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 23:29 On Dec 28, 7:03 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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. If BrE "few" sounds just like AmE "few," then the traditional Br phonemicization with /u:/ is singularly inappropriate.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Dec 2009 23:31 On Dec 28, 5:51 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Dec 28, 3:40 pm, Harlan Messinger > > <hmessinger.removet...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> 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, > > > What's wrong with butcher (v.)? It's been around since 1562 (M-W). > > Why are you asking *me* what's wrong with it? I'm turning Marvin's > reasoning back on *him*. I didn't see that Marvin cited anything that could be parodied with "butcher (v.)." It's not even one of the Miss Fidditch shibboleths like "contact is not a verb."
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Dec 2009 23:37 On Dec 28, 5:22 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: > On 29/12/09 08:46, Ruud Harmsen wrote: > > > Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:05:17 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels" > > <gramma...(a)verizon.net>: in sci.lang: > > >> What ape has "acquired language"? > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Macaques (which are monkeys, > > not apes) have accents: > > === > > Also in recent studies, it has been found that the Japanese Macaque > > can develop different accents, like humans. It was found that macaques > > in areas separated by only a couple hundred miles can have very > > different pitches in their calls, their form of communication. > > /=== > > Many animals communicate. Monkeys and apes are special only in that they > have a richer set of symbols than most other animals. > > It's a question, I suppose, of how you define a language. In my opinion, > once you have communication you have a language. Even if dogs had only > one kind of bark, that would be a one-symbol language. (In practice, of > course, we know that dogs do better than that.) > > No doubt there will always be those who will claim that if it's not a > _human_ language, it's not a language. If we ever meet beings more > advanced than us, they might well have the same attitude towards our own > grunts and squawks. It's just like those who want to use the name "writing" for any visual communication system. You're going to need a special term for "full writing" bzw. "human language" anyway, so why not continue to use "writing" and "language" in their traditional senses, and use other terms (like "semiotic system") for the wider sets?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Dec 2009 23:39 On Dec 28, 8:27 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > 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.- No one was ever allowed to interact with Washoe except her own trainers, who, like the attendants of the Oracle of Delphi, carried her messages back to the observers. Signers who got to see rare unedited clips of her gestural activity reported that it was nothing like signing.
From: PaulJK on 28 Dec 2009 23:43
Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK > <paul.kriha(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: > > [...] > >>>> True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] >>>> distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >>>> predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). > > [...] > >>> 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. These days he could choose from a number of free good news clients. But, he can't possibly join the falange of "Usenet reader snobs". :-) pjk |