<strong>No, it's simply looking at the phrase and thinking about it grammatically.</strong><hr></blockquote>Gee, thanks for giving me the dictionary definition of 'different.' That really clears things up. I never knew it was an adjective.
Come on, I'm aware of the fact that different is an adjective and "Think (about) different (things)" is a perfectly grammatical interpretation of the motto. What I'm arguing is that, given the context, it's clear that it means "Think different(ly)," which is ungrammatical. Just because you can find a grammatical interpretation doesn't mean that its real meaning is being conveyed grammatically.
Take a sentence like "Read quick." You could argue that it's grammatical if 'quick' is a word that you're asking someone to read. But, depending on the context, it may be clear that it was intended to mean "Read quick(ly)." I think the same applies here.
Or if someone writes "I hate Apple's" - we've all seen apostrophes used incorrectly. But theoretically, you could argue that the word "computers" was implied by the context, so the sentence was really "I hate Apple's (computers)," which is grammatical. The person wrote it wrong, but can retrofit grammar onto the sentence to act like it was correct in the first place.
Again, I think the context makes it clear. The context involves two things: IBM's "Think" motto, which was not intended to have you think about something specific. Apple's motto was a play on that, telling us to think differently. The other context was that at the time, it was very popular for ads to be ungrammatical. It was the thing to do to be concise and catchy, and Apple's ads intentionally did it all the time.
The fact that Apple's ad team isn't a group of morons makes my point exactly. I'm not saying they were so stupid that they didn't know it was ungrammatical. I'm saying they did it on purpose, and have been doing it for many years now, to be catchy and cool. Belle had posted a quote that I think was from an ad person saying basically that.
And here's what I posted earlier. It used to be on Apple's contact page:
[quote]Question: Are you aware that "Think different" is bad grammar? You should say "Think differently"!
Answer: Although some might want "different" to perform as an adverb in this phrase, complete with an "ly" ending, Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category, just as we might say "Think yellow," "Think change" or "Think playful."
Here's an illuminating quote from an interview with George Gribbin, legendary copy supervisor of the Young & Rubicam advertising agency and creator of the ungrammatical but highly successful slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should":
"The American language is a good, salty, homespun, colorful language. And it is that way because of the vernacular. There's just nothing like pieces of the vernacular in advertising, or in any other kind of writing. It's not just using the vernacular, it's using the color of the life around you in a fresh way."
[quote]<strong>Come on, I'm aware of the fact that different is an adjective and "Think (about) different (things)" is a perfectly grammatical interpretation of the motto. What I'm arguing is that, given the context, it's clear that it means "Think different(ly)," which is ungrammatical. Just because you can find a grammatical interpretation doesn't mean that its real meaning is being conveyed grammatically.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not according to that wonderful quote Belle found: "Although some might want "different" to perform as an adverb in this phrase, complete with an "ly" ending, Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category, just as we might say "Think yellow," "Think change" or "Think playful."
Instead of assuming that it might convey the meaning the words say, when taken as grammatically correct, you've pre-decided what meaning the phrase will have, then when the grammar doesn't fit, call in ungrammatical. Apple and the ad company have confirmed that the meaning is precisely what I said it was... in which case, the phrase is grammatical.
[quote]<strong>Take a sentence like "Read quick." You could argue that it's grammatical if 'quick' is a word that you're asking someone to read. But, depending on the context, it may be clear that it was intended to mean "Read quick(ly)." I think the same applies here.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. Straight from the horse's mouth, even.
This really should be on a FAQ somewhere, if it can screw up so many otherwise bright people...
<strong>Nope. Straight from the horse's mouth, even.
This really should be on a FAQ somewhere. Cripes. Something so simple...</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny, because I interpret Apple's comment as basically admitting that it was ungrammatical, but saying it was meant to be clever and unusual. Why would they quote Gribbin if they were contending that it was grammatical, period? It seems to me that they're admitting it was poor form, and justifying it by citing another example of a popular, but ungrammatical, ad.
