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 28 Dec 2009 07:30 On Dec 27, 11:18 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(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 [ø:]. > > > > 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 [ø:] (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".- Never heard that one. The street in Chicago (next to Schiller) is go- thee (voiceless th).
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Dec 2009 07:43 Peter Moylan 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. > ROTFLMAO. /BAH
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Dec 2009 07:31 On Dec 28, 3:59 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...(a)rudhar.eu> wrote: > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:10:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(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:]. Nonsense. Have you ever actually heard AmE? (And don't tell me you have a library of songs to consult.)
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Dec 2009 07:44 Joachim Pense wrote: > Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. (in alt.usage.english): >> Yes, most French people know English > > Sort of. > The ones in the audience did. /BAH
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Dec 2009 07:39
On Dec 28, 6:47 am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Back on the original question, Chomsky held that language shapes all I'll ask again. Where did Chomsky "hold" that? > thought and that chimps are incapable of language; to me, those > statements are mutually inconsistent unless you believe that chimps > are incapable of any level of thought (an assertion that I find > patently ridiculous). That does not, of course, require that you > accept that chimps are linguistically competent; you could resolve the > inconsistency equally well by rejecting the hypothesis that language > shapes all thought.- A good start would be to produce the actual wording of the alleged hypothesis. |