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: benlizro on 28 Dec 2009 01:53 On Dec 28, 10:18 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...(a)rudhar.eu> wrote: > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" > <b.sc...(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 Thanks! I once carried on a long argument with one of those "some linguists" on this topic. Looking at this mishmash of phonological, grammatical and etymological conditions, I am more than ever at a loss to understand how any linguist can maintain with a straight face that dh/th are in "complementary distribution". Ross Clark
From: PaulJK on 28 Dec 2009 02:40 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > 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. No, it's posted with Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I don't think the problem was caused by his last mod farther down the list of formats. pjk
From: PaulJK on 28 Dec 2009 02:43 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > 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! Maybe he doesn't want to run risk of having 'funny' characters displayed as spaces. :-) pjk > (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.)
From: James Hogg on 28 Dec 2009 02:44 sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Dec 27, 10:10 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> On Dec 27, 7:56 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100, Peter Moylan >>> <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote in >>> <news:IMidnWjqUejBYqrWnZ2dnUVZ8sCdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au> in >>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>>> On 28/12/09 07:49, Brian M. Scott 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: >>>>>> 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 [�:]. >>>> The BrE "er" vowel, as in "first", is so close to the >>>> German "oe" that few people would notice the difference. >>> It's easily the closest approximation in the BrE vowel >>> system, and closer than anything in any rhotic variety of >>> AmE that I've heard, but it's quite clearly not [�:] (or >>> [�], for that matter). >> In AmE, "Goethe" is homophonous with "Gerta." Rhotic and all. > > AmE here, currently in northern VA, originally from Maine. > > Just in my experience, it's about 50/50 whether it's pronounced in a > horribly mangled semi-phonetic manner or whether it's vaguely like > "Gerta" but with a more elongated German-style oe first syllable and > at most a partially vocalized "r"--I wouldn't call "Goethe" and > "Gerta" homophones. The horribly mangled version is basically "Geth", > which rhymes with "death". A non-rhotic limerick: A young German poet named Goethe Once wrote of the sorrows of Werther, Who loved Fr�ulein Lotte Though Albert had got her. He shot himself rather than hurt her. -- James
From: PaulJK on 28 Dec 2009 03:00
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. I feel sorry for any witch with a speech defect. pjk |