Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Quarterly Time Interval


Guest Kim-See Teo

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

 

That's why I was confused by the statement "They were only conversant in Cantonese and Chinese." I understood "conversant" to mean "able to speak." I'm still not sure, but now I understand that you meant they could communicate (not just speak/listen) using Cantonese and written Chinese.

My checks with the American Heritage Dictionary and the British Cambridge Advanced a Dictionary show the meaning of "conversant" to be "familiar with something, by study or experienc," instead. So that was what I meant when I said the people of HK were conversant in Cantonese and Chinese, not just the ability to speak but also read and write. I know it's a bit hard to appreciate what's Cantonese, since it's only a local provincial dialect, and not all Chinese know or understand that dialect. 

You might like to know that there are probably over 10 different dialects in China, which are totally strange to each other in speaking but only one form of Written Chinese in China. (Taiwan is a little different). 

BTW, I'm a collector of English dictionaries and have over 25 different advanced and mixed ones in my home library. That was well before e-dictionary version appeared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I really have no idea what you are saying now. But, notwithstanding that, we appreciate you. :)

I'm a bit concerned that my written communication, in respect of my last para, has failed to connect with a brilliant mind. Will try to re-write what I said in bullet point form, without all figurative slants. Stay tuned, Mr. Gerber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I really have no idea what you are saying now. But, notwithstanding that, we appreciate you. :)

I feel bad that I could not say in a way easily understood by an expert in PP. Let me recap. 

It all began when the parliamentary term, "QTI" was translated into Chinese as a "3-month period", where the Chinese learners would regard that as "3 months", mathematically speaking.  Had it been translated into any singular Chinese word, say "Ju", it would be just fine. That could become an approximate number, meaning three months or so. 

The elusive factor was that RONR's definition which ignores the nth day of the "month" in which the first session was held.  The quarter was defined by the three months beyond that "month". So when I learned that we actually could define the QTI, in any way we like if we choose to disregard how it's defined in the RONR. At that point, I was convinced of a good explanation to let the Chinese learners know, just disregard the incorrect Chinese translation. Treat it on its face value, if need be. 

I'm now all clear, as I should as much as any intellectual reader of that section (pp 89-90).

To me, if I may, use that QTI as a frame of reference, to define the period between two sessions. 

Over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kim-See Teo said:

So when I learned that we actually could define the QTI, in any way we like if we choose to disregard how it's defined in the RONR.

That's not what I said, and Mr. Honemann explicitly said the opposite.

What I've been trying to convey is that there is no ambiguity in using different words than "quarterly time interval" to express the same concept, so long as the same definition as the one in RONR is used, and that definition is referred to whenever using those other words.

Edited to add: I already demonstrated how this could be done using the phrase "three-month span" instead of "quarterly time interval." Another example would be the use of the term "QTI," as you have been doing throughout this discussion. The letters QTI by themselves are utterly meaningless, yet if the book used "QTI" instead of "quarterly time interval" while neglecting to say what the letters stand for (and obviously this is not something the authors would ever do), the rules would still have exactly the same meaning. And "three-month span" or "three-month interval" (or whatever the Chinese translation is equivalent to) is much better than some arbitrary letters.

Now, if someone translated "quarterly time interval" as "six-month span," that would be a real problem. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

That's not what I said, and Mr. Honemann explicitly said the opposite.

.....

Edited to add: I already demonstrated how this could be done using the phrase "three-month span" instead of "quarterly time interval." Another example would be the use of the term "QTI," as you have been doing throughout this discussion. The letters QTI by themselves are utterly meaningless, yet if the book used "QTI" instead of "quarterly time interval".

I didn't use QTI as anything other than just to mean "quarterly time interval". It was a faux pax on my side. I should have typed it out completely the three words each time I referred to it.

That so called ambiguity was gone, in my mind, after I learned that it was free to define that quarterly time interval in a way I want. 

(I would like to bring up another topic in respect of understanding and the adoption of what's a written Resolution and its Preamble, on pp 108-9. It's another area where the Chinese learners would "almost never understand why". At an appropriate time.)

Although to me, English is a language of mathematical precision, it could nevertheless stir in the mind of another beholder. That explained why I gave a livid example of the Handover of Hong Kong to highlight how two cultures, well nigh two great ancient nations could contend in the Clash of Two Mighty Civilizations for over 12 years when one side used English and the other used Chinese in their negotiations. Until today, the two haven't seen eye-to-eye yet even since 1997, after another 19 years! Of course there was a vast difference of the great divide in politics. Their ambiguity and perhaps even mistrust will remain.

I have attended the NAP Conventions three times, in 2007,2009 and even in 2009 at St. Pete., FL., and got your jointly edited RONR personally authorised at its debut of the 11th edition. 

