Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
Next: question on Artwork and what is legal in altering a signed painting #24 South Dakota cat laws
From: chazwin on 26 Dec 2009 16:23 On Dec 24, 5:58 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:05:35 -0800, chazwin wrote: > > The 19thC saw the domination of English mainly because nearly all the > > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. > > The French and the Germans had to take a back seat. The Germans seemed > > to have concentrated on philosophy whilst the French spent the whole > > century licking their wounds after the Napoleonic defeats. > > So, Georg Ohm, Heinrich Hertz, Hermann von Helmholtz, Rudolf Clausius, > and Heinrich Lenz took a "back seat"? (All big name 19th century German > physicist) Yep -minor players. > > As did Augustin Fresnel, Pierre Dulong, Alexis Petit, Pierre Curie, and > Andre Ampere? (Big name 19th century French Physicist) And them too. > > How... droll. English Chauvinism is not dead. > > Yes, there is a reason why back in the 1960s you had to be able to read a > foreign language, usually German or French, to get a degree in physics at > an accredited college in the English speaking United States. Yes but it did not matter which one. In Germany and France English was essential. > > And after WW II, the only reason why we had a scientific jump on the > Russians is because our captured German scientist were better than the > Russian captured German scientists. :-D Can I remind you I was talking about the 19thCentury not the 20thC?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Dec 2009 17:07 On Dec 26, 12:57 pm, garabik-news-2005...(a)kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > Didn't you learn in science that definition by enumeration is > > unacceptable? > > On the contrary, in mathematics, definition by enumerating axioms > is THE acceptable way (granted, you probably did not mean _this_)... I meant listing all the examples you know of, and not mentioning anything similar that might, but doesn't, fit the pattern. I restored aue because there are a couple of postings in the thread from an aue'er.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Dec 2009 17:10 On Dec 26, 4:20 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 5:43 pm, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 24, 8:58 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people > > > accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor > > > where international understanding is more imperative than any other. > > > It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost > > > everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been > > > enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language that every > > > educated man in the Western world knew, and that Latin, having such a > > > long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and > > > technical purposes as any other language at the time. > > > > And so, some explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the > > > predominant advocates and defenders of Latin, from the Renaissance to > > > now, are from the humanities; and so once Latin had disappeared from > > > live literary use, their support was no longer important. The second > > > is to blame it on the French: they abandoned Latin earlier than anyone > > > else, and are well-known to have an inflated view of the greatness of > > > their own language. But that does not seem to explain how it happened > > > everywhere else: had they wanted to emulate the French, they would > > > have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, > > > they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. > > > > Now, of course, I can't propose the revival of Latin for these > > > purposes: English has virtually replaced it as the international > > > scientific language. But it look a long time during which dealing with > > > many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as > > > though this should have been avoided. > > > > Andrew Usher > > > Science, enlightened or not, is Language independent, Language > > indifferent, Latin or otherwise. > > All thinking is language dependant. Does making art not count as thinking? > > One can arbitrarily translate scientific thought, it's not poetry, > > from one Language to another. > > So naive. It's an axiom of modern linguistics (and it has never been disproved) that anything that can be said in any one language can also be said in any other language -- you may need to introduce new vocabulary to cover new concepts and realia (but the concepts can be explained with paraphrases, just as is done in both philosophy and science), but that's a trivial matter.
From: Ace0f_5pades on 26 Dec 2009 17:50 On Dec 25, 4:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Dec 24, 5:48 pm, bert <bert.hutchi...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > Gauss's doctoral thesis "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" > > of 1797 was the last major scholarly work to be > > published in Latin. > > Who are you to decide what a "major scholarly work" is? > > Most of us happen to think that Wilhelm Gesenius's *Thesaurus Linguae > Phoeniciae* (1837) is a major scholarly work (and it treats not just > the Phoenician language, but all that was known of Semitic epigraphy > at the time.) (And don't bother looking at it in google books; they > don't bother to unfold the plates before they photograph them, so the > file is useless.) I agree, and it seems people can't see the forest for the trees.
From: Ace0f_5pades on 26 Dec 2009 17:51
On Dec 25, 6:51 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 8:05 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 24, 1:57 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people > > > accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor > > > where international understanding is more imperative than any other. > > > It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost > > > everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been > > > enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language that every > > > educated man in the Western world knew, and that Latin, having such a > > > long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and > > > technical purposes as any other language at the time. > > > > And so, some explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the > > > predominant advocates and defenders of Latin, from the Renaissance to > > > now, are from the humanities; and so once Latin had disappeared from > > > live literary use, their support was no longer important. The second > > > is to blame it on the French: they abandoned Latin earlier than anyone > > > else, and are well-known to have an inflated view of the greatness of > > > their own language. But that does not seem to explain how it happened > > > everywhere else: had they wanted to emulate the French, they would > > > have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, > > > they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. > > > > Now, of course, I can't propose the revival of Latin for these > > > purposes: English has virtually replaced it as the international > > > scientific language. But it look a long time during which dealing with > > > many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as > > > though this should have been avoided. > > > > Andrew Usher > > > Latin provided an invaluable tool for the transmission of ideas > > throughout Europe, not bound my the restrictions of parochial > > languages long before the Enlightenment. This together with the > > invention of printing was the way that the Reformation exploded right > > across Europe without the need for learning all the various languages > > that were still unformed. > > Latin's use was maintained long into the 18thC. It use continued in > > Botany and other sciences in the coining of neologisms , and is still > > in use to this day. > > The 19thC saw the domination of English > > In what field? Certainly not in math, science, philosophy, music, art, > cuisine, etc. > > French was the overall lingua franca among educated people in the 19th > century. English dominated relatively minor fields like tea-drinking > and crumpet-making. > > > > > > > mainly because nearly all the > > decent innovations, discoveries and inventions all came from Britain. > > The French and the Germans had to take a back seat. The Germans seemed > > to have concentrated on philosophy whilst the French spent the whole > > century licking their wounds after the Napoleonic defeats.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - here's just one point in case. and there are a NewGroup full |