Haha. As I said, I got the pragmatics if not the grammar claims but I'll piss in your Cheerios anytime. (Y)

^you guys^y'all

And shame on you.

"Coach, play me or trade me." — Hanover

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought the dustup between Fishfry and Sap was unnecessarily combative ... — Hanover

Not at my end. I thought it was funny. My sense was that English was not Sap's native language ... but it turns out that he is British and therefore predisposed to look down condescendingly on we uncultured yanks. And I thought it was totally funny that what I mistook for not understanding the nuances of English turned out to be not understanding the nuances of American. It's perfect that I actually used the expression "not the King's English" when it turned out I was talking to someone who DOES speak the King's English!

At my end I was never upset or thought of myself as having a dust-up. I would never do that on this forum again, having been granted an excessive degree of forbearance by the mods in the past. I appreciate that a lot. I really like the mods here. Also when people take me too seriously I like to act even more serious so as to push their buttons. There might have been a bit of that.

The Einstein thing, it was a joke. Once the subject of Einstein came up at all, the phrase just popped into my head. I never thought anyone would think I actually have a bad word to say about the moderators around here, who like I say genuinely could have banned me a while back but didn't.

As far as the point of grammar I was trying (not very well) to explain, "play me or trade me" explains it better than I did.

@Hanover gets overly sensitive about stuff like this. We just humour him. :p

Humor, not humour.

I'm now relieved to learn though that Sap and Baden are rational and tempered, despite their functional illiteracy. — Hanover

*giggles*

It's a rhetorical trope. "Say I'm dumb. But don't say I'm insincere." Despite appearances, that is not an instruction to call me dumb. It's a way of saying that, horrible as it is to be called dumb, it is far worse to be called insincere.

That's interesting as I can spot that one straight away as not being meant as an instruction.

Call me crazy but it is a bit different to the original.

(No, don't actually call me crazy.. :))

An instruction is a type of speech act, not a grammatical form. Cuthbert is obviously right. — Srap Tasmaner

That's not what I said. The grammatical form is the imperative form and it's an instruction. And an instruction isn't by definition a type of speech act: that's obviously wrong. Have you ever bought a kettle, television, toaster, etc? They tend to come with written instructions.

That's not what I said. — Sapientia

Really? What other way is there to read this:

If we're talking about grammar, then that's an instruction. — Sapientia

Whether an utterance is an instruction depends on the context and the purpose of the utterance, its intended or expected understanding by its intended or expected audience, and so on. So it's a question for pragmatics, not grammar.

When you talk about what something means, that's semantics. When you talk about its grammatical form, that's syntax. It would help you understand where I'm coming from if you were better able to distinguish which one I'm talking about at a given time.

When you talk about the meaning of, "So shoot me!", you're missing the point. I know what that means when it's used in the way that it's typically used.

In your case, there was more ambiguity than that. You can blame it all on me for being too literal, or suspect me of trolling, but the truth is that you could have expressed yourself more clearly, grammaticality, and courteously; and if you had've done so, then you could have avoided this whole shebang.

Yes, really. You could have interpreted it as shorthand for saying that it's in the grammatical form indicative of an instruction. (And I know that the imperative form isn't all about instructions. Maybe it's better interpreted as a warning, but whatever).

Sure, ultimately it's down to pragmatics, but the syntax is still relevant and can narrow down the options.

Besides, if the criticism relates more to grammar than semantics, then syntax is of greater relevance. I'm not disputing what fishfry meant, I'm criticising the way in which he expressed himself, which lead to a misunderstanding.

I guess I'd make a tough Coach. If you're going to be on my team, you'll learn some manners.

We're not on a playing field, we're in a more formal setting. If you speak to me bluntly, I might respond in kind. If you make a polite request, I similarly might respond in kind. Or I might just respond bluntly anyway, because fuck you. :D

It's a rhetorical trope. "Say I'm dumb. But don't say I'm insincere." Despite appearances, that is not an instruction to call me dumb. It's a way of saying that, horrible as it is to be called dumb, it is far worse to be called insincere. — Cuthbert

The first part wasn't ever in question, as with the Elvis lyric. It's the second part that could be taken as an instruction or a warning. Consider, "You can insult me as much as you like, but don't insult my family".

Call me crazy, but it is a bit different to the original. — Baden

(No, don't actually call me crazy... :) ) — Baden

I'm not disputing what fishfry meant, I'm criticising the way in which he expressed himself, which lead to a misunderstanding. — Sapientia

I'll agree @fishfry was a bit up on his hind legs. I didn't find it rude, but you did, and there's nothing more to say about that. (Might be a Merkin thing.)

You do have my sincere appreciation for the work you do to keep this place running.

It's pretty simple folks. The grammar was in the form of a (conditional) instruction, so the default meaning is an instruction. Pragmatics becomes relevant when the context shows the default meaning doesn't apply. Pragmatics are culturally informed. It's been clarified that we've hit on a situation where Americans and non-Americans are informed differently about this kind of situation. No fault on either side.