Define Time

[Renee]

:120p6wp_th:

It's the new me

So basically no change....

 ac_sothere I've changed, says so on my medical wrist ban.

You have not got a leg to stand on.

 



 acc_angry you fuckers gunna burn, you know that right?

I hope so. Don't want to put out the effort for nothin. ac_biggrin

[keeper]

<▪▪▪▪▪▪ you guys



 :43(2): <▪▪▪▪▪▪ me



 :6az3al5_th:

[Anonymous]

<▪▪▪▪▪▪ you guys



 :43(2): <▪▪▪▪▪▪ me



 :6az3al5_th:

exactly keeps

[Mona]

I think the definition of "ages" to the person using the term would depend on a number of things... a.  how long they'd known the person they were talking about (for example if they'd only known them  a short while then a few days may seem like ages, or if they'd known them a couple of years, but hadn't spoken apart from passing greetings for a year, then it may seem like ages since they'd spoken)  and b. if they were referencing the last specific interaction (which may have been bumping into them a few days ago) or an overall idea of how long ago it had been since they had regularly interacted with any depth.  Without knowing the specific details of the circumstances being referenced, it is hard to know why the person in question deemed it "ages".  



Time frames and truth are all about perspective.  What is true to one person, may not be for another.  And what seems a long time to one person, can seem like barely a blip in time to another.  I don't think it's a lie, if they're telling you what their definition of ages is, even if that definition is different to yours.

[Anonymous]

I think the definition of "ages" to the person using the term would depend on a number of things... a.  how long they'd known the person they were talking about (for example if they'd only known them  a short while then a few days may seem like ages, or if they'd known them a couple of years, but hadn't spoken apart from passing greetings for a year, then it may seem like ages since they'd spoken)  and b. if they were referencing the last specific interaction (which may have been bumping into them a few days ago) or an overall idea of how long ago it had been since they had regularly interacted with any depth.  Without knowing the specific details of the circumstances being referenced, it is hard to know why the person in question deemed it "ages".  



Time frames and truth are all about perspective.  What is true to one person, may not be for another.  And what seems a long time to one person, can seem like barely a blip in time to another.  I don't think it's a lie, if they're telling you what their definition of ages is, even if that definition is different to yours.

That's how I see it too.

[RW]

I think the definition of "ages" to the person using the term would depend on a number of things... a.  how long they'd known the person they were talking about (for example if they'd only known them  a short while then a few days may seem like ages, or if they'd known them a couple of years, but hadn't spoken apart from passing greetings for a year, then it may seem like ages since they'd spoken)  and b. if they were referencing the last specific interaction (which may have been bumping into them a few days ago) or an overall idea of how long ago it had been since they had regularly interacted with any depth.  Without knowing the specific details of the circumstances being referenced, it is hard to know why the person in question deemed it "ages".  



Time frames and truth are all about perspective.  What is true to one person, may not be for another.  And what seems a long time to one person, can seem like barely a blip in time to another.  I don't think it's a lie, if they're telling you what their definition of ages is, even if that definition is different to yours.

I agree with you to a point.



For the most part there are parameters that come with these words.  A few is generally a small number like 3-4 or less.  Several is more than a couple but not a great deal.  Many means a large number.  An age is used to describe a longer period of time as by definition it's literally a lifetime.



I tend to agree with the people who laughed at 4 days being defined as "in ages".  I question the motives of people who select words that are far outside the boundaries of standard convention.

[Anonymous]

I question the motives of people who select words that are far outside the boundaries of standard convention.

I on the other hand am taking your comment outside the boundaries of its context.  But first, although I've already tried to answer your original post's question I see that I did a poor job.  I'll just say that in social expressions of this particular sort, it seems unreasonable to me to expect people to adhere to any standard convention.  People who are surprised and pleased to see you are likely to be effusive and even to engage in hyperbole.  I don't think if questioned they would claim to have meant literally "in ages."



But to get to your remark which I just quoted, there are scads and scads of colloquial expressions, especially those which go through brief but very pronounced "vogues."  To name just one example, consider the word "literal" or "literally" as in "I went though literal Hell to get here, with that traffic" or "I literally thought the guy was gonna croak right there and then" (or alternatively, he was literally gonna croak.)  It is widely recognized that the term "literally" in those hyperbolic usages is not itself meant to be taken literally.  



In fact the very definition of "hyperbole" as applied to everyday speech means that the statement is not meant literally.

[RW]

I question the motives of people who select words that are far outside the boundaries of standard convention.

I on the other hand am taking your comment outside the boundaries of its context.  But first, although I've already tried to answer your original post's question I see that I did a poor job.  I'll just say that in social expressions of this particular sort, it seems unreasonable to me to expect people to adhere to any standard convention.  People who are surprised and pleased to see you are likely to be effusive and even to engage in hyperbole.  I don't think if questioned they would claim to have meant literally "in ages."



