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: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Dec 2009 16:25 On Dec 27, 2:16 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:41:23 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote: > > chazwin wrote: > > >> All thinking is language dependant. > > > I have serious doubts about that unless you think that thinking you're > > hungry isn't thinking. > > It is a Chomsky thing. > > The rebuttal to Chomsky's assertion that thinking is language dependent > is simple: Observe how a chimpanzee has an ability to reason that is not > too far behind the average human; problem solving and primitive tool use. > Since chimps have no language, how is it that they think? Ergo, not >all< > thinking is language dependent. > > Q.E.D. Where did Chomsky assert such a thing?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 27 Dec 2009 16:44 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 [þ]~[ð] > 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 [ø:]. > > > and consider not using them improper. ????? I just switched from "View messages by thread" to "View messages by date" and now I can see your funny letters!!
From: Robert Bannister on 27 Dec 2009 18:04 PaulJK wrote: > Robert Bannister wrote: >> chazwin wrote: >> >>> All thinking is language dependant. >> I have serious doubts about that unless you think that thinking you're >> hungry isn't thinking. > > I guess it turns tricky, if you make frequent spelling mistakes in your thinking. :-) It's well known that if you make one tiny mistake then the spell rebounds upon the caster. What this will do for thinking is anyone's guess. -- Rob Bannister
From: Robert Bannister on 27 Dec 2009 18:06 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:41:23 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote: > >> chazwin wrote: >> >> >>> All thinking is language dependant. >> I have serious doubts about that unless you think that thinking you're >> hungry isn't thinking. > > It is a Chomsky thing. > > The rebuttal to Chomsky's assertion that thinking is language dependent > is simple: Observe how a chimpanzee has an ability to reason that is not > too far behind the average human; problem solving and primitive tool use. > Since chimps have no language, how is it that they think? Ergo, not >all< > thinking is language dependent. > > Q.E.D. Except that chimpanzees and some other apes have been successfully taught sign language, so I'm not sure that "have no language" is quite true. I doubt that most of us think verbally except when we are composing sentences in our heads. -- Rob Bannister
From: Leslie Danks on 27 Dec 2009 18:16
Robert Bannister wrote: > PaulJK wrote: >> Robert Bannister wrote: >>> chazwin wrote: >>> >>>> All thinking is language dependant. >>> I have serious doubts about that unless you think that thinking you're >>> hungry isn't thinking. >> >> I guess it turns tricky, if you make frequent spelling mistakes in your >> thinking. :-) > > It's well known that if you make one tiny mistake then the spell > rebounds upon the caster. What this will do for thinking is anyone's > guess. Not to mention one's blood sugar level. -- Les (BrE) |