Comments on: Musing about nouns and verbs http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/ a blog about information Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:37:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: 两个网路: 信息或关系? : 先驱博客 - The Blog Herald China http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-163569 两个网路: 信息或关系? : 先驱博客 - The Blog Herald China Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:18:58 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-163569 [...] 一个昨天发表在confused at calcutta的博客提醒了我，我们难以把软件和人联系起来。 [...] [...] 一个昨天发表在confused at calcutta的博客提醒了我，我们难以把软件和人联系起来。 [...]

]]> By: Karthik Ram http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-146300 Karthik Ram Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:25:22 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-146300 Oh, I don't know if I'll go this far with service vs. software divide. Service is too broad a term (relatively speaking), and has been around for a long time. Service, is closer to purpose than software is. SAAS disabuses software from its traditional packaging and consumption mechanism. Oh, I don’t know if I’ll go this far with service vs. software divide.

Service is too broad a term (relatively speaking), and has been around for a long time.

Service, is closer to purpose than software is.

SAAS disabuses software from its traditional packaging and consumption mechanism.

]]> By: Stephen Smoliar http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-138845 Stephen Smoliar Tue, 29 May 2007 16:12:51 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-138845 JP, I suppose the appropriate hippie response would be: Hey, man, if you can't dig BEING, then you just AREN'T THERE! Meanwhile, skeptic that I am about the Cluetrain Manifesto, I have to admit that conversations are far more verb-based than transactions (and are, indeed, the primary vehicle for "managing" relationships)! JP, I suppose the appropriate hippie response would be: Hey, man, if you can’t dig BEING, then you just AREN’T THERE!

Meanwhile, skeptic that I am about the Cluetrain Manifesto, I have to admit that conversations are far more verb-based than transactions (and are, indeed, the primary vehicle for “managing” relationships)!

]]> By: The Two Webs: Information or Relationships? : The Blog Herald http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-138681 The Two Webs: Information or Relationships? : The Blog Herald Tue, 29 May 2007 10:00:35 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-138681 [...] A blog post yesterday at confused at calcutta reminds me that we have trouble bringing software and people together. Something about what he said there made me think about the glazed look people used to give me when I first spoke about any aspect of software as a service. To many people, software is a noun and inanimate as well; to many people, service remains a “doing” word and closer to a verb despite being a noun. And this separation of service from software seems to create a whole series of problems in people’s minds. [...] [...] A blog post yesterday at confused at calcutta reminds me that we have trouble bringing software and people together. Something about what he said there made me think about the glazed look people used to give me when I first spoke about any aspect of software as a service. To many people, software is a noun and inanimate as well; to many people, service remains a “doing” word and closer to a verb despite being a noun. And this separation of service from software seems to create a whole series of problems in people’s minds. [...]

]]> By: JP http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-138325 JP Mon, 28 May 2007 21:32:55 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-138325 The retarded hippie in me wants to say "heavy, man" which was how we used to say "I don't understand". What I do understand is relationship before conversation before transaction. Yes, cluetrain again.... The retarded hippie in me wants to say “heavy, man” which was how we used to say “I don’t understand”. What I do understand is relationship before conversation before transaction. Yes, cluetrain again….

]]> By: Stephen Smoliar http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-138317 Stephen Smoliar Mon, 28 May 2007 21:03:30 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-138317 Liz, you make a good point; so let me apply it to refining my original assertion. The relationships addressed by noun phrases are relationships of STATE (which should be no surprise, since they serve to modify the noun of the noun phrase, which is an object). The relationships addressed by verb phrases are relationships of PROCESS, particularly those that are adverbial in nature. Is the copulative relational; and, if so, is it a relation of state or process (or neither)? To use the word that got me into trouble, the copulative is "about" BEING. Whether being is a relationship of state or a relationship of process basically depends on which philosophers you prefer to read! My own preference is for the processual, which is basically a phenomenological stance that draws a lot from Heidegger. Regardless of what the copulative is "about," however, it, too, is subject to all those subtleties of representation that I enumerated in my last comment (such as tense, mood, and voice). Liz, you make a good point; so let me apply it to refining my original assertion. The relationships addressed by noun phrases are relationships of STATE (which should be no surprise, since they serve to modify the noun of the noun phrase, which is an object). The relationships addressed by verb phrases are relationships of PROCESS, particularly those that are adverbial in nature.

