<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Analyze this</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/</link>
	<description>Removing the mystery from discourse grammar</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:43:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Kirk</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-394</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Kirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-394</guid>
		<description>I noticed the dropped &quot;t&quot; in &quot;won&#039;t&quot; which to me suggests a cockney pronunciation with a glottal stop at the end of the word, which would go with the colloquialism &quot;rip you off&quot;. But the dropped &quot;t&quot; also allows this to be reanalysed as &quot;We won! [We] rip[ped] you off a lot!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I noticed the dropped &#8220;t&#8221; in &#8220;won&#8217;t&#8221; which to me suggests a cockney pronunciation with a glottal stop at the end of the word, which would go with the colloquialism &#8220;rip you off&#8221;. But the dropped &#8220;t&#8221; also allows this to be reanalysed as &#8220;We won! [We] rip[ped] you off a lot!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Aubrey</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-393</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Aubrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-393</guid>
		<description>Thomas: I hope that doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m not as funny as I think I am!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thomas: I hope that doesn&#8217;t mean I&#8217;m not as funny as I think I am!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Donnelly</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-390</link>
		<dc:creator>John Donnelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:48:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-390</guid>
		<description>There are a lot of different levels of humour here.

First I&#039;m struck by confusion over the sentence structure 
- We won&#039;t rip me off by a large amount (unlike those guys down the road who will take you for everything you&#039;ve got).
- We will rip you off by a small amount (after all we have to make money somehow).
- We won&#039;t rip you off at all.

If I vocalize the text it seems they may have a strong accent. That realization is amusing because it breaks the usual spelling rules and reminds me of the old &quot;A B C D Goldfish&quot; exercise.

Then it appears that the sign writer hasn&#039;t corrected the spelling and so ripped off the store merchant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are a lot of different levels of humour here.</p>
<p>First I&#8217;m struck by confusion over the sentence structure<br />
- We won&#8217;t rip me off by a large amount (unlike those guys down the road who will take you for everything you&#8217;ve got).<br />
- We will rip you off by a small amount (after all we have to make money somehow).<br />
- We won&#8217;t rip you off at all.</p>
<p>If I vocalize the text it seems they may have a strong accent. That realization is amusing because it breaks the usual spelling rules and reminds me of the old &#8220;A B C D Goldfish&#8221; exercise.</p>
<p>Then it appears that the sign writer hasn&#8217;t corrected the spelling and so ripped off the store merchant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-387</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:03:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-387</guid>
		<description>Mike, That doesn&#039;t sound like nearly as much fun as I thought! I&#039;ll shut up now just some...er I mean a lot (it rhymes better).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, That doesn&#8217;t sound like nearly as much fun as I thought! I&#8217;ll shut up now just some&#8230;er I mean a lot (it rhymes better).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Aubrey</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-386</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Aubrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-386</guid>
		<description>Anyway, the joke in my apartment is adding the tag, &quot;just some&quot; to absolute and either/or statements - especially when its a highly unusual collocation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyway, the joke in my apartment is adding the tag, &#8220;just some&#8221; to absolute and either/or statements &#8211; especially when its a highly unusual collocation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryan</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-385</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-385</guid>
		<description>All I&#039;m saying is that we should be aware of our presuppositions prior to jumping into exegesis. Indeed, Wrong&#039;s presence on the web will be missed in this regard. Oh well.. as long as he keeps telling me what 50 blogs to check out each month I suppose I can forgive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All I&#8217;m saying is that we should be aware of our presuppositions prior to jumping into exegesis. Indeed, Wrong&#8217;s presence on the web will be missed in this regard. Oh well.. as long as he keeps telling me what 50 blogs to check out each month I suppose I can forgive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Runge</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-384</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Runge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-384</guid>
		<description>So you are suggesting we need to rethink our presuppositions? Where is NT Wrong when you need him?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So you are suggesting we need to rethink our presuppositions? Where is NT Wrong when you need him?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryan</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-383</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:37:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-383</guid>
		<description>I think there&#039;s some ellipses going on here...

&quot;We [are] won&#039; [to] rip you off a lot.&quot;

where &quot;won&#039;&quot; is a shortened form of the older &quot;wont&quot; - meaning it is their habit to rip us off. This reading might come under fire because it essentially puts the traditional understanding on its head. Just call it the New Perspective on Rip. Or the NPR if you will.

:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there&#8217;s some ellipses going on here&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;We [are] won&#8217; [to] rip you off a lot.&#8221;</p>
<p>where &#8220;won&#8217;&#8221; is a shortened form of the older &#8220;wont&#8221; &#8211; meaning it is their habit to rip us off. This reading might come under fire because it essentially puts the traditional understanding on its head. Just call it the New Perspective on Rip. Or the NPR if you will.</p>
<p> <img src='http://www.ntdiscourse.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: P. Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-382</link>
		<dc:creator>P. Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-382</guid>
		<description>My thoughts exactly Dr. Runge. My friends hate it when I do this same sort of thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My thoughts exactly Dr. Runge. My friends hate it when I do this same sort of thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Runge</title>
		<link>http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/analyze-this/comment-page-1/#comment-381</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Runge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=506#comment-381</guid>
		<description>Perhaps they used an emphatic that wasn&#039;t strong enough to close the door? Perhaps they were casting about for &quot;...at all&quot;? Thanks for the correction, I had missed that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps they used an emphatic that wasn&#8217;t strong enough to close the door? Perhaps they were casting about for &#8220;&#8230;at all&#8221;? Thanks for the correction, I had missed that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
