Certainly I have no English language resources. Perhaps nor in Portuguese my thinking and speech could be very useful as well. You, please, forgive me. But this is what i feel. Of course if try to talk to you in a joke maner, with metaphors I have no success. You can say "To hell with" (this is a very common expression, I dont need dictionary to understand) - but you give me no permission to answer to you with the same joke. "to hell with a lot with things, including me" (it was the same meaning, I only add another joke = "for them a more good apartment" = "some people ridiculous" but "I the more ridiculous")... At the beggining you give me no permission to think in "high voice" about some problems, because there was not crucial relevance for it (I dont understante why we can only talk about the "essential"). And now you give me no permission for my words have meaning. It is not a good way to teach.
Why dont you yourself answer your own question about what means the "quotes", for instance?
First I must to know, do you want that I explain: (a) What means the own quotes? or (b) what means my act in post the quotes? And mainly: (c) what means "to mean"? For instance: c.1 âto meanâ as "what was author is saying at that moment about that terms "personality", "drama", "conflict", "psychology humanization", etc.? or (c.2) "what as the relevance of this 'inner speech' of that author for the future investigations? Of course there two kinds of different "to mean"... AND = About both you can answer better than I, because you can see a broader historical development and I have only some pieces of the puzzle (the is no picture in the box to help, if you permit one more naive metaphor)...
But if your question is about what mean my act in quote this fragments, you try to explain, the last time.
1) I never spoke nothing about this is a problem of the "genius" contribution. And I do not understand why you are so concerned in prove me this obvious thing. Well... Its ok, you must have your motives. I respect, but this not with me, and above all not with this topic.
2) You correct me about my word "concept" - saying to me "There is not any concept of drama in Vygotsky" - and I clearly accept your correction, and change my word to "generalization", "meaning", you must agree that we can understand that a concept had a "formation"... but, its ok. I correct myself. But you are even not satsfied. This must be not only wrong but also ridiculous - showing me dictionary etc, etc, etc.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-11-12 03:08 pm (UTC)Certainly I have no English language resources. Perhaps nor in Portuguese my thinking and speech could be very useful as well. You, please, forgive me. But this is what i feel. Of course if try to talk to you in a joke maner, with metaphors I have no success. You can say "To hell with" (this is a very common expression, I dont need dictionary to understand) - but you give me no permission to answer to you with the same joke. "to hell with a lot with things, including me" (it was the same meaning, I only add another joke = "for them a more good apartment" = "some people ridiculous" but "I the more ridiculous")... At the beggining you give me no permission to think in "high voice" about some problems, because there was not crucial relevance for it (I dont understante why we can only talk about the "essential"). And now you give me no permission for my words have meaning. It is not a good way to teach.
Why dont you yourself answer your own question about what means the "quotes", for instance?
First I must to know, do you want that I explain: (a) What means the own quotes? or (b) what means my act in post the quotes? And mainly: (c) what means "to mean"? For instance: c.1 âto meanâ as "what was author is saying at that moment about that terms "personality", "drama", "conflict", "psychology humanization", etc.? or (c.2) "what as the relevance of this 'inner speech' of that author for the future investigations? Of course there two kinds of different "to mean"... AND = About both you can answer better than I, because you can see a broader historical development and I have only some pieces of the puzzle (the is no picture in the box to help, if you permit one more naive metaphor)...
But if your question is about what mean my act in quote this fragments, you try to explain, the last time.
1) I never spoke nothing about this is a problem of the "genius" contribution. And I do not understand why you are so concerned in prove me this obvious thing. Well... Its ok, you must have your motives. I respect, but this not with me, and above all not with this topic.
2) You correct me about my word "concept" - saying to me "There is not any concept of drama in Vygotsky" - and I clearly accept your correction, and change my word to "generalization", "meaning", you must agree that we can understand that a concept had a "formation"... but, its ok. I correct myself. But you are even not satsfied. This must be not only wrong but also ridiculous - showing me dictionary etc, etc, etc.