Well, in fairness, the first part of Belle's quote claims that it could be grammatical ("Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category"). That's the argument that you're making - it could, theoretically, be grammatical, if interpreted a certain way.
But then the second half of the passage explains that advertisers like to bend the rules to be cute, and quotes someone who intentionally used ungrammatical language in a very popular ad ("Winston tastes good like a cigarette should"). That's the argument I'm making - that it's intentionally ungrammatical to be catchy.
<strong>Funny, because I interpret Apple's comment as basically admitting that it was ungrammatical, but saying it was meant to be clever and unusual. Why would they quote Gribbin if they were contending that it was grammatical, period? It seems to me that they're admitting it was poor form, and justifying it by citing another example of a popular, but ungrammatical, ad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I saw it as an unnecessary exposition to provide more (admittedly tangential) information to the reader in an effort to be 'educational'.
[quote]<strong>Well, in fairness, the first part of Belle's quote claims that it could be grammatical ("Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category"). That's the argument that you're making - it could, theoretically, be grammatical, if interpreted a certain way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm saying that if it is taken in the meaning *in which it is quoted as was intended*, then the phrase is completely grammatical, period. End of story.
Start with the meaning that they provide, go back to the definitions I posted, and you'll see that there is no issue. Nothing theoretical about it. It's just taking the words at face value, without deciding ahead of time what they mean.
[quote]<strong>But then the second half of the passage explains that advertisers like to bend the rules to be cute, and quotes someone who intentionally used ungrammatical language in a very popular ad ("Winston tastes good like a cigarette should"). That's the argument I'm making - that it's intentionally ungrammatical to be catchy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that doesn't jibe with the first part of the quote at all, does it?
Either the meaning is what they intended, and explained as such in the first part of the quote, 'think <category>' in which case it *is* grammatical, or the first half of that quote explaining what they meant is wrong, and it is indeed ungrammatical, and they're just trying to justify it.
Given that the phrase in a vacuum is a fully grammatical structure with the meaning that they say they intended, that's the situation I'm running with. The other just seems too contrived in my mind. "Well, they meant something other than what they *say* they meant, which means that it is wrong." Conspiracy theorists unite! Much easier to just look at the phrase, derive the meaning from the properly formed grammar, then have it confirmed that yes, that's what they meant.
Bastards! Even their answer generates controversy! Bleah!
<strong>No, I'm saying that if it is taken in the meaning *in which it is quoted as was intended*, then the phrase is completely grammatical, period. End of story.
Start with the meaning that they provide, go back to the definitions I posted, and you'll see that there is no issue. Nothing theoretical about it. It's just taking the words at face value, without deciding ahead of time what they mean.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I see what you're saying.
But I just think using 'different' as a "fanciful category" is just not the natural interpretation of the phrase, nor was it the way they meant it, given the context.
Take the following: [quote]A woman without her man is nothing.<hr></blockquote>That sounds like a horrible sexist thing to say. But if you were called on it, and wanted to wriggle out of it, you could say "No I meant it this way:" [quote]A woman - without her, man is nothing.<hr></blockquote>
And you would be a feminist.
The second way is what you say when you're caught, but it's not the natural way it was intended.
I think the same applies to Apple. They had lots of other ads that were intentionally ungrammatical, and this was one. Then when people questioned it, they said "oh, but if you interpret it this way, it's really OK" because this particular example did happen to have a grammatical interpretation.
Jeez, I'll argue about anything.
:goes to check fireside chat for anything political or religious:
<strong>When I was walking to my office today I saw a sign that read, "Think Safety".
Now does anyone think it should have read, "Think Safely"?</strong><hr></blockquote>No. But if you read this sign, would you think it meant "drive a safe."
The verb 'drive' cannot be applied to a purely conceptual subject, while the verb 'think' can.
And yeah, we'll argue about just about anything.
