2. Or are they a way to express something that can't be expressed otherwise? No!
3. in the extrem case of minimal oral communication: "salt" and "give me the salt please?"... are these two expressions equivalent? No!
4. and why or why not? Shoot - you cannot answer an "or" question with yes or no. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" />
Clear, short answers to definite questions - are they adequate?
Aphorisms and short sentences should be regarded differently. The definition(s) of aphorisms have been abundantly displayed. They inherently have a meaning, which supposedly is easily obvious to the reader.
Short sentences may not always be that obvious - they will always have some meaning (hence the "no" in 1.), however whether they preclude misunderstanding in their concise formulation is a different matter.
And certainly you can express anything otherwise - especially with more words. This certainly often does not also increase the understanding (in politics and "legaleeze" it's even less understanding, the more words are used), and more often than not, increasing the understanding is not the point in using more words.
Minimal oral communication would require you to say at least "give salt" rather than "salt" - so the two expressions are not equivalent (of equal value) as they do NOT give the same information.
For a test of minimally required information in oral communication, imagine a blind person sitting at the table, listening to conversations. Whatever you can make clear to the blind in minimal use of words, would be the minimum required to have minimum oral communication - otherwise you could as well keep your mouth shut and communicate via sign language. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Last edited by GlanceALot; 15/11/0402:38 PM.
In times of crisis it is of the utmost importance not to lose your head (Marie Antoinette)
