Dear all,
Our Master's words are my command, so I am reluctant to take up your time again. There are also far too many really important things going on in the world and compared to that my message is not important. So please only read this when your time allows and if you feel a response is absolutely necessary, please remember that we can do this in a private conversation so as not to bother the whole forum.
I left the debate, in which I unintentionally played a central role, on 17 June, after having been in private conversation with my discussion partner until shortly before a new reply appeared. So there was obviously a conscious distinction between what was to be clarified directly and what was to keep the debate going in the public forum.
I realised that I was losing my peace of mind and also that some things I should have taken care of had been left undone.
(As a side note, I find it worth considering that there seem to be only two ways to end these kinds of debates. Either by escalation, using increasingly aggressive words, or by retreating into silence).
What was it all about?
The debate has been sparked by someone picking out a single adjective from a sentence I used to introduce the Tuckman clock. Unfortunately, I was not able to make it clear that the adjective "normal" used in the sense of a commonly occurring phenomenon should not be seen in isolation from the context. Unfortunately, I was also unable to bring peace by using the adjective "explainable" as a substitute for "normal". Unfortunately, pointing out that there are many other alternative formulations did not help either. Unfortunately, no other reader intervened to point out that this sentence was not at all relevant to the content of my contribution. And unfortunately, in the end, the actual thread topic of male-female communication seemed to be of so little interest that nobody wanted to prevent it from turning into a specialised linguistic debate.
The whole debate has been inexorably pushed in the direction of whether I think "explainable" is a synonym for "normal". But this is a misrepresentation of my position in a way that distorts understanding so that it can be attacked. The entire debate that has ensued is based on a logical fallacy in the form of a classic straw man, which is followed by other fallacies down the line.
Good old Mrs Robertson
Back in the days in advertising, we had some brands that were international in scope. Campaigns for these companies had to work in all sorts of languages. Surprising things happened again and again, for example when a printing company abroad didn't want to print a car advert because it would be pure pornography in the local language.
But we had Mrs Robertson. Mrs Robertson was a funny and warm Englishwoman who ran a translation agency and we could call her day and night and she could always help. Unfortunately, Mrs Robertson is no longer around and I can no longer ask her if I really wrote such nonsense, but I still remember what she once said to me about her fellow countrymen: "If you want to be understood, just make mistakes. That will force these arrogant "natives" to think about what you're trying to say. Otherwise they'll talk you mercilessly down." I apologise for digressing.
Is modern AI perhaps just as clever as good old Mrs Robertson? I tried Bing's Copilot:
You
I have two English sentence suggestions here, which should serve as a transition to introduce a theoretical model. Variant 1: You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite "normal". Variant 2: You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite "explainable". What is the difference between the two sentences?
Copilot
The two English sentences differ in the use of the adjective that describes the situation. In variant 1, the word "normal" is used, while in variant 2 the word "explainable" is used. Here is the meaning of each sentence:
Variant 1:
"You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'normal'."
In this sentence, the situation is described as "normal", which indicates that such unpleasant things are common and not unusual.
Variant 2:
"You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'explainable'."
In this sentence, the situation is described as "explainable", which indicates that there are reasons or explanations for these unpleasant things.
Depending on the context and the desired emphasis, one of the two variants can be used. Both sentences are correct, but they convey different nuances.
You
Could you give another example?
Copilot
Of course you could! Here are two examples that illustrate the differences between the two sentences:
Variant 1 ("normal"):
Imagine you work in an office where there are often unfriendly colleagues. Someone says to you: "You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'normal'." This means that such behaviour is common in everyday office life and is not surprising.
Variant 2 ("explainable"):
Suppose you are active in an online community where there are a lot of negative comments. Someone says to you: "You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'explainable'." This emphasises that there are reasons or explanations for these negative comments, even if they are regrettable.
The choice between the two variants depends on the context. Sometimes something is "normal" because it is commonplace, while in other situations it is "explainable" because there are reasons for it.
You
Are there any similar adjectives I could use?
Copilot
Of course there are! Here are some similar adjectives you could use to describe a situation:
Common: If something is common and not unusual, you could use "common". For example: "It's unfortunately quite common to encounter traffic jams during rush hour."
Typical: If something meets expectations and is characteristic of a certain situation, you can use "typical". For example: "His behaviour is unfortunately quite typical of someone who is under a lot of stress."
Everyday: If something is routine and occurs frequently in everyday life, you can use "everyday". For example: "Dealing with minor setbacks is unfortunately an everyday occurrence."
Ordinary: If something is not out of the ordinary and is part of the norm, you can use "ordinary". For example: "Her reaction to criticism is unfortunately quite ordinary."
Remember that the choice of adjective depends on the context. Each of these words has a slightly different meaning and nuance.
Ask them
In my search for an unvarnished answer to my question about what I did wrong, I'm not getting anywhere. The people I can ask can't help me either, because it's the general norm in my culture that you can't discuss words out of context. You can sing a song together, but you can't formulate a sentence together. If you are not asked for help, you cannot implicitly assume that a speaker is too stupid to express what they want to say.
Who always helps is The Father. So I asked The Most High to search my heart and tell me why I, who am not prone to chattiness, have gotten myself into such trouble, despite the kindest and most peaceful intentions, and why no one has come to my aid to smooth the waters.
The answer I get is, ask them.
Since the posts in this forum are supposed to be directly or indirectly related to Gibraltar, I would like to be understood as taking my somewhat strange case as an opportunity to reflect on how things will be when we, as people from all over the world with different levels of English, (hopefully) meet in Gibraltar one day. Do we want to dismiss everyone who can't express themselves perfectly?
I thank the Holy Father for the training and you for your attention.
