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: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2010 09:35 Adam Funk wrote: > On 2010-01-02, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Adam Funk wrote: >>> On 2009-12-30, Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote: > >>>> Do you remember the message(-ID)? If so we could analyze the error. >>> You're talking to a real google-grouper who once said "I don't even >>> know what a MID is." >>> >>> >> Do you want to know? > > I know. You try explaining to PTD how the USENET works. > > <grin> I'd have to think a long time for that one. I'd probably use junk snail-mail lists as an analogy. /BAH
From: Harlan Messinger on 3 Jan 2010 11:19 Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden > <acornish(a)ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in > <news:7puuomFv0lU1(a)mid.individual.net> in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > > [...] > >> "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many >> (most?) native speakers; [...] > > They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. Even so, I'm fairly confident that you and others with the same pronunciation, when singing the Gershwin song "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off", at the line "You say ee-ther and I say eye-ther", aren't in any danger of pronouncing "ee-ther" as "ether", and if someone else did, I'm fairly confident that your reaction would be, "It isn't 'ether', it's 'EE-DHER'". In other words, you don't perceive those of us who do say "ee-ther" to be saying it homophonically with "ether".
From: James Silverton on 3 Jan 2010 13:08 Harlan wrote on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:19:52 -0500: > Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden >> <acornish(a)ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in >> <news:7puuomFv0lU1(a)mid.individual.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosoph >> y: >> >> [...] >> >>> "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many >>> (most?) native speakers; [...] >> >> They're not for me, but in the U.S. I'm in the minority. You know, I believe I use both pronunciations almost randomly. I was educated in Scotland but have lived most of my life in the US. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
From: Mahipal7638 on 3 Jan 2010 19:33 On Dec 28 2009, 9:32 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 2:11 am, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 26, 10:10 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 26, 4:20 pm, chazwin <chazwy...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 24, 5:43 pm, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 24, 8:58 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The use of Latin in the sciences and other learned fields basically > > > > > > ceased in the 18th and 19th centuries. I have long wondered why people > > > > > > accepted the use of national languages exclusively in this endeavor > > > > > > where international understanding is more imperative than any other. > > > > > > It is true, that the use of Latin by 1700 had already passed almost > > > > > > everywhere else, but its last remaining use should still have been > > > > > > enough to support it, given that Latin was the one language that every > > > > > > educated man in the Western world knew, and that Latin, having such a > > > > > > long tradition of use, was at least suitable for scientific and > > > > > > technical purposes as any other language at the time. > > > > > > > And so, some explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the > > > > > > predominant advocates and defenders of Latin, from the Renaissance to > > > > > > now, are from the humanities; and so once Latin had disappeared from > > > > > > live literary use, their support was no longer important. The second > > > > > > is to blame it on the French: they abandoned Latin earlier than anyone > > > > > > else, and are well-known to have an inflated view of the greatness of > > > > > > their own language. But that does not seem to explain how it happened > > > > > > everywhere else: had they wanted to emulate the French, they would > > > > > > have started writing in French, and if they had wanted to oppose them, > > > > > > they should have re-emphasised the role of Latin. > > > > > > > Now, of course, I can't propose the revival of Latin for these > > > > > > purposes: English has virtually replaced it as the international > > > > > > scientific language. But it look a long time during which dealing with > > > > > > many different languages was a considerable problem, and it seems as > > > > > > though this should have been avoided. > > > > > > > Andrew Usher > > > > > > Science, enlightened or not, is Language independent, Language > > > > > indifferent, Latin or otherwise. > > > > > All thinking is language dependant. > > > > Does making art not count as thinking? Make some new and original art and we'll see how it adds to thinking. No time limit imposed by me. > > > > > One can arbitrarily translate scientific thought, it's not poetry, > > > > > from one Language to another. > > > > > So naive. Yeah, truth is often naive. Truth is so obvious. > > > 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. Cross-posting has nothing at all to do with content of message. All interpretation is biased based upon who pays for the bills. Or what Usenet group is your Sanctuary. It's been shown repeatedly across all cultures. > Even the same person will read his/her own statements differently at > different times often enough to make the principle apply to this case > also. One can never come to same the river twice. The momentum of the water makes it scientifically so. > An interesting experiment is to write down all you can remember about > some especially vivid dream ( immediately upon waking up, of course ). > put the dream narrative away for a while, six months maybe, and then > read it again. It will sound utterly alien. Dreams are telling. Yet, they are better forgotten than interpreted. I say forgotten because I am bitter. Why? I've seen my dreams that would've been best never had, or at best forgotten. Not that you asked. Enjo(y)... -- Mahipal
From: António Marques on 4 Jan 2010 06:25
Mahipal7638 wrote (04-01-2010 00:33): > On Dec 28 2009, 9:32 pm, DKleinecke<dkleine...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> An interesting experiment is to write down all you can remember about >> some especially vivid dream ( immediately upon waking up, of course ). >> put the dream narrative away for a while, six months maybe, and then >> read it again. It will sound utterly alien. > > Dreams are telling. Yet, they are better forgotten than interpreted. I > say forgotten because I am bitter. Why? I've seen my dreams that would've > been best never had, or at best forgotten. How about this: you write down the one you like and you ignore the rest. |