greentext

depends on the type of greentext.

e.g., if it's "implying" then anything that follows ">implying", say, ">implying P", should be taken to mean the opposite of P, or the negation of P. in that sense, ">implying" is just the familiar truth-function ">implying : {T, F} --> {T, F}" defined as '>implying(x) = { T if x = F; F if x = T, which is just negation under a different name.

something like ">still posting this bait", however, involves a temporal aspect and implies that whatever succeeds "still" is not in line with the current trends.

implications are not always negations

there is an ironic double understanding that the implied negation is understood as part of the accepted truth so that it is still within the boundaries of whatever it is suppose to be or whatever it is not suppose to be, within scope

>something about x
must be something about the negation of the x but not the negation of "something" and not the negation of both

eg, taking something from /int/

>you'll never live in the 1950s america

is you live in 1950s america
negative of never but not the 50s and not america

>still posting this bait
becomes this bait is has outlived it's "posting"-ness
ie, negation of the idea that this bait is postable

the understanding is implied, wow, so that it is understood that the poster show knowledge that they know which part is negation

there are other usages of >
such as replacing "" as quote
or as options to imply a choice
>purple people are lazy

>Also, would you consider memes post-modern?
no
>purple people are drinking cool-laid
so that these apparently choices are implied contradictions

so it is both implied and quotation

>>7623227
>Also, would you consider memes post-modern?
>no

this part should be last, oops

File: 23 5foot8.gif (528KB, 276x305px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 276x305px

>Implying memes are not radically perennial

>>7623227
>there is an ironic double understanding that the implied negation is understood as part of the accepted truth so that it is still within the boundaries of whatever it is suppose to be or whatever it is not suppose to be, within scope
mumbo-jumbo

implicatons are all negations.

>>7623252
say you have

>an X replies to my post

the assumption is be both not-x and not to reply to post
or the assumption is be not-x and replay to post

the implied knowledge is to know which one is the correct one

there is a distinction of parts and it is not "mumble-jumbo"

lets use another example

>make a thread
>no one replies

eat a cookie

so if it was all negations it would be not make a thread and someone replies and i eat a cookie
but that's not right and shows that the implied knowledge failed

this 2 implication side my side counteract each other so that, they become an option of if this then that

I have made a thread I will eat a cookie but why would I post that if I have made the thread

Therefore, the implied knowledge is that if someone relies to this thread I will not eat a cookie.
making of the thread is the scope, and the second > is the only negation, or rather the existence of the first implication negates the second one

this is the illustrate the parts of implication

>make a thread, no one relies
has the same effect.

>>7623109
Intentional misquotation. Amateur psychoanalysis—see Freud, Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Ch.'s 3, 4, 6—but in reverse: instead of trying to recover something forgotten, it's the insertion of the reader's impression.

>>7623109
Apropos, OP. Google it. It's pretty common where i come from.

>>7623109
kill yourself, frog-faggot

>>7623270
ok, suppose the "implied negation" (your terminology) is the utterance you mention, namely, ">an X replies to my post", but where "X" is substituted by "he" (= me) and "my post" is substituted by ">>7623227". suppose also that you had an "argument" with some other anon about our short exchange to whom you half-jokingly addressed the following:

(1) >implying he replied to >>7623227

this is the actual implication. now, interpreted as an "implied negation" it gives us:

(2) He didn't reply to >>7623227.

remember, (1) and (2) mean the same thing. now, take your

>the assumption is be both not-x and not to reply to post

and transform (1) accordingly to the following pair of statements:

(T1) ">implying it wasn't him who replied to >>7623227", and
(T2) ">implying he didn't reply to >>7623227".

now, take

>or the assumption is be not-x and replay to post

and transform (1) again:

(T3) ">implying it wasn't him who replied to >>7623227" or same as above, and
(T4) ">implying he replied to >>7623227".

now, i have no idea what you mean by "the assumption is be both [...]". do you mean that both, you and that other anon mentioned at the outset of this post, have an implicit assumption about (1), i.e. whether or not (1) is either T1-T2 or T3-T4? if we ask whether (1) is true we're basically asking--after transforming (1) into (2) for readability--if there are no posts by me which reply to >>7623227; if there are none, then (2) (or (1), if you will) is a true "implied negation" (or implication, if you will). BUT IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ASSUME (T4) ABOUT (1) SINCE IT MISCONSTRUES HOW THE "IMPLIED NEGATION" BEHAVES OR FUNCTIONS. that is to say, you have to assume stuff about (2), and only (2); you could have assumptions about (T4) if (1) said ">implying he didn't reply to >>7623227". i'm not going to analyse this mess any further.

but your chief mistake, i think, is in taking that the ">implying" function has something to do with epistemology, which it doesn't; it's chief purpose--at least from the perspective of the person who imply-negates something--is to NEGATE, and NOT to worry about whether the person he is addressing will be epistemically competent enough to determine the truth of the matter.

in any case, you write so idiosyncratically that parsing your line of thought nearly broke my shit.

File: 1442003936388.jpg (33KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 604x604px

Why was sad Pepe friends with Wojak but when he turned smug he all of a sudden started picking on him and being a big bully.


ANSWER ME.

File: smug anime girl 68.jpg (110KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 500x375px

>>7623109
it all changes if you post a face with it

>he doesn't intuitively understand green text

I feel "smug" because you don't "intuitively understand green text"

>>7623423
>>>/r9k/

please leave

>>7623164
nice
for the second kind you mentioned we can identify a class of greentexts that appear with non-finite, -ing verb phrases, e.g.
>posting this bait
>being this mad
>buying groceries at walgreens

there's no problem with adverbs and other constituents in SpecVP
>still posting this bait
>actually being this mad
>not buying groceries at walgreens

actually we may be able to include the first case you mentioned in this class as well if we treat ">" with finite propositions as containing an invisible "implying."
>(implying) P[+fin]
or
>P[-fin, +ing]
how you'd want to represent that in the lexicon I'm not sure, you might have to have two ">"s in there after all.

anyway, for those instances of ">" that appear with non-finite, -ing VPs, could you be comparing the proposition of the VP after ">" to a contextually determined proposition?