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: António Marques on 28 Dec 2009 14:55 Peter T. Daniels wrote (28-12-2009 19:00): > On Dec 28, 10:31 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >> 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.- > > How is it a pain to use? I go to the url for "My Groups," it shows me > the list of the 5 groups I visit and whether there are any new > messages since last time; I click on a group name and it gives me a > list of the last 30 threads most recently posted to, with the number > of new messages since last time; I click on a thread and it opens the > message-tree on the left and the earliest unread message on the right. > What could be a pain about that? How could some other interface do it > any more simply? Well, compare mine. I open 'Mail & Newsgroups', it shows me there are 219 unread messages on sci.lang. I click on sci.lang, it opens the message-tree, showing only unread messages. I see a lot of them are in 'Magdalenian experiment (continuation)'. I press K and suddenly 'Magdalenian experiment (continuation)' disappears for good, lowering the number of unread messages to 170 (it will never appear again unless I want to). Then, I see most of the messages are old and in threads that aren't likely to be interesting. I select them all using ctrl and shift, press R, and they're all marked as read. That leaves some 30-odd messages I can read sequentially by pressing space to advance one page at a time. All this happens instantly. And I can reply simultaneously to all the messages I want, save replies if they're not finished yet, reread how many messages I wish, and so on, not having to worry about anything 'going away'. And in recent times I've gone as far as creating some filters to automatically delete messages from certain uninteresting folks so I don't lose any time looking at them (I've resisted doing that for a long time, but alas it had to be).
From: António Marques on 28 Dec 2009 14:57 chazwin wrote (28-12-2009 18:49): > On Dec 28, 12:21 pm, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >> chazwin wrote (28-12-2009 10:11): >> >>> On Dec 26, 10:10 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Then clearly that's not a question of language per se. > > That is a non sequitur. > Just because there is no EXACT translation does not mean that NO > linguistic meaning has been conveyed. Meanings can be hermeneutic, > semantic and linguistic. This here comment of yours bears no relationship to mine.
From: Harlan Messinger on 28 Dec 2009 15:18 Ruud Harmsen wrote: > 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/? I think you're misinterpreting Peter's conventions. If memory serves, book = /buk/ boot = /buwt/ sick = /sik/ seek = /siyk/
From: Harlan Messinger on 28 Dec 2009 15:40 Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:17:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> The French make it almost >> impossible to do useful things in an efficient manner. You are not >> allowed to create new words until they are approved by some commission >> years later (can't recall the name). > > Academie francaise. Sorry, I can't do the French characters. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_de_l%27Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3% > A7aise > > This does have advantages. For one thing, the Engs and the Americans > butcher the English language. Rewrite this as, "English speakers, like speakers of every language on the planet, do not speak their language in a single, uniform, permanent manner." > Real English has a limited set of phonemes, > but the Engs and the Americans have this nasty habit of using every > phoneme from every language. Huh? > And they're starting to insist that foreign > pronunciations be used. They're completely ignorant that there often are > more than one dialect in a language; for example, Spanish. > > Another benefit is that the Engs (Engs live in Eng-land, right?) and > Americans use words incorrectly, and the incorrect usage becomes > "correct" because they're so fond of "descriptive" dictionaries rather > than proscriptive dictionaries. Languages have been changing as long as there have been languages, which is a lot longer than there have been either prescriptive or descriptive dictionaries. Besides that, unless you imagine that speakers of *any* language are in the habit of going home every night and looking up all the words they plan to use the next day in the dictionary to make sure they won't use them incorrectly, you should be able to appreciate that dictionaries just don't have that much influence on usage. Speaking of using words incorrectly, may I suggest you look up the word "proscriptive" in your dictionary of choice? > It's very democratic, the idiots get to > decide what words mean. This is really funny. Even if a prescriptive dictionary lists specific meanings for a given word, how do you think that word got those meanings in the first place? Do you think the entire English vocabulary was *invented* by people who decided to decree, word by word, a language for people in England to speak? > It's one big Archie Bunker joke. For example, to > "protest" means to testify FOR something. In idiot speak, to "protest the > war" means to speak against the war when the real meaning is to speak FOR > the war. > > Lastly, it is hoped that having a panel such as the French Academy would > prevent fad gibberish words like "bling-bling" from reaching the > dictionary. Don't even get me started on how "Ebonics" is being passed > off as English. How many French dictionaries do you think the AF has any control over? Hint: one of the many that are published, and I suspect not the one most often consulted by French speakers. > The only real downside to the French Academy is that idiots who don't use > the language properly are called idiots. Is that so wrong? Really? Who calls them that? Besides you, I mean? I wonder if you aren't being intentionally ironic and a troll. It's funny that someone would invent the word "Eng" and then complain about people doing what they want with the language. The anomaly is compounded by your use of "butcher" as a verb, your rendering of "It's very democratic, the idiots get to decide what words mean" as a single sentence, your use of "fad" as an adjective, along with your misuse of the word "proscriptive". You wouldn't be an idiot, by any chance? Not that I would call you that, but you do fit your own criteria for application of the term.
From: Brian M. Scott on 28 Dec 2009 16:05
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:13:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in <news:149065af-e4ab-4d84-aedb-57a8999264af(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > 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. True, but not particularly relevant to the incident in question. >> 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." BAH is probably right about the underlying purpose of the law in question. >> 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. > Or ... the speaker could actually have had the courtesy to > have their speech translated into French (if they > couldn't handle the language themself). Wouldn't have helped much, since the seminar was far too short anyway. Wasn't necessary, since everyone involved spoke English. > Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of > these days? No, though a couple of poker decks might be an acceptable stand-in. Brian |