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 10:20 On Dec 28, 8:39 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: > > >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 [ ]. An offglide is a glide after a vowel. How is that not a phonetic concept? > 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>? I would assume they are /'pyur@r 'fyuriy en'd(y)uriN 'friyd@m fyuw n(y) uw bruw/.
From: António Marques on 28 Dec 2009 10:31 Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 12:29): > On Dec 28, 5:01 am, "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK >> <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in >> <news:hh9nbf$ejq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>>> On Dec 27, 3:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott"<b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If >> Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd >> not have the problem. > > Yet somehow Google Groups managed to show the letters a few minutes > later. > > None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's _wrong_ with > google groups. I don't see that there is much wrong with GG from the POV of who doesn't use GG (whereas Outlook has a number of bugs, after all these years, that can disrupt other people's experience of the 'news'). The problem with GG is that it's a pain to use, though I don't know of any web interface that isn't, and the occasional weird behaviour - the inconsistency you mention above being a good example.
From: Ruud Harmsen on 28 Dec 2009 12:32 Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:20:29 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net>: in sci.lang: >I would assume they are /'pyur@r 'fyuriy en'd(y)uriN 'friyd@m fyuw n(y) >uw bruw/. If <purer> is not /pyuwr@r/ but /pyur@r/, why is <freedom> /friyd@m/ and not /frid@m/? -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
From: Marvin the Martian on 28 Dec 2009 13:13 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:06:43 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:41:23 +0800, 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. >> >> It is a Chomsky thing. >> >> The rebuttal to Chomsky's assertion that thinking is language dependent >> is simple: Observe how a chimpanzee has an ability to reason that is >> not too far behind the average human; problem solving and primitive >> tool use. Since chimps have no language, how is it that they think? >> Ergo, not >all< thinking is language dependent. >> >> Q.E.D. > > Except that chimpanzees and some other apes have been successfully > taught sign language, so I'm not sure that "have no language" is quite > true. I doubt that most of us think verbally except when we are > composing sentences in our heads. That doesn't follow because apes that don't have language still use primitive tools and show problem solving skills. They don't NEED language to think, even if they can acquire language from humans. BTW, the acquisition of language by apes shows the impact that an intelligent influence can have on the less intelligent.
From: Harlan Messinger on 28 Dec 2009 13:19
Robert Bannister wrote: > Marvin the Martian wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:41:23 +0800, 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. >> >> It is a Chomsky thing. >> The rebuttal to Chomsky's assertion that thinking is language >> dependent is simple: Observe how a chimpanzee has an ability to reason >> that is not too far behind the average human; problem solving and >> primitive tool use. Since chimps have no language, how is it that they >> think? Ergo, not >all< thinking is language dependent. >> Q.E.D. > > Except that chimpanzees and some other apes have been successfully > taught sign language, so I'm not sure that "have no language" is quite > true. I doubt that most of us think verbally except when we are > composing sentences in our heads. A few chimps have been taught a few signs, therefore it follows that the thought processes of chimps in general are rooted in signs 99.999999% of them have never seen and know nothing about? No. |