Archaeologica.org

It's one of those words that is impossible to define in practice.

We are supposedly civilized but just the other day a Texas couple was arrested for sticking their baby in a microwave.

Technological? Yes. Civilised? You tell me.

Also, there seems to be a teensie, weensie comprehension prob with the English language here:

FYI, Digit: "People who are not civilized" (your 'paraphrase' of my words) means something fundamentally different than "people who didn't develop civilisation" (my actual words!).

And you seem to have that misquotation and 'incomprehension' prob more often:

Your quote: "RS listed one attribute of civilisation as warfare, which of course then infers that uncivilised people don't engage in warfare," while in fact I never used the word 'warfare', but 'wars'.
Again, an apparent negligible difference (to those who never finished elementary school), but in reality worlds apart in actual meaning.

Now, either you are willfully manipulating quotations here in order to troll/trawl, or you really need an English comprehension refresher course.

But obviously both currently disqualify you from this discussion.
So my advice is you start anew: read my threadstarter. But carefully! And let the real meaning sink in good before you respond.
You'll leave a much more intelligent impression.

As regards comprehesion problems what's the difference between warfare and wars from the viewpoint of those engaged in or victims of the same?
I have a degree in English English BTW. Perhaps American English has different understandings here.
And if those who develop civilisation engage in uncivilised activities what value civilisation?
And again that does not define civilisation.
To prevent any further incomprehesions please define civilisation so that rest of us understand you and the difference between warfare and wars?

Digit wrote:As regards comprehesion problems what's the difference between warfare and wars from the viewpoint of those engaged in or victims of the same?

Is this an archaeology board or an English language board?

I have a degree in English English BTW.

LOL! I rest my case.

Perhaps American English has different understandings here.

Another obfuscation of the point (you seem to like that a lot!): this is not about the difference between British English and American English. It is about the difference between educated English and non-educated English.

And if those who develop civilisation engage in uncivilised activities what value civilisation?

A degree in English, was it?

And again that does not define civilisation.

You still haven't read, or understood the threadstarter, have you? Civilisation can be defined in many ways. Which is precisely why I described what definition I use for this thread.
You want another definition? Fine. Whatever. But it doesn't pertain to this thread.

To prevent any further incomprehesions please define civilisation so that rest of us understand you and the difference between warfare and wars?

Asked an answered.
Repeatedly!
But that seems to have escaped you too . . .

It's an archaeology board. But if two people are speaking different languages I think it rather important that they find common points of reference, that at least would prevent this discussion would it not?
And yes it was an English degree, do you have one? And that still hasn't answered the question of American understandings versus UK understandings.
And I have read the thread starter and if you read the thread RS you will see that I am not the only one confused by your arguments, Beagle has also indicated as much.

A painful illustration of the value of a 'degree in English' . . .

Okay, so as a non holder of an English degree do as I asked and give me the differences as requested. I am always willing to learn, that is why I joined this forum.
It was you who informed us that there were differences and that they were obvious to anyone etc etc, well sorry, they are not obvious, so please, enlighten us.

Digit wrote:Okay, so as a non holder of an English degree do as I asked and give me the differences as requested.

Incredible! There you go again: stating I do not hold an English degree while I never said anything to that effect. Not that I do hold one, nor that I don't. But that doesn't prevent you to jump to conclusions again.

I am always willing to learn

But I'm not always willing to teach. Especially not those who seem bent on manipulating my words. I don't appreciate that, to put it mildly!
And when I teach, I teach at college level or up, which means that elementary and high school level knowledge are assumed in the student.

Want English language teaching? Go to an English language board.

You informed me that not understanding your English meant that I had not completed a reasonable level of education. I resented that and asked you to explain the difference between my understanding of the words and your underststanding. I am still awaiting that explanation.
You are correct in my assumption that you do not hold a degree in English and I made that assumption on the basis of your stated opinion of such a degree.
But to return to the debate.
Please answer my question vis war - warfare etc then we can move on knowing how each understands the meanings.
If as you say you are not prepared to teach then okay I will have to continue in my apparent ignorance of my language.

Digit wrote:
You informed me that not understanding your English meant that I had not completed a reasonable level of education.

No. I did not. You manipulate again. I don't debate with manipulators.

As I was quetioning the difference what does that say?

Again, an apparent negligible difference (to those who never finished elementary school), but in reality worlds apart in actual meaning.

Patience, guys.

The actual attempts that are made to speak coherent English here are a welcome step up from a lot of the other boards I visit.

The reason I had to take English, as an engineer Min, was because the Institute was becoming very concerned over misunderstandings with such words as 'imflammable' and 'inflammable', for example.
As one word meant the substance could catch fire and other that it couldn't, misunderstandings could be nasty.
We were shown examples of this in communications where English was not the first language and the results in engineering and medical terms.
Nasty!

Ah, yes....

As George Carlin said many years ago.


"Flammable.....inflammable....non-inflammable. Why are there three? Doesn't it seem as if two words should be able to handle that concept? Either a things flams or it doesn't."

You should have seen the fun when Concorde was being developed.
I don't know if you use the same term or not Min but one piece of casual UK English that drove the French mad was our 'yes, I agree with you, but', in other words, we don't agree!