> In this case, those rules of context dictate that the
> negatives pair the phrases that contain them. "I'll NEVER
> stop dreaming of you every night of my life, NO WAY!" and
> "I WON'T do that." Are negatives in the same places in
> each sentence, therefore context dictates that the phrases
> are connected and one references the other.
Oh, I do get that. But again, is "never stop dreaming" of someone something you'd do for love? How I see it, it's something you'd do because of love. If he is to win her love, how would never stop dreaming of her help?
I'm not arguing the context, I'm arguing the things he'd do for love.
> I don't expect you to accept these things though because
> you are so close to making this presentation and I don't
> suspect that there is any way in hell that you would be
> willing to abandon your entire thesis right before trying
> to make your point
The presentation is about the 'myth' of what 'that' is.
I don't have a thesis, as I just have to talk about what the 'that' myth is. I don't have to reach any definitive conclusion of what 'that' is. I'm wearing my "being vague is almost as fun as doing this other thing" shirt for a reason. :)
If I conclude that the 'that myth' essentially boils down to different interpretations (will do anything except that one thing vs. would do almost anything except some things), I'm still within the scope of what I am asked to do.
And if I weren't interested in opinions, I wouldn't have asked. I'm just not very good at blindly accepting anything as the truth. Sometimes I need to kick against it first.
|