The funny thing is, I never even thought of the phrase as trying to mean 'think differently' until someone screamed that it was ungrammatical, and I had to stop and think about what the heck they were talking about. My first reaction was "What, are you nuts? You're obviously reading it wrong." At face value, it makes sense, in a grammatical way. *shrug*
Lee Clow's favorite ad campaign, the 1959 VW Beetle: "Think small," a play on "Think big."
Lee Clow's creation for Apple: "Think different" -- note the graphic similarities too.
I suppose if we really want to be pedantic about it, these should actually read:
Think, "big"
Think, "small"
Think, "different"
...respectively. "Think different" is a play on a play, so there's little point in being so persnickety about a play on a play of a colloquial aphorism in the English language.
... but is not "think different" a set which does not include itself? ... and how can we either exclude or include something which is, by definition, not a member of itself?
It's nice to see that only one person, BRotto, pointed out the Volkswagen ad. That VW ad is one of the most famous advertisements in marketing history.
Regarding "Thinking Different"
It is impossible to use technology, such as a computer, to generate an original concept. The use of an interpreter, such as your mind, is neccessary to invoke imagination. It is highly unlikely that a unique perspective can be obtained through the use of a computer. If "thinking different" implies that a unique perspective is required to initiate change, then one would be advised not to use modern technology as a means to do so. There are more natural and less expensive methods available for exploring conciousness. Perhaps the prerequisite for "thinking different" is, in fact, "taste different".
Comments
a la differance
via mr Derrida
<strong>No, it's simply looking at the phrase and thinking about it grammatically.</strong><hr></blockquote>Gee, thanks for giving me the dictionary definition of 'different.' That really clears things up. I never knew it was an adjective.
Come on, I'm aware of the fact that different is an adjective and "Think (about) different (things)" is a perfectly grammatical interpretation of the motto. What I'm arguing is that, given the context, it's clear that it means "Think different(ly)," which is ungrammatical. Just because you can find a grammatical interpretation doesn't mean that its real meaning is being conveyed grammatically.
Take a sentence like "Read quick." You could argue that it's grammatical if 'quick' is a word that you're asking someone to read. But, depending on the context, it may be clear that it was intended to mean "Read quick(ly)." I think the same applies here.
Or if someone writes "I hate Apple's" - we've all seen apostrophes used incorrectly. But theoretically, you could argue that the word "computers" was implied by the context, so the sentence was really "I hate Apple's (computers)," which is grammatical. The person wrote it wrong, but can retrofit grammar onto the sentence to act like it was correct in the first place.
Again, I think the context makes it clear. The context involves two things: IBM's "Think" motto, which was not intended to have you think about something specific. Apple's motto was a play on that, telling us to think differently. The other context was that at the time, it was very popular for ads to be ungrammatical. It was the thing to do to be concise and catchy, and Apple's ads intentionally did it all the time.
The fact that Apple's ad team isn't a group of morons makes my point exactly. I'm not saying they were so stupid that they didn't know it was ungrammatical. I'm saying they did it on purpose, and have been doing it for many years now, to be catchy and cool. Belle had posted a quote that I think was from an ad person saying basically that.
<strong>I won't tell anyone about the awful things you said. Believe me, I would have deleted it if I had posted that, too.
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by RodUK:
<strong>Psst, just let it go. It's probably, you know, that time of the month.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you very much BRussell.
If you were around 10 seconds ago, you'd have seen a post full of abuse directed at you.
Anyway, here's a rare <a href="http://www.apple.com/thinkdifferent/ad1.html"; target="_blank">retro-glimpse</a> of Apple's website for everyone. Get it before it's gone! And a lovely <a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3507/thinking_different.html"; target="_blank">Onion article</a>.
And here's what I posted earlier. It used to be on Apple's contact page:
[quote]Question: Are you aware that "Think different" is bad grammar? You should say "Think differently"!
Answer: Although some might want "different" to perform as an adverb in this phrase, complete with an "ly" ending, Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category, just as we might say "Think yellow," "Think change" or "Think playful."
