specific, explicit criteria.

[Trevor]

I hope we're all aware of the fact that Si-language and Si are two different things. Something to pay attention to when typing people.

[Marie84]

Si language consists of descriptions of physical sensations, including smell ("aroma", "stinky", "smelly", "putrid"), touch ("smooth", "rough", "sharp", "dull", "dry", "wet", "hot", "cold"), taste ("sweet", "sour", "delicious", "disgusting", "fresh", "crisp", "juicy"), and so forth. Alpha SFs respond to these sensations emotionally, while Delta STs consider these sensations in practical terms.

On the other hand, this post is an example of how Ti categorizes phenomena according to specific, explicit criteria.

+1000 for hitting two birds with one stone

[Nowisthetime]

Si language consists of descriptions of physical sensations, including smell ("aroma", "stinky", "smelly", "putrid"), touch ("smooth", "rough", "sharp", "dull", "dry", "wet", "hot", "cold"), taste ("sweet", "sour", "delicious", "disgusting", "fresh", "crisp", "juicy"), and so forth. Alpha SFs respond to these sensations emotionally, while Delta STs consider these sensations in practical terms.

On the other hand, this post is an example of how Ti categorizes phenomena according to specific, explicit criteria.

Not quite sure what you mean by si-language, but my point was that Si is not so much seen in language by use of words describing physical sensations, that's more of a symbolic translation of what Si is (but of course it can help us understand it). Si is used directly on the concrete words and sentences, paying attention to the sound of the words, and the flow of the text.

[Words]

Si language consists of descriptions of physical sensations, including smell ("aroma", "stinky", "smelly", "putrid"), touch ("smooth", "rough", "sharp", "dull", "dry", "wet", "hot", "cold"), taste ("sweet", "sour", "delicious", "disgusting", "fresh", "crisp", "juicy"), and so forth. Alpha SFs respond to these sensations emotionally, while Delta STs consider these sensations in practical terms.

On the other hand, this post is an example of how Ti categorizes phenomena according to specific, explicit criteria.

Interesting. I can't say I've ever analysed the words I use, i'll have to think about it or just listen to myself next time! I noticed when I was out yesterday I prefer to talk about my direct personal activities, the things I've done, even things during the week, as I'm excited or 'unhappy' if they were unpleasant, about the sensations I've experienced in relation to how these things make me feel internally, whereas some of the others seemed quite happy to discuss intangible non sensation related subjects (ILIs).

However I am thinking just now that a lot of my experiences remain mostly on the internal, so if I don't like something I may just sum it up as awful, nice, but there's no emotion, at least that I am aware of, attached to my evaluation.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[silverchris9]

If I just look into the heart of things, purely, without any emotional attachment, that will be Ni, right? Or if I forecast? It's all about going back in this indelible past direction---but pure Ni doesn't even move, it isn't even visible, it isn't spoken, it's not speakable, it's just this... internal activity, which is motion, but without moving, you get what I mean? It is not an introspection that traces the self, because the self is particular to the combination of Ni + Fe, but it is a mode of trying to find... you try to find the center of anything, or you turn it around to see which angle throws the most light on the part you're interested in.

[Trevor]

So if I were to start using nothing but Si-ego-language, Fe-ego-language, Ni-superego-language, Te-superego language, Ne-superid-language, Ti-superid-language, Fi-id-language and Se-id-language, as per wikisocion, and if I were to start displaying SEI related behavior, as per type-descriptions, I'd be typed as an SEI by Krig The Viking and Marie84, right?

[Nowisthetime]

Here is my attempt at Si-shower:

I'm looking out of the window. I'm sitting here, this day, to-day. Being myself. I am empty but satisfied. I don't want anything. The room is here. There's the chair, the table, computer. I am walking back and forth in the room. Thinking about nothing, outside is night. I'm breathing. My shoe, my shoe is there, I am looking at my shoe. Everything is here. A minute has passed. I was thinking about something. Here is the room, I am walking in it, right now.

[DividedsGhost]

Director Abbey, please direct my naked body into your bed!

I'm too cool to have one base function

[Logos]

I firmly believe there is a problem with the English alphabet. Namely, the letters C, Q, and X. The letter C may make the S or K sound, but has no sound of its own. It obviously needs to go. The letter Q has the strange need of the letter U after it in most instances. This is inefficient. The letter Q itself only makes the KW sound, which KW does as well as QU. The Q obviously needs to go. The letter X makes the KS sound. This letter is also unecessary. It obviously needs to go.

Another problem is the lack of a letter to signify the SH, TH, and CH sounds. These sounds are seperate sounds, and it is illogical to make them by combining two letters whose sounds are not the sound made.

I propose that the alphabet be altered in order to make phonetics more efficient and practical. The C can make the SH sound, the Q can make the TH sound, and the X can make the CH sound. This will solve the above problems without needing to relearn the alphabet.

