Good morning Peter;

Language is a complex subject. There are native English speakers who have trouble understanding English. For someone for whom English is not his/her native language meanings can often be misunderstood. This is true of all languages regardless of how well you speak.

A few considerations in understanding language are:

1. Semantics

2. Linguistics

3. Colloquialisms

4. Regional usage

5. Intonation

The list goes on and I feel that is a major reason we sometimes have problems understanding each other. Add to that the Internet where about 9% of written words are “understood” and the rest is truly guesswork. Apply the 5 considerations given above and your own reasoning, knowledge and experience and that 9% is greatly reduced.

By the way our daughter is in her third year at UCLA with a major in English. We enjoy discussions about English and other languages.

Obtaining the “meaning of words” from a dictionary or “synonyms” from a thesaurus does not guarantee you will understand even your own native language 100%.

Language can be used to infer, imply, be sarcastic, demeaning, state fact, communicate, and so on. Attempting to understand what has been said or written can be a daunting task for anyone. Only you know what you mean! Hopefully! :) (You was used in the third person.)

Tom

P.S.
Using my own words about the difficulty understanding the written word my post may be read by ten people and interpreted in 10 different ways. You cannot win! :)




>Pardon me for jumping in. For me, being Dutch and not a native speaker of English, the expression 'I remember a scam like that' is indeed interpreted to mean that 'that' is also seen as scam. So, I agree with Denis.
>
>But now a question. I didn't know that word, so I looked it up on www.dictionary.com (thesaurus). Which meaning was meant: fool, defraud, mislead, trick, false, overstate? Or are they all the same? If not, may it be that Denis had another definition come to mind than Hank meant?
>
>To be clear about my own position: I think that we all here should not be too softhearted.
>
>
>>Indeed; and if you want to infer from that, fine, but let's not confuse your inference with my assertion, which was that I remembered a scam like that, not that this a scam. It was a warning to look carefully, not a judgment; that judgment came from your inference.
>>
>>
>>>You said
>>>
>>>I remember a scam like that
>>>
>>>>I didn't: reread what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>>>How do you come to the conclusion that this is a scam?
>>>>>
>[snip]