Here's an illuminating quote from an interview with George Gribbin, legendary copy supervisor of the Young & Rubicam advertising agency and creator of the ungrammatical but highly successful slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should":
"The American language is a good, salty, homespun, colorful language. And it is that way because of the vernacular. There's just nothing like pieces of the vernacular in advertising, or in any other kind of writing. It's not just using the vernacular, it's using the color of the life around you in a fresh way."
Think vernacular. Think different.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Come on, I'm aware of the fact that different is an adjective and "Think (about) different (things)" is a perfectly grammatical interpretation of the motto. What I'm arguing is that, given the context, it's clear that it means "Think different(ly)," which is ungrammatical. Just because you can find a grammatical interpretation doesn't mean that its real meaning is being conveyed grammatically.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not according to that wonderful quote Belle found: "Although some might want "different" to perform as an adverb in this phrase, complete with an "ly" ending, Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category, just as we might say "Think yellow," "Think change" or "Think playful."
"
Ie, 'Think languor', 'Think big', 'Think thin'... 'Think different'.
Instead of assuming that it might convey the meaning the words say, when taken as grammatically correct, you've pre-decided what meaning the phrase will have, then when the grammar doesn't fit, call in ungrammatical. Apple and the ad company have confirmed that the meaning is precisely what I said it was... in which case, the phrase is grammatical.
[quote]<strong>Take a sentence like "Read quick." You could argue that it's grammatical if 'quick' is a word that you're asking someone to read. But, depending on the context, it may be clear that it was intended to mean "Read quick(ly)." I think the same applies here.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. Straight from the horse's mouth, even.
This really should be on a FAQ somewhere, if it can screw up so many otherwise bright people...
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
<strong>Nope. Straight from the horse's mouth, even.
This really should be on a FAQ somewhere. Cripes. Something so simple...</strong><hr></blockquote>Funny, because I interpret Apple's comment as basically admitting that it was ungrammatical, but saying it was meant to be clever and unusual. Why would they quote Gribbin if they were contending that it was grammatical, period? It seems to me that they're admitting it was poor form, and justifying it by citing another example of a popular, but ungrammatical, ad.
Well, in fairness, the first part of Belle's quote claims that it could be grammatical ("Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category"). That's the argument that you're making - it could, theoretically, be grammatical, if interpreted a certain way.
But then the second half of the passage explains that advertisers like to bend the rules to be cute, and quotes someone who intentionally used ungrammatical language in a very popular ad ("Winston tastes good like a cigarette should"). That's the argument I'm making - that it's intentionally ungrammatical to be catchy.
<strong>Funny, because I interpret Apple's comment as basically admitting that it was ungrammatical, but saying it was meant to be clever and unusual. Why would they quote Gribbin if they were contending that it was grammatical, period? It seems to me that they're admitting it was poor form, and justifying it by citing another example of a popular, but ungrammatical, ad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I saw it as an unnecessary exposition to provide more (admittedly tangential) information to the reader in an effort to be 'educational'.
[quote]<strong>Well, in fairness, the first part of Belle's quote claims that it could be grammatical ("Apple and its advertising agency intend it as a fanciful category"). That's the argument that you're making - it could, theoretically, be grammatical, if interpreted a certain way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm saying that if it is taken in the meaning *in which it is quoted as was intended*, then the phrase is completely grammatical, period. End of story.
Start with the meaning that they provide, go back to the definitions I posted, and you'll see that there is no issue. Nothing theoretical about it. It's just taking the words at face value, without deciding ahead of time what they mean.
[quote]<strong>But then the second half of the passage explains that advertisers like to bend the rules to be cute, and quotes someone who intentionally used ungrammatical language in a very popular ad ("Winston tastes good like a cigarette should"). That's the argument I'm making - that it's intentionally ungrammatical to be catchy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that doesn't jibe with the first part of the quote at all, does it?
