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 30 Dec 2009 10:05 On Dec 30, 7:57 am, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > Wolfgang Schwanke wrote (30-12-2009 09:22): > > > > > > > chazwin<chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > in news:f9d1f79c-601a-4e34-90cf- > > c34bf9a76...(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com: > > >> On Dec 27, 12:41 am, Robert Bannister<robb...(a)bigpond.com> 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. > > >> Being hungry is not the same as realising the feeling and giving a > >> name to it. That requires thinking and thinking is structured by > >> language. > > > How about realising the feeling and not giving a name to it? > > > It has been mentioned in this thread before: Most people probably have > > experienced that they had an idea but were momentarily unable to > > express it in words. That pretty much proves that thought can occur > > without expressing it in language. > > I could never understand the thought ~ language thing. Why the need to > associate the two in the first place? > On a related note, am I the only one able to read/write without mentally > hearing/speaking?- I'm beginning to think that many, even most, people who don't have any reason to do much reading but are literate _don't_ simply assimilate a written text into comprehended language -- don't, for instance, glance at an advertising poster and immediately know what it's selling and what the slogan is -- but do have to interpret it word or phrase by word or phrase. Psycholinguists may have already discovered this, but since the usual pool of (non-impaired) psycholinguistic experimental subjects is college students, the pool is less likely to include that kind of reader. I wonder whether they could get access to pools of junior-college students, a quickly growing population ...
From: Joachim Pense on 30 Dec 2009 10:16 Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang): > On Dec 30, 5:29 am, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel...(a)wollmersdorfer.at> > wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> > On Dec 29, 9:27 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would >> >> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and >> >> sometimes just spaces giving him the impression that it's >> >> something the posters do, not his google i/face. >> > The missing-character thing NEVER happened before I mentioned it a day >> > or two ago. >> >> Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. > > Surely you don't mean "remember"! > > Once in a while, people post "message IDs" here, but if there's a way > to display the header _of a newsgroup message_, I don't know what it > is. In German, GG offers "weitere Optionen", and then "Original anzeigen"; If you press these, you get the message in raw format. The top lines there are the header, including the message ID. Joachim
From: M Purcell on 30 Dec 2009 10:34 On Dec 30, 4:57 am, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > Wolfgang Schwanke wrote (30-12-2009 09:22): > > > > > > > chazwin<chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > > in news:f9d1f79c-601a-4e34-90cf- > > c34bf9a76...(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com: > > >> On Dec 27, 12:41 am, Robert Bannister<robb...(a)bigpond.com> 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. > > >> Being hungry is not the same as realising the feeling and giving a > >> name to it. That requires thinking and thinking is structured by > >> language. > > > How about realising the feeling and not giving a name to it? > > > It has been mentioned in this thread before: Most people probably have > > experienced that they had an idea but were momentarily unable to > > express it in words. That pretty much proves that thought can occur > > without expressing it in language. > > I could never understand the thought ~ language thing. Why the need to > associate the two in the first place? > On a related note, am I the only one able to read/write without mentally > hearing/speaking? I believe both result from an effort to communicate with other people.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 30 Dec 2009 10:43 On Dec 30, 10:16 am, Joachim Pense <s...(a)pense-mainz.eu> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang): > > On Dec 30, 5:29 am, Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel...(a)wollmersdorfer.at> > > wrote: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> > On Dec 29, 9:27 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> Your guess seems to me to be a good one. It would > >> >> explain how sometimes he sees chars with diacritics and > >> >> sometimes just spaces giving him the impression that it's > >> >> something the posters do, not his google i/face. > >> > The missing-character thing NEVER happened before I mentioned it a day > >> > or two ago. > > >> Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. > > > Surely you don't mean "remember"! > > > Once in a while, people post "message IDs" here, but if there's a way > > to display the header _of a newsgroup message_, I don't know what it > > is. > > In German, GG offers "weitere Optionen", and then "Original anzeigen"; If > you press these, you get the message in raw format. The top lines there are > the header, including the message ID. Indeed. "Show original." Who'd imagine that such a command would do that? To its left is "Individual message" and to its right is "Report this message." Do you know what they do? Is the latter something Panu might want to do to Franz?
From: Harlan Messinger on 30 Dec 2009 13:40
Peter Moylan wrote: > On 30/12/09 07:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...(a)ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> >> wrote: > >>> If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic >>> one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some >>> very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). So there does >>> seem to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any >>> mechanism that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? >> The sounds themselves are rare. > > You just managed to fit two of them into a five-word sentence. The fact that they occur in some of the most commonly used words has no bearing on their statistical distribution *among* words. |