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: Yusuf B Gursey on 25 Dec 2009 22:36 On Dec 25, 10:06 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Dec 25, 10:00 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > > > > > > Andrew Usher 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. > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > > my job. > > I take it you don't know Arabic? true, Arabic invents words for everyday technological words, but there is considerable amount of simple borrowing in higher scientific terminology. there is no calque, for example, for "oxygen". "electricity" is kahriba:' from the persian word for "amber", but kahrab or kuhayrib (the diminutive form) did not catch on for "electron" or "electronic". > > Which newsgroup are you in?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Dec 2009 23:10 On Dec 25, 7:22 pm, Mahipal7638 <mahipal7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 25, 6:59 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 2:01 pm, James Hogg <Jas.H...(a)gOUTmail.com> wrote: > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > > On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 25, 10:45 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > >>>>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > >>>>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > > > >>>>> my job. > > > >>>> I take it you don't know Arabic? > > > >>> Her 'explanation', if true, is just a variant of my first i.e. the > > > >>> classicists that control Latin insist on purity over accepting new > > > >>> words like any living language must. > > > >>> Andrew Usher > > > >> I read that the Latin of the Vatican continuously makes up new words, > > > > > There's a Latin radio station in Finland. > > > > >> as well as the Latin used for taxonomy. ditto for Modern Standard > > > >> Arabic, which is very closely based on Classical Arabic, and spoken > > > >> Arabic is quite divergent from it. there is also Neo-Syriac. Israeli > > > >> Hebrew is rather more deviant from Biblical Hebrew though. > > > > > What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with > > > > the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? > > > > > Israeli scholars do publish in Hebrew, but they realize that if > > > > they're going to get an international hearing, they have to publish in > > > > English (or maybe French -- when Israel was founded in 1948, its third > > > > official language was French rather than English). > > > > >> why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > >> coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK > > > >> towards german. particle physics is inovative: quark (a fundamental > > > >> particle, IIRC from a type of german cheese, but based on a miss- > > > > > Did Gell-Mann ever claim any connection with Ger. Quark?? > > > > >> quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics > > > > > Joyce _didn't_ write "three quarks for Mister Mork"? > > > > Strictly speaking, he wrote "Three quarks for Muster Mark!" > > > Yeah, that's how I've seen it. So what's the misquotation? > > Obviously, there's no misquotation given the "_didn't_" in your line. > > Get over it, and thanks for not being a regular in sci.physics for you > would be a visual, given Usenet is the medium it is, pain. > > Enjo(y)... At least the Indians in sci.lang can write intelligible English. I have no idea what you just said.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Dec 2009 23:11 On Dec 25, 8:01 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 25, 10:45 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > > > > > > my job. > > > > > > I take it you don't know Arabic? > > > > > Her 'explanation', if true, is just a variant of my first i.e. the > > > > classicists that control Latin insist on purity over accepting new > > > > words like any living language must. > > > > > Andrew Usher > > > > I read that the Latin of the Vatican continuously makes up new words, > > > There's a Latin radio station in Finland. > > > > as well as the Latin used for taxonomy. ditto for Modern Standard > > > Arabic, which is very closely based on Classical Arabic, and spoken > > > Arabic is quite divergent from it. there is also Neo-Syriac. Israeli > > > Hebrew is rather more deviant from Biblical Hebrew though. > > > What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with > > the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? > > I was talking about classical languages that have been revived for > everyday use, including terms for new technology, not neccessarily at > that point about scientific vocabulary, which I get into later. Modern Aramaic is not a classical language that has been revived for everyday use, so what's your point? > > Israeli scholars do publish in Hebrew, but they realize that if > > they're going to get an international hearing, they have to publish in > > English (or maybe French -- when Israel was founded in 1948, its third > > official language was French rather than English). > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK > > > towards german. particle physics is inovative: quark (a fundamental > > > particle, IIRC from a type of german cheese, but based on a miss- > > > Did Gell-Mann ever claim any connection with Ger. Quark?? > > no, he didn't. Then why did you say he did? > > > quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics > > > Joyce _didn't_ write "three quarks for Mister Mork"? > > > > of quarks, it is said that inspired by ice-cream types that came in > > > different colors and flavors while the theoretician was musing over > > > the theory). ironically, the man responsible for these coinages is > > > seriously interested in linguistics. > > > Unfortunately he fell in with a "linguist" who is not taken seriously.-
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Dec 2009 23:14 On Dec 25, 8:06 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Yusuf B Gursey" <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote in messagenews:aecefd83-1be6-41af-aace-b6773ba5c9b5(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 25, 10:45 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > > > > > > my job. > > > > > > I take it you don't know Arabic? > > > > > Her 'explanation', if true, is just a variant of my first i.e. the > > > > classicists that control Latin insist on purity over accepting new > > > > words like any living language must. > > > > > Andrew Usher > > > > I read that the Latin of the Vatican continuously makes up new words, > > > There's a Latin radio station in Finland. > > > > as well as the Latin used for taxonomy. ditto for Modern Standard > > > Arabic, which is very closely based on Classical Arabic, and spoken > > > Arabic is quite divergent from it. there is also Neo-Syriac. Israeli > > > Hebrew is rather more deviant from Biblical Hebrew though. > > > What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with > > the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? > > I was talking about classical languages > ==================================== > That's just great, by WHY are you posting to sci.physics? > Are you so fuckin' stupid that you don't realise it's off-topic?- Why don't you abuse the person who actually created the crossposting? Just recently, there was a long thread in sci.lang and alt.usage.english about the word for "oxygen" in various languages, in which it was repeatedly asserted, without contradiction, that scientists understand the etymologies of their technical terminology. Obviously that was a false assumption. But if you don't know the history of physics, you're a pretty poor physicist.
From: Yusuf B Gursey on 25 Dec 2009 23:18
On Dec 25, 11:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Dec 25, 8:01 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 25, 10:45 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > > > > > The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, > > > > > > > people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of > > > > > > > my job. > > > > > > > I take it you don't know Arabic? > > > > > > Her 'explanation', if true, is just a variant of my first i.e. the > > > > > classicists that control Latin insist on purity over accepting new > > > > > words like any living language must. > > > > > > Andrew Usher > > > > > I read that the Latin of the Vatican continuously makes up new words, > > > > There's a Latin radio station in Finland. > > > > > as well as the Latin used for taxonomy. ditto for Modern Standard > > > > Arabic, which is very closely based on Classical Arabic, and spoken > > > > Arabic is quite divergent from it. there is also Neo-Syriac. Israeli > > > > Hebrew is rather more deviant from Biblical Hebrew though. > > > > What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with > > > the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? > > > I was talking about classical languages that have been revived for > > everyday use, including terms for new technology, not neccessarily at > > that point about scientific vocabulary, which I get into later. > > Modern Aramaic is not a classical language that has been revived for > everyday use, so what's your point? > > > > Israeli scholars do publish in Hebrew, but they realize that if > > > they're going to get an international hearing, they have to publish in > > > English (or maybe French -- when Israel was founded in 1948, its third > > > official language was French rather than English). > > > > > why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based > > > > coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK > > > > towards german. particle physics is inovative: quark (a fundamental > > > > particle, IIRC from a type of german cheese, but based on a miss- > > > > Did Gell-Mann ever claim any connection with Ger. Quark?? > > > no, he didn't. > > Then why did you say he did? > I said the word was from German, not that Gell-Mann claimed the connection. > > > > > > quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics > > > > Joyce _didn't_ write "three quarks for Mister Mork"? > > > > > of quarks, it is said that inspired by ice-cream types that came in > > > > different colors and flavors while the theoretician was musing over > > > > the theory). ironically, the man responsible for these coinages is > > > > seriously interested in linguistics. > > > > Unfortunately he fell in with a "linguist" who is not taken seriously.. |