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: Robert Bannister on 28 Dec 2009 18:56 Peter Moylan wrote: > On 28/12/09 07:49, Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:11:53 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher >> <k_over_hbarc(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 [�:]. > > The BrE "er" vowel, as in "first", is so close to the German "oe" that > few people would notice the difference. > That's rather like saying French u is close as dammit to the vowel in English "you". The German � isn't even the same as French eu, let alone English er/ir/ur, although it's a lot closer. -- Rob Bannister
From: Robert Bannister on 28 Dec 2009 19:03 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > 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.) I've just listened half a dozen times to "few" on Webster's pronunciation and sound dictionary, and I have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds exactly like Ruud's transcription with perhaps the hint of a glottal stop at the end. -- Rob Bannister
From: Marvin the Martian on 28 Dec 2009 20:27 On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:05:17 -0800, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Dec 28, 1:13 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> 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.- > > What ape has "acquired language"? Washo, for one.
From: Marvin the Martian on 28 Dec 2009 20:30 On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:21:58 -0800, sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Dec 27, 2:16 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> 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. > > I believe that "since chimps have no language" is at least one place > that your argument falls apart, though I'm inclined to agree that the > original assertion is incorrect. What languages are common among chimps?
From: DKleinecke on 28 Dec 2009 21:05
On Dec 27, 10:53 pm, "benli...(a)ihug.co.nz" <benli...(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 28, 10:18 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...(a)rudhar.eu> wrote: > > > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:49:40 -0500: "Brian M. Scott" > > <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu>: in sci.lang: > > > >> I don't believe the distinction between voiced and > > >> unvoiced 'th' became phonemic until the 14c. in the > > >> standard dialect. > > > >True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] > > >distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is > > >predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). > > >http://rudhar.com/lingtics/dhth_eng.htm > > -- > > Ruud Harmsen,http://rudhar.com > > Thanks! I once carried on a long argument with one of those "some > linguists" on this topic. Looking at this mishmash of phonological, > grammatical and etymological conditions, I am more than ever at a loss > to understand how any linguist can maintain with a straight face that > dh/th are in "complementary distribution". > > Ross Clark It offends them that there are no minial pairs. |