Either the meaning is what they intended, and explained as such in the first part of the quote, 'think <category>' in which case it *is* grammatical, or the first half of that quote explaining what they meant is wrong, and it is indeed ungrammatical, and they're just trying to justify it.
Given that the phrase in a vacuum is a fully grammatical structure with the meaning that they say they intended, that's the situation I'm running with. The other just seems too contrived in my mind. "Well, they meant something other than what they *say* they meant, which means that it is wrong." Conspiracy theorists unite!
Bastards! Even their answer generates controversy! Bleah!
<strong>No, I'm saying that if it is taken in the meaning *in which it is quoted as was intended*, then the phrase is completely grammatical, period. End of story.
Start with the meaning that they provide, go back to the definitions I posted, and you'll see that there is no issue. Nothing theoretical about it. It's just taking the words at face value, without deciding ahead of time what they mean.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, I see what you're saying.
But I just think using 'different' as a "fanciful category" is just not the natural interpretation of the phrase, nor was it the way they meant it, given the context.
Take the following: [quote]A woman without her man is nothing.<hr></blockquote>That sounds like a horrible sexist thing to say. But if you were called on it, and wanted to wriggle out of it, you could say "No I meant it this way:" [quote]A woman - without her, man is nothing.<hr></blockquote>
And you would be a feminist.
The second way is what you say when you're caught, but it's not the natural way it was intended.
I think the same applies to Apple. They had lots of other ads that were intentionally ungrammatical, and this was one. Then when people questioned it, they said "oh, but if you interpret it this way, it's really OK" because this particular example did happen to have a grammatical interpretation.
Jeez, I'll argue about anything.
:goes to check fireside chat for anything political or religious:
Now does anyone think it should have read, "Think Safely"?
<strong>think differant
a la differance
via mr Derrida</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa!
A semiological paradox for Monsieur Derrida ...
How does one use differance to include what's excluded by "think different" ?
<strong>When I was walking to my office today I saw a sign that read, "Think Safety".
Now does anyone think it should have read, "Think Safely"?</strong><hr></blockquote>No. But if you read this sign, would you think it meant "drive a safe."
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>No. But if you read this sign, would you think it meant "drive a safe."
[ 11-25-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
*laugh* Okay, if you *really* want a rebuttal...
The verb 'drive' cannot be applied to a purely conceptual subject, while the verb 'think' can.
And yeah, we'll argue about just about anything.
The funny thing is, I never even thought of the phrase as trying to mean 'think differently' until someone screamed that it was ungrammatical, and I had to stop and think about what the heck they were talking about. My first reaction was "What, are you nuts? You're obviously reading it wrong." At face value, it makes sense, in a grammatical way. *shrug*
Lee Clow's favorite ad campaign, the 1959 VW Beetle: "Think small," a play on "Think big."
Lee Clow's creation for Apple: "Think different" -- note the graphic similarities too.
I suppose if we really want to be pedantic about it, these should actually read:
Think, "big"
Think, "small"
Think, "different"
...respectively. "Think different" is a play on a play, so there's little point in being so persnickety about a play on a play of a colloquial aphorism in the English language.
<strong>
Whoa!
A semiological paradox for Monsieur Derrida ...
How does one use differance to include what's excluded by "think different" ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah but it is always-already included . . .
. . .as excluded
<strong>
Ah but it is always-already included . . .
. . .as excluded</strong><hr></blockquote>
... but is not "think different" a set which does not include itself? ... and how can we either exclude or include something which is, by definition, not a member of itself?
Ooops </channelling Bertrand>
Regarding "Thinking Different"
It is impossible to use technology, such as a computer, to generate an original concept. The use of an interpreter, such as your mind, is neccessary to invoke imagination. It is highly unlikely that a unique perspective can be obtained through the use of a computer. If "thinking different" implies that a unique perspective is required to initiate change, then one would be advised not to use modern technology as a means to do so. There are more natural and less expensive methods available for exploring conciousness. Perhaps the prerequisite for "thinking different" is, in fact, "taste different".
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />