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 28 Dec 2009 05:11 On Dec 26, 10:10 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > 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. Another axiom of modern linguistics that that there never is any complete translation between two instances of the same statement. This is true even across the same language. If you copy and paste this posting to another forum, another person will react to it in a different way and take a different meaning from it.
From: chazwin on 28 Dec 2009 05:20 On Dec 27, 12:41 am, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> 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. Being hungry is not the same as realising the feeling and giving a name to it. That requires thinking and thinking is structured by language. > > -- > > Rob Bannister
From: chazwin on 28 Dec 2009 05:24 On Dec 27, 1:47 am, DKleinecke <dkleine...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 26, 4:41 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > chazwin wrote: > > > > All thinking is language dependant. > > There is a lot of that going around. People who think verbally tend to > think people who think in other modes aren't thinking. > > In mathematics there have always been algebraists who think verbally > and geometers who think in pictures. This has been understood now, by > mathematicians, for a long time and both sides make adjustments. It > appears that about 75% of mathematicians think verbally and 25% > visually. I would not dis-clude the language of maths in my statement above, either visual or numerical. > > Outside of mathematics this puts visually minded people in a minority > like left-handed people. A lot of educators think they must be taught > do things the right way. Most educators are aware of a range of teaching styles, but are forced through circumstances to choose for the majority. > > But visually-minded people are in a worse fix than left-handed people > because their thinking is considered as not thinking at all. But they > learn to cope. As did I. Visual thinkers make good carpenters. > > It is possible that many linguists are visually-minded people who had > to focus much more intensely on language in order to get along and > learned how fascinating the whole thing is. I'm not so sure about that.
From: chazwin on 28 Dec 2009 05:29 On Dec 27, 4:20 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > I have come into this thread late with a poor browser. Excuse me if I > ask a stupid question. > > When Latin fell from favor for international communication, scholarly or > other, in what field (if any in particular) did it fail first? Was Latin > particularly useful in the physical sciences or the philosophical > discourse when it began its decline? It's decline first appeared in religion. In the Reformation there were many forces that decided it would be a good idea to give non-latin speakers the opportunity to read the bible for themselves in their own languages. This nicely co-incided with the invention of printing though earlier moves had been made to anglicise the bible. The real impact would have to wait for Gutenburg. > > TIA
From: Brian M. Scott on 28 Dec 2009 05:33
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:59:38 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh(a)rudhar.eu> wrote in <news:sqsgj5tono7pnqf5smil8imsng1embdqjq(a)4ax.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > 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:]. For many speakers that's true only in broad transcription. Brian |