It has been my privilege engaging in a live discussion with you, Mr. Gerber. My deep appreciation.

Cheers.

KimSee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

That's not what I said, and Mr. Honemann explicitly said the opposite.

What I've been trying to convey is that there is no ambiguity in using different words than "quarterly time interval" to express the same concept, so long as the same definition as the one in RONR is used, and that definition is referred to whenever using those other words.

Edited to add: I already demonstrated how this could be done using the phrase "three-month span" instead of "quarterly time interval." Another example would be the use of the term "QTI," as you have been doing throughout this discussion. The letters QTI by themselves are utterly meaningless, yet if the book used "QTI" instead of "quarterly time interval" while neglecting to say what the letters stand for (and obviously this is not something the authors would ever do), the rules would still have exactly the same meaning. And "three-month span" or "three-month interval" (or whatever the Chinese translation is equivalent to) is much better than some arbitrary letters.

Now, if someone translated "quarterly time interval" as "six-month span," that would be a real problem. :)

Have we now entered the "Chinese room?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kim-See Teo said:

No. Just trying to share what the Chinese learners seek to learn from the Western world. In fact, they are looking into the English room through the windows, intellectually speaking.

Cheers.

I don't think you caught the joke, which is fine, since it was intended for the individual with a background in computer science.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Whatever I said that made you "learn" that, I take it back. Please stop saying that. :)

To the Chinese, letting or even making people learn something is always a pride. To them, as to me too, learning is a never ending exercise. 

Had I not bumped into AIP and then NAP, way back in 2004, I wouldn't have known many outstanding parliamentarians. Mr. Gerber, you're admired.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godelfan said:

I don't think you caught the joke, which is fine, since it was intended for the individual with a background in computer science.  

I didn't know what that joke was, you're right. But I did sense that it was said in a jovial vein or in some figurative delight. 

Anyone who enters this room and "speaks" must be ready for an experience, and be noticed, in my opinion. Here's where one can perfect one's thoughts, in the parliamentary excellence. 

Cheers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2016 at 8:45 PM, Kim-See Teo said:

To the Chinese, letting or even making people learn something is always a pride. To them, as to me too, learning is a never ending exercise. 

I am proud to have a role in learning or teaching, but I much prefer when people learn something right and not something wrong.

When I said, much earlier in the discussion, " As long as you define what your terms mean . . . there will not be ambiguity," I was speaking generally, with the word "you" referring to the ones creating the terms. In this case, that means the authors of RONR (or, if they know what they're doing and are faithful to the original meaning of the rules, the translators of RONR), not just anyone discussing or explaining parliamentary procedure. I should have said "we" or "the authors" or "those introducing the term." (Or maybe I actually shouldn't have said anything at all.)

Then:

(1) You -- meaning someone trying to explain what the existing text says -- are not free to borrow a term already defined in that text, define it in any way you like, and say that that is what it means.

(2) But, to repeat what I said earlier, it is OK, if necessary, to introduce a new term that is equivalent to an existing term, and then define it in the same way as the existing term, and say that that is what the two terms mean.

There is a huge difference between (1) and (2), and I hope that everyone who claims to have learned something from this discussion truly does understand the difference.

Learning is a never-ending exercise for us all, but I was not expecting this topic in the forum to be one. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15 August 2016 at 11:14 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

There is a huge difference between (1) and (2), and I hope that everyone who claims to have learned something from this discussion truly does understand the difference.

Learning is a never-ending exercise for us all, but I was not expecting this topic in the forum to be one. :)

Now that you, Mr. Gerber, specifically wrote a text to highlight a clarification, I'm even more impressed. I didn't mean to take what's stated in the Rulebook and define it at variance to its exactness. I can't do that. Nobody can do it. To me, it's almost like a parliamentary "Bible" for all who believe in it and use it in their practice. 

Since I came to know the 10th Edition a decade ago, I already knew that not a word could be interpreted in any other way, in its well thought out English, in precision. Those who come to reading the Rulebook must come with this in mind. I'm no different. 

I knew that the Chinese culture, especially, in its language, isn't like that. They would have read it broadly and interpreted erroneously. But for myself, albeit of a Chinese descent, I'm only made to this realisation, never to the Chinese way of interpretation of English, much less their translation of a precision textbook of English. To me, only precision matters. Otherwise, ambiguities arise.

The way I wrote and debated rather forcefully at first was my nature, but once I knew I "learned" a fresh point, by what Mr. Honemann said, I halted. I knew it was something worthy of personal absorption. 

It was good for me and for my learners in China, and I had already explained that episode to them. With their gratitude.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...