Is the copulative relational; and, if so, is it a relation of state or process (or neither)? To use the word that got me into trouble, the copulative is “about” BEING. Whether being is a relationship of state or a relationship of process basically depends on which philosophers you prefer to read! My own preference is for the processual, which is basically a phenomenological stance that draws a lot from Heidegger. Regardless of what the copulative is “about,” however, it, too, is subject to all those subtleties of representation that I enumerated in my last comment (such as tense, mood, and voice).

]]> By: Liz Strauss http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-138298 Liz Strauss Mon, 28 May 2007 20:14:06 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-138298 relationships . . . hmmmm . . . between data sets and packets, between people and living things. Both noun phrases and verb phrases are about relationships. Then, of course, you have the forms of "to be," once lovingly referred to as the copulative verb. How much more relational than that can a single word get? relationships . . . hmmmm . . . between data sets and packets, between people and living things.

Both noun phrases and verb phrases are about relationships. Then, of course, you have the forms of “to be,” once lovingly referred to as the copulative verb. How much more relational than that can a single word get?

]]> By: Stephen Smoliar http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-138231 Stephen Smoliar Mon, 28 May 2007 16:56:22 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-138231 The gerund is sort of a red herring in that it distracts from the role that verb phrases play in our ability to "think in time," to borrow from the phrase Neustadt and May used for their book on presidential decision making. While noun phrases are basically about objects, attributes, and relationships (i.e. the stuff of databases), verb phrases have to contend with the subtleties of tense, mood, and voice. This is where the REAL epistemological chickens come home to roost! The gerund is sort of a red herring in that it distracts from the role that verb phrases play in our ability to “think in time,” to borrow from the phrase Neustadt and May used for their book on presidential decision making. While noun phrases are basically about objects, attributes, and relationships (i.e. the stuff of databases), verb phrases have to contend with the subtleties of tense, mood, and voice. This is where the REAL epistemological chickens come home to roost!

]]> By: JP http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-137984 JP Mon, 28 May 2007 06:58:34 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-137984 Andy, Artichoke, Liz, I believe we're all on the same page, comfortable with gerunds as it were. What we need are some strong objections to what we're saying, so that we can learn from them. I'm sure the strong objectors will turn up.soon. Andy, Artichoke, Liz, I believe we’re all on the same page, comfortable with gerunds as it were. What we need are some strong objections to what we’re saying, so that we can learn from them. I’m sure the strong objectors will turn up.soon.

]]> By: Liz Strauss http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/comment-page-1/#comment-137889 Liz Strauss Mon, 28 May 2007 02:08:13 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/05/27/musing-about-nouns-and-verbs/#comment-137889 The thinking that draws the line between software and service should be getting shaky just about now, as people -- you and I for example -- crawl inside each other's heads and talk through the comment box. If I can stand inside your thinking and listen with my mind in this way, it's no longer such a leap for me to stand inside my software and "think how my software works." Is it? The creativity of process and its tie to people comes notonly from the cynical, below the radar corporate mishandling of it (mentioned earlier), but also from the excellent, fluent use of process that shows that the most elegant process is adaptable to the circumstance of the situation and the people within it. How hard can it be to show someone that software does the same "fluent adaptation" for its users? Have we just accepted that some folks have sorted the nouns and the verbs, that it's not worth showing them how a gerund works because they didn't get it in grammar school, so they couldn't possibly get it now? We fund those cowpaths that we pave. Have we suggested that they stop? My experience is that the most average person enjoys seeing the world in new ways. That we all have a need to make sense of it. Would you help me understand where I may have misunderstood what I have read? The thinking that draws the line between software and service should be getting shaky just about now, as people — you and I for example — crawl inside each other’s heads and talk through the comment box.

If I can stand inside your thinking and listen with my mind in this way, it’s no longer such a leap for me to stand inside my software and “think how my software works.” Is it?

The creativity of process and its tie to people comes notonly from the cynical, below the radar corporate mishandling of it (mentioned earlier), but also from the excellent, fluent use of process that shows that the most elegant process is adaptable to the circumstance of the situation and the people within it. How hard can it be to show someone that software does the same “fluent adaptation” for its users?

Have we just accepted that some folks have sorted the nouns and the verbs, that it’s not worth showing them how a gerund works because they didn’t get it in grammar school, so they couldn’t possibly get it now?

We fund those cowpaths that we pave. Have we suggested that they stop? My experience is that the most average person enjoys seeing the world in new ways. That we all have a need to make sense of it.

Would you help me understand where I may have misunderstood what I have read?

]]>