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: jmfbahciv on 28 Dec 2009 08:00 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Dec 27, 8:20 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: <snip> >> However, that is one of the reasons English was used to describe >> science and technical specs instead of another Western Civ >> language. There are no government rules that prevent creation >> of new words in countries where some form of English is spoken. > > Not in France, not in Israel, not anywhere else that there's an > Academy of Language do "government rules prevent creation of new > words." New words continue to come into languages as they are needed, > whether or not they get into some official wordlist somewhere, and > there's nothing a "government" can do about it. > The purpose of the law which required JMF's presentation to be translated was to keep the language pure. All it did was prevent training and, thus, production. If the government wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. But insisting that those public meetings be conducted in French is nonsense. The seminar should have been scheduled for 6 hours instead of 1 so the time needed for translation could be done. The content of the seminar was technical and most of the words used would have been English anyway. /BAH /BAH
From: Ruud Harmsen on 28 Dec 2009 08:34 Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >Have you ever actually heard AmE? (And don't tell me you have a >library of songs to consult.) Believe it or not, we have CNN here on cable television. I watched it even yesterday for the story (well, the repeats, over and over, that nothing more was known than what we already knew, which was very little), about the repeated problem there was on the route Amsterdam-Detroit. As we speak (no: as I type), there are several fragments in American English on Dutch radio, I think it's George Bush, yes it is, says the accouncer, it's about 9/11 and Afghanistan. Enduring freedom. -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
From: Ruud Harmsen on 28 Dec 2009 08:39 Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >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.) BTW, offglides are a phonological concept, isn't it, by Trager-Smith? So actually hearing such an offglide is impossible. Offglides exist between / /, not between [ ]. If, as you say, few has a w-offglide and Fuehrer (in American English) has not, does mean that <u> in <purer>, <fury>, <enduring freedom> etc. correspond to a different phoneme than <ew> in <few>? What is the Trager-Smith transcription of those words? And of <new> and <brew>? -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Dec 2009 10:13 On Dec 28, 8:00 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Dec 27, 8:20 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> However, that is one of the reasons English was used to describe > >> science and technical specs instead of another Western Civ > >> language. There are no government rules that prevent creation > >> of new words in countries where some form of English is spoken. > > > Not in France, not in Israel, not anywhere else that there's an > > Academy of Language do "government rules prevent creation of new > > words." New words continue to come into languages as they are needed, > > whether or not they get into some official wordlist somewhere, and > > there's nothing a "government" can do about it. > > The purpose of the law which required JMF's presentation to > be translated was to keep the language pure. All it did was "The purpose of the law" can be determined from what in the US is called the "legislative history" and its interpretation in the courts. "The purpose of the law" is not invented by someone with paranoiac notions of "language purity." > prevent training and, thus, production. If the government > wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. > But insisting that those public meetings be conducted in > French is nonsense. The seminar should have been scheduled > for 6 hours instead of 1 so the time needed for translation > could be done. The content of the seminar was technical > and most of the words used would have been English anyway. > > /BAH > > /BAH Or ... the speaker could actually have had the courtesy to have their speech translated into French (if they couldn't handle the language themself). Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of these days?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Dec 2009 10:17
On Dec 28, 8:34 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...(a)rudhar.eu> wrote: > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:31:31 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(a)verizon.net>: in sci.lang: > > >Have you ever actually heard AmE? (And don't tell me you have a > >library of songs to consult.) > > Believe it or not, we have CNN here on cable television. I watched it > even yesterday for the story (well, the repeats, over and over, that > nothing more was known than what we already knew, which was very > little), about the repeated problem there was on the route > Amsterdam-Detroit. > > As we speak (no: as I type), there are several fragments in American > English on Dutch radio, I think it's George Bush, yes it is, says the > accouncer, it's about 9/11 and Afghanistan. Enduring freedom. Yet somehow you could claim that in AmE there are "long (non-a) vowels" of the form [V:]? |