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: garabik-news-2005-05 on 28 Dec 2009 03:50 In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Dec 27, 7:50 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: >> On 28/12/09 08:23, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >> > On Dec 27, 3:50 pm, garabik-news-2005...(a)kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk >> > wrote: >> >> Blame aioe - they won't let me to post followups to more than 3 groups. >> >> > Then use a decent newsreader like google groups! >> >> This must be a meaning of "decent" that I've never met before. > > It lets you post to five groups ... and it always has the complete > thread available. > My news*reader* (tin) is perfect, it lets me enter and diplay unicode characters without a hitch, it can post to whatever groups you can, I can use my favourite editor, I can read news from any computer (that has ssh client installed), etc... but ever since all the news*servers* in our network bitrotted, I am left with free ones, and some of them, like aioe, limit follow-ups (not posting) to 3 groups... Of course, I could pay for a commercial server, but it is just not worth the (tiny amount of) money for me... since I seldom cross-post and cross-follow-up. > None of the newsgroup-snobs has yet produced a single reason to switch > away. Exactly - I have no reason to switch away from tin, and only a very tiny reasons to switch from aioe. If the google groups werea news*server* (it is not! It offers no NNTP accesss, then, by definition, it is just a www interface, not a newsserver), I might reconsider. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- | 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: garabik-news-2005-05 on 28 Dec 2009 03:53 In sci.lang PaulJK <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Maybe he doesn't want to run risk of having 'funny' characters > displayed as spaces. :-) Přesně tak :-) -- ----------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Ace0f_5pades on 28 Dec 2009 03:54 Chazwin wrote: > All thinking is language dependant totally; poviding one defines thinking as the ordering of language into coherent ideas, then the process into coherence is the action of thought - Descarte used this processing method to rationalise his discourse on consrciousness "I think therefore I am." conceptualizing on the other hand is visualisation dependant; i.e an idea fashioned from a group of ordered thoughts such as a picture; a tree, a car --in othe rwords all nouns as actual objects are concepts - images --and the thought-process though dealing with the noun, only point at the object rather than the instant or direct instantiation I would therefore make the distinction that thinking in images is totally different to linear arrangements or the actually process of thinking: Peter Moylan wrote: > I'm curious to know whether there is any connection between "visually > minded" in the sense used above in reference to mathematics, and > "visually minded" in the sense that makes one a good artist. The artistic bent has a tendency toward conceptualising a lot easily IMO-- also, children who don't read much have a higher tendency toward conceptualizing: Over time, as language skills improve, and as the communication balances shift to a language prinicple, the capacity to visualize decreases. I would bet that those adults who have vivid dreams still pocess a strong conceptual capacity. when did you last experience a dream that felt totally real? I have a strong artistic bent, but I consider my thought processes as language dominated. I can paint photorealism, which is somewhat a contradiction. But actually, photorealism has a large linear though- process and also takes spatial -tonal and chromatic awarenesses which are conceptual. Peter T. Daniels > I don't see how what I wrote could be interpreted any other way. It is what it is --but I will add about the international The actual learned's transmission dependant on international language is as it has always been --Totally dependant upon reason: I know that the international component struck accord with the accorded - including the addressed. -it is his character, well known throughout the world. I know it also accorded with the lessor understood languages, and heard reported new of this accord at lest in part with those who are principled with reason. its the dialectual differences in interpretations that will prove their local bane Brian M. Scott wrote: > Now there I disagree: they don't have [ø:]. Its strange, but the phrase of an expanding universe existed before this term was coined: Its a logical puzzle for sure, like getting grapes from a lemon tree -- [ø:] would you know the rationalisation for an expanding universe? but considering physics is riddled with examples of violations of most laws, it isn't surprising. ps evidence: the 134 other posts.
From: Ruud Harmsen on 28 Dec 2009 03:58 Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:44:10 +1100: Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep>: in sci.lang: >On 28/12/09 07:49, Brian M. Scott wrote: >> 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: > >>> 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 seems close only to speakers of languages, like English, that don't have the real thing. To me (with Dutch as native tongue, which has <eu> with toughly the same value as long German <�>), the difference is immediately obvious. -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
From: Ruud Harmsen on 28 Dec 2009 03:59
Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >In AmE, "Goethe" is homophonous with "Gerta." Rhotic and all. > >(And "Fuehrer" starts like "few," but doesn't have the w-offglide >before the r.) <few> doesn't have a w-offglide either. It's [fju:]. -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |