The only difference is not in terms of verbs/nouns ratio but in redundancy level
and familiarity level
The final conclusive sentences are 1)simply more redundant
2) .They address more familiar notions
By that is meant also
attitude-tone

The title sounds like an excellent suggestion for a new Rock group - a name
well rooted in Israeli literature
Unlike "tractor", "Isdarechet" does not seem to be rooted in "second order" reality of intellectual entities
Rather, it refers directly to the "Halutzim" milieu
So, the first name implies double-fold irony

I greatly appologize for not writing in Hebrew, since
at the moment I am "under" NT4 in English only.
(Second order entities (or their ontological realm
are entities that do not refer to objects in the world
but rather, to conceptual objects that refer to the world
Maybe more familiar concept for you may be "meta language"

I said quite the opposite , Sir, stating clearly that "tractors" refers *directly* to objects in the world
and *not to concepts* about such objects in the world
By stating that my analysis is hardly adequate to your taste, based on not understanding the obvious
You make a very good point, but I am afraid I don't have much time now for further "Isdarechet" staff

I see now that in the beginning of the 3rd line the order of "tractor" and "Isdarechet" came out reverted from what I had originally typed
There are many difficulties in typing in English here on every step

I see now that in the beginning of the 3rd line of the comment "what's in a name?"
the order of "tractor" and "Isdarechet" reverted
from what I had originally typed (which is also clear regarding the context)
There seem to be problems writing English here, on every step

? What does it sound like
Tone of speech that conveys
attitudes
Apparently, attitudes are more familiar to
comprehension than abstract concepts
since they may *spontaneously* evoke sympathy or antipathy in straight forward way.
Hence, being more energized by attitudes than by analysis,
more associations are evoked and available to us by "spread of activation
Naturally, evoking in yourself
a stream of associations
to abstract concepts- some less familiar or less
habitual than others -demands
*voluntary effort *

You minorize my distinction which is
(:- presented above
Yet your question "Ma Hal'aa
is based on this very distinction
That is, the distinction between emotional loading
(in your words )
or emotional energization
as I did put it).
vs. sheer semantic or conceptual value
based on it you make the distinction between
explication (analysis) and conviction
(emotional associative "power )
as if such dissociation is necessary here
Yet I ask why you demonstrate such contempt and wave disregard for a distinction that motivates your further intellectual effort?
Or maybe, my part was the effort.
and you only continue with a line of thought that became available and easy to go further on with. Yet you scorned the originator of this line of thought
Is it not a little unpolite, Sir, not to mention Barbaric and an act of intellectual ruffianism

Yet let me understand , if you are not totally cynical
where you come from?
Do you sense along Heideggerian lines,
where strong existentially-relevant distinction between
Poetic vitality and empty-soul technology is beyond your assault?
Such that you regard what I say as some kind of impotent tool-oriented approach, which is impoverished of substantial staff?
And that is the source of your existantially-waived contempt?
All I can say is "what pure innocence