One Sacrifices ;others Enjoy

I have compared two scalar forms of expressions. When someone prefers one form to the other what is the inference. When someone says “I have sacrificed” instead of “I’ve chosen” what can be inferred from that construct. I was comparing those two forms but didn't restrict the formulation of other kinds. Other forms of expressions can exist. There could be neutral forms or composite forms of expression. I mentioned these two forms with no exclusivity or priority but just two constructs in usage. That does not preclude other forms. That is a comparison of two constructs but not strict dichotomy on constructs available. Your recommendation is thorough. I liked it.




That term 'silent' was not promulgated as an industry term to instate technical or semantic degrees of sacrifice. I was conjuring up an impersonal modifier to define a type of sacrifice where capitalization does not take place. I picked 'silent' which was followed by glossary of what the word meant in that context. I was trying to explicate it contextually to avert ambiguity rather than let it linger in confused linguistics.

Rihana: He can be silent and yet not capitalize
Here, you are asking why cannot he act 'silent' and 'not capitalize'.

Iravati: hardly any silent sacrifice. By "silent', I meant
Here, I am not saying that silent and capitalise are distinct and incompatible.
I am clarifying that my usage of 'silent' means 'not capitalise'. I have not used "silent" in traditional sense of "quietness" in my original context. You have subsequently interpreted it distinctly in the traditional sense of gag order.

I clarified my contrived usage explicitly with "By __, I meant". Applying basic principle of symmetric equality, that now reads,

Iravati: hardly any 'no capitalise' sacrifice (the superfluous glossary can be dropped in this case)

I do realise that my earlier writing is wordy and not lucid. I also mentioned ‘hardly’ which though formally means ‘never’ colloquially could mean “rare/not in many cases”. Usually, I need flowcharts to explain these divergent lines of reasoning. But I've tried with simple text. If you find any reasoning specious, let me know, I will clarify as there could have been faulty semantics which I won't deny and I can amend my speech accordingly for future adaptation. I would be happy to improve my English.




I don't know how generalisation is invoked in IL. Though I have seen members toying with that notion. In debate clubs that I have been a part of we usually invoke generalisation when someone is making baseless allegation with no proof.

For example,

All people in Africa are poor.
(This is a generalization. You have made a sweeping statement on a factuality with no proof)

For example,

An African who carries water for miles must find it hard.
(This is not generalization. It is an opinion about a situation)

You can argue that there are Africans who carry water happily, there are Africans whose mutated gene makes them resistant to parched weather. You can call upon extremities or exceptions. That does not undermine an opinion about a given situation. Even then, such dialectic is centred on the forgiving principle of charity (PoC) in formal arguments. This discussion, I believe, is an informal exchange of opinions. Again, I have no idea how such exchanges happen in IL as I don't insinuate myself in social exchanges. However, I have a feeling that jayasala inferred what I implied there with instinctual PoC and no explicit notation.

Moreover, in the wake of such analytic assessment, does that “would probably” usage not undercut any affirmative. It is not “always”, “have to” ...it is “would probably” ..as in “may be”. Would such utterance still be a generalisation with such modifiers? I am not familiar with modifiers used in IL to inject probability. But if that “would probably” didn't do the trick, and despite such qualifiers if that still is a generalisation, I am happy to swap it with something that is more strongly probabilistic in future preferred here at IL. I normally use "would probably" to denote selective or conditional mediation in official mails. I am just not acquainted with the catchphrases.




I have no clue whether such intent would strip the honour associated with 'sacrifice' because I only said “controverted” which means such declaration can be contested. Such declaration can be suspected of competing, though not necessarily conflicting, intents.

I am not very familiar with reasoning style in IL. I can assure you that my original post was only my ill-construed and sloppily-worded personal opinion to convey how I would have perceived a situation with givens and not a compelling generalisation.