But to get to your remark which I just quoted, there are scads and scads of colloquial expressions, especially those which go through brief but very pronounced "vogues."  To name just one example, consider the word "literal" or "literally" as in "I went though literal Hell to get here, with that traffic" or "I literally thought the guy was gonna croak right there and then" (or alternatively, he was literally gonna croak.)  It is widely recognized that the term "literally" in those hyperbolic usages is not itself meant to be taken literally.  



In fact the very definition of "hyperbole" as applied to everyday speech means that the statement is not meant literally.

The hyperbole of it is obvious and a given.  It clearly hadn't been an entire lifetime.  



Since the hyperbole is obvious, we have to look at it as the idiom it is.  The idiom of "in ages" means "a very long time".  That is how it is defined and not an interpretation.  Now we can sit here and play word games about what "very long" means but at the end of the day, a reasonable person would not consider that time frame to be a mere 4 days.



For example:

"When did you last see your ex-GF?"

"I haven't seen her in ages."



If a person is asking a serious question and requesting a serious answer, answering "in ages" to signify 4 days is misleading and deceptive.

[Anonymous]

LOL, sure it is.  But in the example I hope I'm recalling correctly, there was no serious question and thus no serious answer is being sought.  The person said, "I haven't seen YOU in ages" when it fact it had only been a few days.



I'm not inclined to forgive her remark because she should be able to recall that she saw you recently, and thus it is a social gaffe.  But I think it's just a serious lapse in manners rather than an attempt to redefine "ages" or to be untruthful.  That's just how I see it.  My Golden Rule is "Never impute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."   ac_umm

[RW]

The scenario driving this involved a serious inquiry.  To me it felt like deception but sometimes I need to check my perspective as I can be a BIT emo. <--- Now THAT's hyperbole!



That's a good Golden Rule.  With your permission, I'd like to add that to my quote list.

[Anonymous]

The scenario driving this involved a serious inquiry.  To me it felt like deception but sometimes I need to check my perspective as I can be a BIT emo. <--- Now THAT's hyperbole!



That's a good Golden Rule.  With your permission, I'd like to add that to my quote list.

Feel free.  As with every good idea I've ever had, it's not original.

[Mona]

The hyperbole of it is obvious and a given.  It clearly hadn't been an entire lifetime.  



Since the hyperbole is obvious, we have to look at it as the idiom it is.  The idiom of "in ages" means "a very long time".  That is how it is defined and not an interpretation.  Now we can sit here and play word games about what "very long" means but at the end of the day, a reasonable person would not consider that time frame to be a mere 4 days.



For example:

"When did you last see your ex-GF?"

"I haven't seen her in ages."



If a person is asking a serious question and requesting a serious answer, answering "in ages" to signify 4 days is misleading and deceptive.

In the scenario you are listing here, I would say that the definition of "ages" would depend on your definition of "see".



And the context within which the question was asked.  If it was a casual "Hey when was the last time you bumped into your ex-gf or noticed her in the same general location and waved?" Then "ages" would be a massive and unnecessary exaggeration.  But if the question had more of a "when did you last interact and connect on an emotional or physical level with your ex-gf?" feel about it, then most males would dismiss any interaction as unimportant and try to alleviate the stress of the person asking by saying it was "ages ago" meaning that the threat the ex-gf represented was "ancient history" in his mind and therefore unimportant, despite the female asking perhaps being more concerned with knowing exact facts.



It also depends on the usual time referencing of the person being asked. If they would describe not hearing from you in four days as being ages, or refer to an injury or bruise happening a few days before as happening ages ago, then responding to any question about time reference as being ages ago when it was less than a week is a normal and non malicious response.

[RW]

If I were to ask, "When was the last time you talked to Bob?" and you only communicate with Bob via email, a relatively intelligent person would translate "talk" to "email".  We can play around with words all day, but the essence of the question being asked is clear.  You are being asked when was the last time you communicated with Bob.  



If you wrote Bob 4 days ago, to say "in ages" would be a massive exaggeration to the point of being misleading would it not?



I understand what you're saying about the significance of the interaction changing the significance of the wording.  Does that offset something being misleading as a massive exaggeration?

[Mona]

It still depends on the depth of the communication.  I talk to a lot of people online, some are just random passing messages, and others are in depth conversations.  So if the person was referencing someone that they used to message multiple times in a day, and only had a chance to send a brief message and didn't have an actual conversation, then that person might not consider that "recent communication".



Obviously you know far more detail on this specific situation, I'm just saying that there's not always a "right or wrong" answer, and the other person may not have viewed the statement the same way that you do.  To me, it's all about intent.  Inaccuracies don't always mean dishonesty.

[RW]

You're right.  Inaccuracies don't always mean dishonestly.  



Sometimes visceral reactions happen and things go all to shit in one very emotional instance.



C'est la vie.



I appreciate everyone giving me their perspectives.  You have been extremely helpful in allowing to look at a broader picture.