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: Brian M. Scott on 27 Dec 2009 15:49 On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote in <news:55772067-ca57-4c5f-a8ac-304c203adaaf(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: [...] >> English hasn't added a (consonantal) phoneme since the >> 12th century or so, when the distinction between s and z >> (and the other similar pairs) was taken over with >> borrowings of French words. > False. English added [Z] as in 'measure' in the 17c. , and > I don't believe the distinction between voiced and > unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the > standard dialect. True, though some linguists would argue that the [�]~[�] distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). > It is also true - as Marvin said - that many English > speakers do pronounce foreign words with foreign phonemes > ex. the umlautted vowels in 'Goethe' and 'Fuehrer' > (though Brits already have the first), Now there I disagree: they don't have [�:]. > and consider not using them improper. Brian
From: garabik-news-2005-05 on 27 Dec 2009 15:50 In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: > 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 know. It depends on to what extent you consider terminology to make part of a science discipline. E.g., let me see... in geography, you might define Earth continents by, well, enumerating them. Until rather recently, Solar system planets were defined by enumerating them (with a note saying that Pluto "does not fit the pattern" and that some other objects do, but they are not called planets). Of course, it did not do a bit of difference for real astronomy - they just studied celestial objects, names do not change the outcome! > I restored aue because there are a couple of postings in the thread > from an aue'er. Blame aioe - they won't let me to post followups to more than 3 groups. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
From: Ruud Harmsen on 27 Dec 2009 16:18 Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: >> I don't believe the distinction between voiced and >> unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the >> standard dialect. > >True, though some linguists would argue that the [�]~[�] >distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). http://rudhar.com/lingtics/dhth_eng.htm -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
From: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Dec 2009 16:19 On Dec 27, 3:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher > <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > <news:55772067-ca57-4c5f-a8ac-304c203adaaf(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > [...] > > >> English hasn't added a (consonantal) phoneme since the > >> 12th century or so, when the distinction between s and z > >> (and the other similar pairs) was taken over with > >> borrowings of French words. > > False. English added [Z] as in 'measure' in the 17c. , and > > I don't believe the distinction between voiced and > > unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the > > standard dialect. > > True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] > distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is > predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). > > > It is also true - as Marvin said - that many English > > speakers do pronounce foreign words with foreign phonemes > > ex. the umlautted vowels in 'Goethe' and 'Fuehrer' > > (though Brits already have the first), > > Now there I disagree: they don't have [ :]. > > > and consider not using them improper. Whatever you recently did to "fix" your encoding has resulted in blank spaces where you typed funny letters.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Dec 2009 16:23
On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...(a)kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > 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 know. It depends on to what extent you consider terminology to make part > of a science discipline. E.g., let me see... in geography, you might define > Earth continents by, well, enumerating them. Is "continent" a technical term in geography? > Until rather recently, Solar system planets were defined by enumerating them > (with a note saying that Pluto "does not fit the pattern" and that some > other objects do, but they are not called planets). Of course, it did > not do a bit of difference for real astronomy - they just studied celestial > objects, names do not change the outcome! Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? (Apparently it is now.) > > I restored aue because there are a couple of postings in the thread > > from an aue'er. > > Blame aioe - they won't let me to post followups to more than 3 groups. Then use a decent newsreader like google groups! (The same goes for whowever it was who asked who crossposted this thread to aue, since the first message in a thread is always instantly accessible there.) |