Meh. Is this really supposed to be Te? Language changes and the writing system still works. The lack of a single letter for digraphs like SH, TH, and CH do not have to make sense; they work. And some letters had a unique phonetic value that is either now lost or been reduced as the language itself evolved. How about complaining about the different phonetic qualities of the vowels? And have you thought how this will affect existing English words? This is not really an exercise of efficiency. You are just rewritting the alphabet to be more logically coherent with English phonemes. How would these changes actually create a fundamental change that's either efficient or practical? Does this even solve anything? If you are concerned with an "accurate" phonetic representation of phonemes, just use the International Phonetic Alphabet.

[DirectorAbbie]

Meh. Is this really supposed to be Te? Language changes and the writing system still works. The lack of a single letter for digraphs like SH, TH, and CH do not have to make sense; they work. And some letters had a unique phonetic value that is either now lost or been reduced as the language itself evolved. How about complaining about the different phonetic qualities of the vowels? And have you thought how this will affect existing English words? This is not really an exercise of efficiency. You are just rewritting the alphabet to be more logically coherent with English phonemes. How would these changes actually create a fundamental change that's either efficient or practical? Does this even solve anything? If you are concerned with an "accurate" phonetic representation of phonemes, just use the International Phonetic Alphabet.

It is about efficiency, and it is about practicality. I'm tired of being forced to use useles letters that don't even have a sound of their own. What's the International Phonetic Alphabet?

[Logos]

It is about efficiency, and it is about practicality. I'm tired of being forced to use useles letters that don't even have a sound of their own.

How is it about efficiency? You are just making a working system needlessly complicated. Working to alter the entirety of the English language for something with practically zero practical gain is surely a sign of an inefficient endeavor at the outset. What's gained by doing this? The letters are not useless even if they share sound values with other letters as they are used to distinguish homophones and often reflect loanwords or the evolution of the English language. Do you plan on rewriting words in which vowels have different sounds depending on the context? The letter A, for example, sometimes produces the sounds æ (bad, ash), ɑː (father), ɒ (wasp, not), ɔː (all, caught), ə (about), eɪ (day, pain, neighbor) depending on the word. If your goal is to create a letter for every phoneme, do you plan on distinguishing the sound of th in then and thin? And what about diphthongs? Do you plan on giving them their own letters too? And what of letters that have different sounds depending on dialect?

What's the International Phonetic Alphabet?

Full article on the International Phonetic Alphabet as well as the IPA Chart for English Dialects.

[Azeroffs]

@logos

I think you're looking taking it too far, all she's saying is that it doesn't make sense to have two different ways of representing the same sound, and that those symbols would be put to better use by replacing the use of two symbols for a single sound.

Meh. Is this really supposed to be Te? Language changes and the writing system still works. The lack of a single letter for digraphs like SH, TH, and CH do not have to make sense; they work.

It's not about it just working, it's that it could work better.

And some letters had a unique phonetic value that is either now lost or been reduced as the language itself evolved. How about complaining about the different phonetic qualities of the vowels? And have you thought how this will affect existing English words? This is not really an exercise of efficiency. You are just rewritting the alphabet to be more logically coherent with English phonemes. How would these changes actually create a fundamental change that's either efficient or practical?

Being able to write one letter instead of two, and not having to think about which way of representing a sound.

Does this even solve anything? If you are concerned with an "accurate" phonetic representation of phonemes, just use the International Phonetic Alphabet.

How is it about efficiency? You are just making a working system needlessly complicated. Working to alter the entirety of the English language for something with practically zero practical gain is surely a sign of an inefficient endeavor at the outset. What's gained by doing this? The letters are not useless even if they share sound values with other letters as they are used to distinguish homophones and often reflect loanwords or the evolution of the English language.

That might be useful in order to understand things about the language, but it's irrelevant for the purpose of text communication.

Do you plan on rewriting words in which vowels have different sounds depending on the context? The letter A, for example, sometimes produces the sounds æ (bad, ash), ɑː (father), ɒ (wasp, not), ɔː (all, caught), ə (about), eɪ (day, pain, neighbor) depending on the word. If your goal is to create a letter for every phoneme, do you plan on distinguishing the sound of th in then and thin? And what about diphthongs? Do you plan on giving them their own letters too? And what of letters that have different sounds depending on dialect?

I don't think she's actually seriously saying it should be changed because clearly the effort required to change it wouldn't be worth the benefit, just in the fact that you'd have to go reteaching everyone. She's just mentioning a couple of things that would have been more efficient if they had been done differently.


Lol, I think this kind of shows the problems of Ti vs Te. Te wants to change things to make them run more smoothly. Ti sees things as making sense as is, and they don't want anything changed because it requires a restructuring of thought. More specifically abbie is focusing on the use of the language and making it run smoother and you are focusing on language itself and how it complicates things.

[krieger]

I'd imagine Te would be moved by the argument that changing the alphabet is just a huge waste of resources and time, aka inefficiency.