[lit-ideas] Re: Thank You, Mister Chips
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:10:40 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
>Note that strictly, in the PhD dissertation it is an "ACKNOWLEDGment" or
'acknowledgEment'. To 'acknowledge' is not strictly to 'thank' -- in that you
don't "you're welcome" an acknowledgement.>
The sense of the acknowledgment is like a thanks, or an expression of
gratitude. When we thank the Lord for these Thy gifts, this acknowledgment (or
expression of gratitude or indebtedness) does not strictly become something
less than thanks because we don't expect God to boom "You're welcome".
>"use of appropriate language, irony and sarcasm; why 'thanked' bear no
responsibility for errors"
Errour.
The reason: it would be otiose to _acknowledge_ someone for your errors.>
This is a non sequitur. The point is not whether we should acknowledge or thank
or be indebted to others for our (or even their) errors: but why they should
bear no responsibility for the final outcome, insofar as it is mistaken, given
they have a causal role worth thanking them for. There is an apparent assymetry
in that they deserve credit if the outcome is correct but no discredit if it is
mistaken: the explanation for this apparent assymetry in logical terms is not
obvious, and surely lies in the oddities of academic politesse.
>"why no 'thanks' for those whose work cannibalised in thesis"
By the same token, you seem to be proposing that a cannibal should thank
you (before he eats you).>
Not really.
While the excuses and explanations for W's lack of thanks have some validity,
it's always possible to dredge up something to thank if the will is there, or
so I find.
Thanking JLS for giving me the opportunity to clarify and correct certain
matters.
Donal
Olympicland
Other related posts:
