My OperaYou need to be logged in to post in the forums. If you do not have an account, please sign up first.
Does language have an influence on way of life?
One of my former teachers used to emphasise the value of accent and correct spelling. I understand that, ok that's about the grades issue.Now Imam stressed the importance of learning the arabic language. I understand why, so there won't be any misinterpretations! But why is there no word 'bomb' or 'America' in the Koran? So imam said these are mis interpretations. Some people use religion for their own evil deeds. These scumbags!
No wonder why Christians have a lot of divisions. It's mis interpretations!
What do you think.
It was popularly believed that a particular language influences a way of thinking, that it is an intrinsic property of e.g. the German language to produce Nazis, but that thought is seriously out of fashion now.
Interpretations and misinterpretations are almost completely independent of language. That notwithstanding bad translations have caused some confusion of their own. That doesn't mean that the Arabic of 1500 years ago is the same language as today, or that Christians knowing Latin (or much better Old Greek) are better Christians.
Maybe we should have a world-mute day where no-one speaks as an experiment and we see what effects it would have on society. Wouldn't service in shops seem much worse when you get a wave as a hello and a hand to give cash over without a vocal prompt? Popular music would cease to exist, classical music, ambient and electronic music would still exist but we would not be able to listen to a lot of music.
Originally posted by jax:
It was popularly believed that a particular language influences a way of thinking, that it is an intrinsic property of e.g. the German language to produce Nazis, but that thought is seriously out of fashion now.
The german language certainly does produce anal retentive grammar nazis, just look at any german forum
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
There is this, but I wonder.
I was once an "English" teacher, but never ran into that. Sadly.
On a lesser note poor Jaybro never came across such but in my years in the Education world I did and more than once. Had I known him hen I could have passed the situations on.
Originally posted by Kramab:
it will all stem back to Latin and Greek and even further to grunts
Niggle of sorts, but there is some distance between these two Indo-European languages and "grunts", nevermind that language probably didn't start as grunts. That said what we don't know of this subject overshadows what we do know.
Originally posted by Thabotizz:
Why should one learn aramic or greek to understand some scriptures?
Because some were written in those languages.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Y0Y0:
As long as you learn English, you'll be fine. No need to bother with anything else.
what about pidgin/broken english?. So sweet when jisting with you buddies.
- socrates
Originally posted by Thabotizz:
Does language have an influence on way of life?
Language and way of life goes along.
Maybe some kind of World Wildlife Fund organization should care with languages extinction.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by rjhowie:
I bet you never red that post well.In communication,there are formalities and informalities.The pidgin English is a local slang(just as many other countries have theirs).She never mentioned using it in a "united nations annnual summit!Pidgin English is okay amongst your locals but internationally a joke and pointless.
NB:Read before you post:lol:
Originally posted by rjhowie:
should give themselves a better picture by not using either pidgeon English or mobile phone text (crops up occasionally). Shows some lack and laziness reckon?
Out of interest RJ, are you aware that your use of the English language is quite frankly appalling. I have students in Mexico who can both spell and use grammar better than yourself.
What sort of picture are you painting of Glasgow, do you think?
Ill tell you. A city with no schools.
It seems that those who grow up using English are much more casual about it than those that learn it as an additional language.
Originally posted by keloda:
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I bet you never red that post well.In communication,there are formalities and informalities.The pidgin English is a local slang(just as many other countries have theirs).She never mentioned using it in a "united nations annnual summit!Pidgin English is okay amongst your locals but internationally a joke and pointless.
NB:Read before you post:lol:
Just like Keloda has said please read my post again this time read it slowly. Correcting someone spelling mistake is ridiculous considering the level of such errors you make.
I will not give up on you Mr Rj even if everyone does. Am still waiting...
- socrates
Originally posted by rjhowie:
No keloda I read the thing I couldn't say I 'red' it. For your obviously limited knowledge of the wider world others do know what pidgeon English is but I don't see why we should get it here any more than say a Geordie lingo or Glasgwegian for that matter. Having had a sudden deluge of people descending here from your neck of the woods to show they are about they should give themselves a better picture by not using either pidgeon English or mobile phone text (crops up occasionally). Shows some lack and laziness reckon?
Keloda and i have never used pidgin english to communicate on this forum. Try again.
- socrates
Maybe you shoukly reading yourself jivelissie before you start mouthing at me. I was talking about random entries here and did not illustrate any individual so try not knee-jerking unless you are an Irish dancer.
what is this debate for?
why are we debating?
shall i go on?.............lol
I am a Juggalo... I am an individual guided by Light... I know who I am and who I want to be. I recognize that the path to Shangri La requires an open mind... I shall not judge. I am part of a Family... I shall Love my Family as I would my blood. I shall do my Family no harm as I know what is done to others shall surely be done to me. I shall strive to honor my Family and not disgrace their name.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
One of those many posts that beg our correction,yet,you correct someone.What am i to call this.Your sterile effort to be grandiloquent had made you a laughing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe you shoukly reading yourself jivelissie.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Save your lectures Me-he-co missionary for your African friends here they need it more.
No they don't. They are non native speakers. They're also not the pot calling the kettle black.
Originally posted by jax:
You ask someone who, due to accident or other reason, have lost the capability of language. Language is one of the most important aspects of our life.
One other reason being a person turns up in a country with barely a word of the native language. You can get by though, surprisingly well, until you get a grasp of the local lingo. Pointing is obvious. Various grunts and gestures work well too.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Just the same if your language didn’t include the word “planet” or some other concept that it’s speakers have never encountered or needed you would be at a disadvantage to a person speaking a language with a larger vocabulary base.
Language translates reality to concepts so we can conceptualize the world and then communicate with others. It seems to me that the better a language can translate reality the better and complete that language will be.
A language that can distinguish several slightly different details about the same concept allows a deeper and better understanding of things as well as a better communication.
Another interesting aspect it's the connection between language and the development of cognitive skills as a basic condition for modern human beings. The pre-logic mentality didn't have this characteristic, to a Cro-Magnon it was not possible to refer to a "tree". They couldn't "extract" the concept of what is common to all trees and communicate it to others. To them, each tree was an unique thing without anyting common to another tree.
I don't know how they discussed back at those times... maybe with an ax...
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
to a Cro-Magnon it was not possible to refer to a "tree". They couldn't "extract" the concept of what is common to all trees and communicate it to others. To them, each tree was an unique thing without anyting common to another tree.
Speculation.
You did almost touch a point I left out though. What a word means can vary depending on how general a concept it describes. Tree is a good general term to use as it describes a large group of plants that vary greatly. But what do you think of when I say tree? A maple, oak, palm or some other tree? Chances are it’s not exactly what I was envisioning. However was my point lost because we have different conceptualizations of the same word? If I said “I cut down that old tree.”. You may not fully understand what I did but you got the jest of it. After all I didn’t paint a very vivid picture. Now when you take a conversation of slightly mis-communicated concepts you can walk away understanding what I said although from a different perspective based a lot on the meaning of the words to you and how you visualize the concepts in your head.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
But what do you think of when I say tree?
Elm trees are probably my #1 association with trees. However, many of them have died due to Dutch elm disease in the past decade, so perhaps that'll be different for current Dutch youngsters.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
It isn't so easy to determine when modern language appeared, was it 20 years ago or 20 million? What is a modern language?Language translates reality to concepts so we can conceptualize the world and then communicate with others. It seems to me that the better a language can translate reality the better and complete that language will be.
A language that can distinguish several slightly different details about the same concept allows a deeper and better understanding of things as well as a better communication.
Another interesting aspect it's the connection between language and the development of cognitive skills as a basic condition for modern human beings. The pre-logic mentality didn't have this characteristic, to a Cro-Magnon it was not possible to refer to a "tree". They couldn't "extract" the concept of what is common to all trees and communicate it to others. To them, each tree was an unique thing without anyting common to another tree.
I don't know how they discussed back at those times... maybe with an ax...
We know something and we have many promising leads. We all speak modern languages today. There is nothing that can be expressed in one language that can't be expressed in another, but not necessarily as easy. We are built to learn and excel in the type of languages we speak. Other animals are not, but they may have extensive capabilities for concept, and in some cases maybe even for some components of language. How great those capabilities are is debatable and debated, but it is also testable, the animals are still around.
That can't be said about our ancestors, at most we have their remains. At least as far back as we have found writing they were speaking modern languages. But what about 35,000 years ago? The consensus is that our ancestors had extensive use of language and were positively chatty. Did they have modern languages as well? Probably, but not certainly. The Neandertals had language as well, but it isn't accepted that they spoke as well as we do here at D&D.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Speculation.
Yes of course. Cro-Magnons were the folkloric part of my argument, the point being the relation between concept accuracy and the infinite diversity of reality that surround us, as a problem for language.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
However was my point lost because we have different conceptualizations of the same word? If I said “I cut down that old tree.”. You may not fully understand what I did but you got the jest of it. After all I didn’t paint a very vivid picture.
Consider your “I cut down that old tree.” at three different types of language: written, spoken and cinematographic.
In a book, each one of us has the liberty to imagine his own "old tree". The important thing it's knowing that you have cut down some tree and by using "old tree" maybe you had a special relationship with that tree that makes you being sad or sorry for cutting it.
In a conversation, I could ask what kind of tree? an oak?. Since it's an interactive communication we can restraint a broader sense until a very specific meaning. That's why the importance of a good learning of the native language so people can communicate. And this is not happening, at least in my country. Younger people have a very restrained vocabulary besides they don't know how to use the grammatical rules that allows to articulate more complex concepts.
In a movie, there's no discussion at all. It's exactly that "old tree" that we are seeing being cut off. At cinema language we just can interpret what it's not there or deliberated ambiguous situations. Witch is another part of language complexity, fulfilling what it's not said.
Different kind of languages approaches the conceptualization of the world at different ways. And considering only verbal languages, translation problems rises between to different languages. Traduttore, traditore.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by jax:
It isn't so easy to determine when modern language appeared, was it 20 years ago or 20 million? What is a modern language?
Generally speaking most things along the lines of Modern Dutch, Modern English are considered to be such from about the 17th century. I guess it's mostly a somewhat arbitrary measure of intelligibility.
Do you require effective communication to express your message? Yes. Does this affect your culture? Yes. If I say to you "Eta doma?", I am clearly communicating. If you do not understand my communication, as it was meant to be received, then communication does not take place. 26 characters, or 21, or 20, or 900+ are tools of effective communication, as is art, music, and countless other communicative forms. Without, however the ability to write, read, and speak accurately the language of your various cultures and cultural infleunces, communication is not effective. Latency (especially for mis-interpretation or misunderstanding) increases organically. You suffer. Your communication suffers. Your culture suffers. Fluency is not mastery, but it's a great first goal. It is, in my view, an obligation of any member of a culture to learn any/all languages of their culture(s) as a matter of cultural citizenship. History continues, our contributions are immortalized, and the world is a better place.
It used to be (but is not so much now, I believe) a matter of self-respect to speak, read and write the native language very well. New cultures require the same obligation. If you cannot, or will not be a contributing member of the culture, (in blunt terms) of what benefit to that culture are you?
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Originally posted by jax:
It isn't so easy to determine when modern language appeared, was it 20 years ago or 20 million? What is a modern language?
Generally speaking most things along the lines of Modern Dutch, Modern English are considered to be such from about the 17th century. I guess it's mostly a somewhat arbitrary measure of intelligibility.
By that standard modern icelandic probably appeared in the 14th or 15th century or so
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Words are added as a language develops when new ideas come to the fore, so that a modern human can discuss/write about microscopic viruses, a concept unknown not so very long ago and undiscussed then due to lack of knowledge which equates with the lack of words because the two go hand in hand.
Of course in everyday life we don't talk about such obscure things, or do we? We talk about cell phones, Mbs, hybrid propulsion and so on and also, and this is getting to the point, we talk about nuances or profligate or synergism or rhetorical etc, all words which extend beyond the basic language of "getting by" but which add to the richness of our iterations with fellow human beings.
For better or worse, the English language, with its explosion in words, its richness in words, has by default become a powerful communication tool. Contrast this with Text Speak which limits its user to a very minor subset of concepts and lingual colour and diminishes that user's communication possibilities.
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
Originally posted by jax:
At least as far back as we have found writing they were speaking modern languages. But what about 35,000 years ago? The consensus is that our ancestors had extensive use of language and were positively chatty. Did they have modern languages as well? Probably, but not certainly. The Neandertals had language as well, but it isn't accepted that they spoke as well as we do here at D&D.
Well, I think that, at that time or sooner, probably humans only used sounds to emphasize attitudes or emotions just as monkeys still do. Before writing appears, some 10.000 years ago we had agriculture. It's not credible that at the beginning of agriculture human beings didn't have languages as the actual ones.
This means that the development of language should have happened along with group hunting and the increasingly complex social structures.
It was about modulating sounds in a way that progressively those initial sounds gained more and more informational content.
It was not a night-to-day process for sure.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by string:
Words are added as a language develops when new ideas come to the fore, so that a modern human can discuss/write about microscopic viruses, a concept unknown not so very long ago and undiscussed then due to lack of knowledge which equates with the lack of words because the two go hand in hand.
Yet the irony is that many of those words are borrowed from ancient languages. Thinks like 'microscopic', 'virus' etc.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Generally speaking most things along the lines of Modern Dutch, Modern English are considered to be such from about the 17th century. I guess it's mostly a somewhat arbitrary measure of intelligibility.
By modern language I mean one using arbitrary and interchangeable syllables, grammar, and all those other adornments beloved by linguists. In other words something over-engineered for the purpose of communication.
Originally posted by jax:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Generally speaking most things along the lines of Modern Dutch, Modern English are considered to be such from about the 17th century. I guess it's mostly a somewhat arbitrary measure of intelligibility.
By modern language I mean one using arbitrary and interchangeable syllables, grammar, and all those other adornments beloved by linguists. In other words something over-engineered for the purpose of communication.
Oh, things like Sanskrit? Or even Proto-Indo-European?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Macallan:
Don't take it too broad.Originally posted by Frenzie:
Originally posted by jax:
It isn't so easy to determine when modern language appeared, was it 20 years ago or 20 million? What is a modern language?
Generally speaking most things along the lines of Modern Dutch, Modern English are considered to be such from about the 17th century. I guess it's mostly a somewhat arbitrary measure of intelligibility.
By that standard modern icelandic probably appeared in the 14th or 15th century or so
I suppose syntax might be an important part of it. Vocabulary changes all the time, but syntax changes much slower. Still, 17th century Dutch is quite different there as well. But we do call it EARLY Modern Dutch.
Originally posted by jax:
Sanskrit and PIE are no different from German or Glaswegian.
Exactly
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
5. June 2010, 04:33:30 (edited)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
by using "old tree" maybe you had a special relationship with that tree that makes you being sad or sorry for cutting it.
True, but that’s what I was really getting at. If I had called it an “old tree” to my friend across town he would of know I had no real attachment to it. I would of went into more detail about the tree said “that old maple” or “I had to cut” symbolizing some regret if i had any real feelings for it. But you see it from a slightly different perspective.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
In a conversation, I could ask what kind of tree? an oak?. Since it's an interactive communication we can restraint a broader sense until a very specific meaning. That's why the importance of a good learning of the native language so people can communicate. And this is not happening, at least in my country. Younger people have a very restrained vocabulary besides they don't know how to use the grammatical rules that allows to articulate more complex concepts.
My “native” form of English is different from yours, or someone from Australia, Britain or Canada. I mean I don’t ever say, lorry, bullocks, or half the stuff Rj says (lol). It even shows variances here in the US from region to region and sometimes from state to state.
Local slangs, and as you pointed out, lazy speakers, foreign influences and the quality of education are all factors in how a language develops within a region.
Originally posted by kybudman55:
If I say to you "Eta doma?", I am clearly communicating. If you do not understand my communication, as it was meant to be received, then communication does not take place.
well it's clear you tried to communicate, points for effort at least?
Originally posted by kybudman55:
It used to be (but is not so much now, I believe) a matter of self-respect to speak, read and write the native language very well. New cultures require the same obligation. If you cannot, or will not be a contributing member of the culture, (in blunt terms) of what benefit to that culture are you?
It's worst than that. Behind the concept that "breaking the rules" it's the correct "modern" attitude, people are killing an heritage that took hundred or even thousands of years to difference us from animals.
Originally posted by string:
For better or worse, the English language, with its explosion in words, its richness in words, has by default become a powerful communication tool.
I'll have to talk about that. "richness in words"?
Maybe exactly the opposite reason explains why English spreads so easily.
The reason why English become the new Esperanto it's because you accept (for other reasons) that this "kind of English" that myself, a Chinese, a Tanzanian and a Inuit speaks it's allowed by you. Because it's enough to a minimum reciprocal understanding.
Other languages, as my own, would be constantly correcting you.
"Explosion in words" it's a concept that I don't understand, are you referring to the words born with IT? French even published how that should be said, as a law. Not download, but telecharger. (They must think that language it's regulated by laws...)
Anyway, French and Spanish don't use "computer" but "ordinateur" (ordenador). A different root word. Same goes for the rest of the "new words".
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by kybudman55:
It used to be (but is not so much now, I believe) a matter of self-respect to speak, read and write the native language very well. New cultures require the same obligation. If you cannot, or will not be a contributing member of the culture, (in blunt terms) of what benefit to that culture are you?
It's worst than that. Behind the concept that "breaking the rules" it's the correct "modern" attitude, people are killing an heritage that took hundred or even thousands of years to difference us from animals.
I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that we have older TV series, older radio shows, older books, and a population capable of watching these, reading these, etc. has slowed down the development of our languages compared to a few hundred years ago.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
"Explosion in words" it's a concept that I don't understand, are you referring to the words born with IT? French even published how that should be said, as a law. Not download, but telecharger. (They must think that language it's regulated by laws...)
They eradicated all the languages and dialects in France to a horrid extent. Capital punishment for speaking languages like Dutch or Catalan? Urgh.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I agree with your points, some clarification though: I agree English allows communication at a lower level of complexity and this is one reason why it is widely used, another major reason being economic, for example the use of American English in commerce and technology and tourism etc. My previous point was more about the depth or quality of communication which is aided by a large vocabulary able to express many ideas and concepts. Hence the use of my term "richness in words" which, in my view, results in a richness in communication.Originally posted by string:
I'll have to talk about that. "richness in words"?For better or worse, the English language, with its explosion in words, its richness in words, has by default become a powerful communication tool.
Maybe exactly the opposite reason explains why English spreads so easily.
The reason why English become the new Esperanto it's because you accept (for other reasons) that this "kind of English" that myself, a Chinese, a Tanzanian and a Inuit speaks it's allowed by you. Because it's enough to a minimum reciprocal understanding.
Other languages, as my own, would be constantly correcting you.
"Explosion in words" it's a concept that I don't understand, are you referring to the words born with IT? French even published how that should be said, as a law. Not download, but telecharger. (They must think that language it's regulated by laws...)
Anyway, French and Spanish don't use "computer" but "ordinateur" (ordenador). A different root word. Same goes for the rest of the "new words".
Regarding the influx of other words, this has been the norm in Britain over the centuries because of the influx of immigrants and commerce. As a whole I would say we are less sensitive to the use and adoption of foreign words than others may be.That's not to say we don't enjoy poking fun at "Americanisms".
I worked for over 30 years in a European International Organisation (esa) where there was a huge mixture of different nationalities, most from Europe but also many other countries. Each person had their own way of speaking English which took a little time to fathom, but after some time all that merged into a perfectly workable communication and in the end one stopped noticing such things. I would not go so far as to say we had our own patois, but there were some phrases that crept in and after a while went more or less unnoticed. My favourite one was of the type "He speaks fluently English".
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
Norwegian is claimed to be easy to understand (assuming you already have a command of English), but that hasn't made it a world language.
Indo-European languages have in fact inherited a pretty nasty grammar, but that hasn't prevented Roman (in Europe) and Persian (in Asia) conquerors to do their stuff, making Indo-European languages the most successful language group in the world, especially the way it spread from Europe with the colonial age.
However there is an escape route where many of us are gathering to avoid Armagedon:
see The DnD Sanctuary for gaming, for discussions on Browsers or anything in particular, and just Lounging about.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
It's worst than that. Behind the concept that "breaking the rules" it's the correct "modern" attitude, people are killing an heritage that took hundred or even thousands of years to difference us from animals.
If you heard some of our local slangs you’d think we had regressed to making animal sounds for communicating.
But one group of people won’t destroy the language. In the end they may inflict some change but languages are always growing… which is probably why I don’t speak the same English as someone 300 yrs ago, but I’ll look into it.
The movie shows, at an extraordinary credible way, how 80.000 years ago contact between two different evolutive level human groups must have happened. How language should have spread. A must see.
Originally posted by jax:
English is likewise widespread because of the British Empire and by the American trade and cultural influence after WWII
I don't know, I belong to the once (not so long ago) Francophile cultures. And the French ruling place as the erudite language for culture, art, and philosophy was never even menaced by British empire or Americans. Only the last 20 or 30 years "computer culture" has destroyed the French role.
Maybe that can be seen as an American action, but I don't know if it was intended.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Maybe that can be seen as an American action, but I don't know if it was intended.
Belfrager, you're on the edge of a breakdown. And I'm not responsible. It may be String, however.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Belfrager, you're on the edge of a breakdown. And I'm not responsible. It may be String, however.
Woody Allen should quote you Jaybro, not the opposite.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Belfrager, you're on the edge of a breakdown. And I'm not responsible. It may be String, however.
Woody Allen should quote you Jaybro, not the opposite.
I should have presented the entire Allen quotation:
"As Jaybro put it, 'More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.' "-Woody Allen
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627621.000-language-lessons-you-are-what-you-speak.html
If anyone is *really* interested, I may show you the whole article if you PM me.
Originally posted by parkerjm:
They have made the articles public now, so anyone can read them.New Scientist recently tackled this topic and found some interesting stuff... not sure how much of this your "non-subs" will be able to read, but here you go
No wonder why Christians have a lot of divisions. It's mis interpretations! What do you think.
Many translations of the bible.
Many people who can't read or understand English properly(not really their fault).
And i suppose other people interpret things the way they want to, possibly for their own ends.
The myth of language universals:
Language diversity and its
importance for cognitive science
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6427092&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=05&aid=6427084&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=
.........................................
It's all there in a pdf.
Originally posted by jax:
They have made the articles public now, so anyone can read them.
Ah, cool, some of them are public to read but then some of them they only give you the first page. I am not sure if it's still that way, but it used to be. Used to drive me crazy back when I had no money for mag subscriptions.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Language diversity and its
importance for cognitive science
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6427092&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=05&aid=6427084&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=
.........................................
It's all there in a pdf.
Just to say that
Linguistic diversity then becomes the crucial datum for cognitive science: we are the only species with a communication system that is fundamentally variable at all levels.
Why? that's the question. And cognitive science doesn't have any answer to that question.
The article justs tries to systematize diversity.
The answer is elsewhere and I don't see any explanation rising from science. And I must admit that the source for the answer doesn't lies on rationality.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
I went to the cinema premiere, loved it, and have it on DVD (with multiple languages for mysterious reasons). It is the most credible palaeolithic movie, better than 1,000,000 BC or Ice Age, but it has its limits. The book has little credibility, and the director doesn't seem too educated either. Apart from the aforementioned Burgess and Morris any relationship to what actually happened is thus accidental, but it is good enough to suspend disbelief, and you feel for the hapless protagonist Neandertals (which incidentally weren't Neandertals in the book).Last night I was reviewing La Guerre du Feu (Quest for fire). The movie has Anthony Burgess as creator for languages and Desmond Morris as body language and gestures creator.
The movie shows, at an extraordinary credible way, how 80.000 years ago contact between two different evolutive level human groups must have happened. How language should have spread. A must see.
10. June 2010, 04:15:05 (edited)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Why? that's the question. And cognitive science doesn't have any answer to that question.
The article justs tries to systematize diversity.
The answer is elsewhere and I don't see any explanation rising from science. And I must admit that the source for the answer doesn't lies on rationality.
Why not? would be a better question. The variances in communication (language) is something you can observe happening now. Not some mythological thing that happened in the past. I need only drive 60 miles in any direction to change what the drink in my hand is called. Here the term "coke" will get you handed any cola on hand. go 60 miles in one direction I'll be asking for a "soda" go 60 more miles it's a "pop" and in between you'll be ordering "soda pops" All variants of the original "cola". used probably in all regions at one point in time but has since diversified into regions. In fact, asking for a "pop" around here can be a bad idea.
The fact that science can't fully explain where the variances stem, hardly puts it in the realm of Irrationality. Logic can be applied here. After all go try and catalog the heritage of all the ants in your yard, if you cant find where each and every one of them came from you might wanna look into...
"Spontaneous Generation".
Originally posted by ensbb3:
I need only drive 60 miles in any direction to change what the drink in my hand is called.
'round here we have a different dialect every 10 minutes. Beat that.
10. June 2010, 11:03:14 (edited)
Originally posted by ensbb3:
The variances in communication (language) is something you can observe happening now. Not some mythological thing that happened in the past.
I'm not pretending that language diversity has some kind of metaphysic or religious source.
What I'm saying is that language diversity it's hardly a rational thing.
Consider English. A yellow line.
In my language we say a line yellow. Because we first refer to what it is, it's a line. Then, between just the severals kinds of lines, we restrain it to yellow. A line yellow.
That's how rational definition works. From general to particular.
Same goes for action, when English uses the verb before the subject. Or dates.
But as an opposite example, Portuguese has almost more exceptions than rules, we have a lot of verbs that you conjugate in an exceptional way, witch isn't a very rational thing to structuring a language.
Bosquimanes speaks using small "clicks" between words. There's any rationality on start clicking?
That's what I wanted to point out. The importance of non rational factors at language diversity. We don't have it at gesture languages.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by jimwager:
does English
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
In my language we say a line yellow. Because we first refer to what it is, it's a line. Then, between just the severals kinds of lines, we restrain it to yellow. A line yellow.
That's how rational definition works. From general to particular.
From noun to adjective is hardly the same as from general to particular. This misinterpretation cannot be due to language, but due to the assumption that all relationships anywhere and everywhere, if they exist, are direct.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
That's what I wanted to point out. The importance of non rational factors at language diversity. We don't have it at gesture languages.
Care to point out why? Is there a difference between irrational gestures and irrational sounds in your opinion?
Originally posted by jimwager:
When does English use the verb before the subject?
Often when formulating a question.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Care to point out why? Is there a difference between irrational gestures and irrational sounds in your opinion?
I think (I'm not sure, since I don't use or know that language) that gesture language for deaf people it will be less variable than their origin countries spoken language. I suppose that it should be a more universal language. Since it has a very practical component (gesture language has poetry? not translating it but creating poetry using gestures?) only logical, rational factors must be involved. Gesture language seems to me to be more "technical" and less creative.
Creativeness it's not a rational logic thing, it's much more than that.
Originally posted by ersi:
From noun to adjective is hardly the same as from general to particular.
I can see a very direct relationship regarding the use of an adjective to allow further particularization of a noun or substantive, as being a general to particular descriptive process.
Originally posted by ersi:
This misinterpretation cannot be due to language, but due to the assumption that all relationships anywhere and everywhere, if they exist, are direct.
Well, if I'm correctly understanding you, that's a much broader approach.
You are focused at cognitive process. "assumption that all relationships anywhere and everywhere, if they exist, are direct."
What I'm not understanding it's why you are trying to dissociate cognitive process from language.
It's exactly because we (humans) have much more developed cognitive skills than animals that we were able to to create so much more evolved languages.
Language it's the way to communicate our cognitive output and we can't dissociate one thing from the other.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.(poof) reasonable, fundamentally variable change.Sounds rational...idk.
I guess I have a different perspective tho. My local southern dialect is not always precise ("there ain't no" actually means "there isn't any"). Broken english is quite common too here, Indian and Mexican immigrants often conjugate backwards (to me) and i've found it more productive to answer them the same way... But that don't make one way more rational than the other. It just is what it is (See top of post).
What sounds irrational is thinking you can hold a language static. In fact this attempt is prolly why some languages get surpassed by others as the "erudite language for culture, art, and philosophy" or whatever you wanna call it.
So, that does introduce the possibility that the way we construct these ideas (i.e. different languages) may lead to different outcomes...
Originally posted by ensbb3:
But that
don'tdoesn't make
That's one of the southernisms which make me cringe inside. Very easy to pick up if you don't pay attention
Originally posted by ensbb3:
What sounds irrational is thinking you can hold a language static.
That doesn't even work with dead languages ( see church latin )
Originally posted by ensbb3:
In fact this attempt is prolly why some languages get surpassed by others as the "erudite language for culture, art, and philosophy" or whatever you wanna call it.
Well, french fell out of favour in Europe when Napoleon started to invade everyone else. German as the de facto 'language of science' ( guess why even some american universities have german mottoes ) fell out of favour thanks to the nazis etc.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
11. June 2010, 04:08:42 (edited)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by ersi:
From noun to adjective is hardly the same as from general to particular.
I can see a very direct relationship regarding the use of an adjective to allow further particularization of a noun or substantive, as being a general to particular descriptive process.
You see, it's not the adjective alone that is particular, but 'noun + adjective' which makes the unit (not only the noun) more "particular". In which order the bits in the 'noun + adjective' unit occur has nothing to do with the order from general to particular, because in the sentence they function as one single grammatical unit. Capisce?
And sign language is also about distinctions, therefore about variety. So it has the same "irrational" element according to your definition. No difference from spoken or written language. They are all sign systems. Yes, sign language can do poetry too (simply turn sound off).
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by ersi:
This misinterpretation cannot be due to language, but due to the assumption that all relationships anywhere and everywhere, if they exist, are direct.
Well, if I'm correctly understanding you, that's a much broader approach.
You are focused at cognitive process. "assumption that all relationships anywhere and everywhere, if they exist, are direct."
What I'm not understanding it's why you are trying to dissociate cognitive process from language.
It's exactly because we (humans) have much more developed cognitive skills than animals that we were able to to create so much more evolved languages.
Language it's the way to communicate our cognitive output and we can't dissociate one thing from the other.
I didn't dissociate anything. One view is broader, the other is narrower. This is not dissociation, but a matter of taxonomical levels and perspectives. As long as you can't tell the essential difference between those, you will keep misinterpreting.
Originally posted by ersi:
You see, it's not the adjective alone that is particular, but 'noun + adjective' which makes the unit (not only the noun) more "particular". In which order the bits in the 'noun + adjective' unit occur has nothing to do with the order from general to particular, because in the sentence they function as one single grammatical unit. Capisce?
After doing the general to particular process that I'm talking about you consider the result as a new unit. Of course. And then we can particularize the same "unit" again by restraining it's mean, using another adjective. A new grammatical unit inside the sentence it's born. And again.
That's the underlying logic how internal grammatical rules are build. General to particular it's the building block of language, as obvious. You can add the amount of blocks that you wish.
But one can theorize that's not the only possible way of structuring languages. And we'll be discussing something near to philosophy of language, language games theory and even quoting Wittgenstein.
I'm afraid that 'Wittgenstein + D&D' doesn't make an unit. I'll pass on that.
Originally posted by ersi:
And sign language is also about distinctions, therefore about variety. So it has the same "irrational" element according to your definition. No difference from spoken or written language. They are all sign systems. Yes, sign language can do poetry too (simply turn sound off).
That is nothing. Just an attempt of translation from spoken language to gesture language mixed with head "dance" movements.
Poetry it's a very particular use of language where words gain new and often undefinable meanings. It's possible to use gestures in that way?
I don't know, maybe experimental modern Dance can make that approach with some Dance of Silence - Gestures as Poetry.
By the way, the "irrational" element of diversity according my definition, it's called creativeness. Spoken and written languages are a so much fertile field for creativeness than gesture languages.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
I'm afraid that 'Wittgenstein + D&D' doesn't make an unit. I'll pass on that.
Now beware, this might have an influence on your way of life
Originally posted by Belfrager:
By the way, the "irrational" element of diversity according my definition, it's called creativeness. Spoken and written languages are a so much fertile field for creativeness than gesture languages.
Creativeness is nothing but arguably new combinations of what we already have. At least creativeness in language is certainly that and nothing else.
Originally posted by ersi:
Now beware, this might have an influence on your way of life
Well, I'll try to survive
Originally posted by ersi:
Creativeness is nothing but arguably new combinations of what we already have. At least creativeness in language is certainly that and nothing else.
It's enough to become a powerful driver towards diversity.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
What sounds irrational is thinking you can hold a language static. In fact this attempt is prolly why some languages get surpassed by others as the "erudite language for culture, art, and philosophy" or whatever you wanna call it.
French didn't loose his role because being static but because being an erudite language at a world where erudition isn't any longer a value.
And since language it's one of the more important identity factors that a People has, I'm not sure if language's dynamic regarding change would be a desirable thing.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
but because being an erudite language at a world where erudition isn't any longer a value.
eh, Now we are both speculating, fair enough tho. I'd argue it's just out dated in it's original context.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
And since language it's one of the more important identity factors that a People has, I'm not sure if language's dynamic regarding change would be a desirable thing.
it is what it is. My regional variances may make it hard for you to understand the scope of what saying as easily as someone here local. but in the end it's my responsibility to get you to understand me, if I hope to communicate accurately . If I choose to ignore your local lexicon cause i think it ignorant or improper, I could fail to express my thought fully or at least as efficiently. I think that would show ignorance on my part.
However you'd probably be surprised how little this really concerns me... Understanding can be achieved by having the willingness to do so.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
it is what it is. My regional variances may make it hard for you to understand the scope of what saying as easily as someone here local. but in the end it's my responsibility to get you to understand me, if I hope to communicate accurately . If I choose to ignore your local lexicon cause i think it ignorant or improper, I could fail to express my thought fully or at least as efficiently. I think that would show ignorance on my part.
Aren't you talking just about courtesy?
Courtesy is a duty of civilized people and being a momentary change to our language, it doesn't makes any difference at all.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
However you'd probably be surprised how little this really concerns me... Understanding can be achieved by having the willingness to do so.
The problem are the definitive changes.
Imagine a Law in your country that will forbidden your regional variance. How little that would really concern you?
And I'm not exaggerating with that scenario. We are facing it right now, at my country.
Government wants to do an Orthographic Agreement that will force us to write the same way as Brazil and others countries that speaks Portuguese. Good business for editors, reaching a 250 million people market with just one edition.
And we refuse it. We write the way we write (or speak, for this matter). It's non negotiable.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
The problem are the definitive changes.
Imagine a Law in your country that will forbidden your regional variance. How little that would really concern you?
It's unconstitutional....trying to pass that law would cause more problems than it could ever hope to solve here. Again, it's all about perception. My state is hardly the most populated and it still has a larger population than Portugal. Making the US southern variance, spoke though out the south, a greater cultural significance than your whole language. But, In the case of an insignificant language, in a country on decline for the last few hundred years, people may believe it is possible or even necessary to take such steps to preserve their culture. Originally posted by Belfrager:
Aren't you talking just about courtesy?
and no...I'm not.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
We write the way we write (or speak, for this matter). It's non negotiable.
And it's totally ignorant of what language is all about.
It's good to hear that not all nut-cases were born here.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
It's unconstitutional....
Ohhh constitution that paper wrote by demiurgic gods that will be law until the end of times.. You'll have a lot of surprises during your life.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
But, In the case of an insignificant language, in a country on decline for the last few hundred years, people may believe it is possible or even necessary to take such steps to preserve their culture.
Yes, an insignificant language that civilized the world. I'm too much appreciating the way the language that is not even yours, is doing it.
Regarding the decline, we are all amused with the little show we can see everyday coming from the "New Brave World".
Originally posted by ensbb3:
and no...I'm not.
I know, the courtesy has been all on my side.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
And it's totally ignorant of what language is all about.
It's good to hear that not all nut-cases were born here.
Yes, there are many versions of ignorants. And nut-cases. Isn't diversity such a wonderful thing?
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
I'm too much appreciating the way the language that is not even yours, is doing it.
Regarding the decline, we are all amused with the little show we can see everyday coming from the "New Brave World".
did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry we don't discuss the relevance of the Portuguese language in greater world culture more often here in D&D. I'd open a topic on it... but I waist enough time.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Imagine a Law in your country that will forbidden your regional variance. How little that would really concern you?
don't take my word for it... Ask ANY American. That you would give up your liberties so easily maybe says something...
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I know, the courtesy has been all on my side.
You want points for courtesy? take 'em... That doesn't make up for narrow or bias points of view.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Yes, an insignificant language that civilized the world.
you are funny tho.Originally posted by jimwager:
When does English use the verb before the subject? Would you give me an example please?
With questions, as someone already pointed out.
It's also pretty common to invert the subject and verb and omit 'if' to create a conditional sentence. Although technically you're putting the auxiliary verb before the subject, not the main verb, in the example below.
"Had I known the consequences prior to pushing the button, I would have left it well alone."
Using the verb 'To Be' in the Second Conditional though, you are putting the main verb before the subject.
"Were you to buy that car, you wouldn't be a satisfied customer".
Originally posted by ensbb3:
did I hurt your feelings?
No, not at all. It just happens that coins usually have two faces.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
I'm sorry we don't discuss the relevance of the Portuguese language in greater world culture more often here in D&D. I'd open a topic on it... but
I waist enough time.
Please, don't waist your time on that. Instead, allow me to suggest you to spent some quality time reading Portuguese Language. It's good to fall in sleep.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
don't take my word for it... Ask ANY American. That you would give up your liberties so easily maybe says something...
Liberties...
Originally posted by ensbb3:
you are funny tho.
Yes, sometimes.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Please, don't waist your time on that. Instead, allow me to suggest you to spent some quality time reading Portuguese Language. It's good to fall in sleep.
yeah that does have a high snore factor.
I do apologize for being so brash, but I got that Portugal has been on the decline from wiki too. Then again... It is wiki.
This really just makes my point on perspective anyway.
I'm proud of this language "that isn't even mine" and my English heritage. Though I'm sure most British would just scorn me for it. Does that mean I have no right to be? Either way it gives me a different perspective on the significance of Portuguese influence.
And yes, I do consider it a liberty to say pretty much whatever I want, and how want. You asked me to imagine something... I did, from an "American" persecutive. So if you wanna have a "Burn the self righteous yank" session... go ahead, I can take it. But that piece of paper does mean something to me. You can only push the people of THIS country so far before they say, enough. At some point the right to bare arms becomes the right to use 'em... and that's constitutional too.
If ya want a page turner tho, check out some American history. I'm not gonna say it's all right. (and skip over the fact Andrew Jackson is from Tennessee) but it'll keep ya up.
Originally posted by jimwager:
Hey, welcome by D&D again.When does English use the verb before the subject? Would you give me an example please?
14. June 2010, 20:53:07 (edited)
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Imagine a Law in your country that will forbidden your regional variance. How little that would really concern you?
don't take my word for it... Ask ANY American.
The southerners would have to learn english - not going to happen
Originally posted by ensbb3:
That you would give up your liberties so easily maybe says something...
Let him speak church latin.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I know, the courtesy has been all on my side.
Since when does the validity of an argument have anything to do with the delivery? If someone whines about that you can bet your arse they're running out of support and know it.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Yes, an insignificant language that civilized the world.
He's obviously talking about Scots. Just ask rjhowie
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by ensbb3:
If ya want a page turner tho, check out some American history. I'm not gonna say it's all right. (and skip over the fact Andrew Jackson is from Tennessee) but it'll keep ya up.
Andrew 'ethnic cleansing' Jackson?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Belfrager:
It just happens that coins usually have two faces.
Obverse and reverse. I, on the other hand, am two-faced.
There is this, however.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
But yes the good old US of A is a melting pot of cultures. prolly why I've been advocating that the variances in language formed by any influence is a necessary part of growth in any language.
Yaw come back now, ya hear...Originally posted by ensbb3:
Originally posted by Macallan:
At least in this end of the state they're obsessed with the other Andrew
Wasn't he impeached?
Cleared tho, i believe...
It's kind of schizophrenic around here - plenty people around who not only didn't notice that the civil war is over but also never figured out that this part of the state voted to secede from the confederacy and re-join the union. And that Johnson abolished slavery as governor and ended up as Lincoln's VP
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
I think if not the first we were one of the first back in after reconstruction.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
I think if not the first we were one of the first back in after reconstruction.
TN was the first state to re-join the union and was never put under military rule during reconstruction.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Interestingly an early Tennessean (I forget his name. Seveir or something maybe) tried to create his own state, "The State of Franklin" and failed. But that lead to policies that insured other states would be able to join the union and help establish the fundamentals of states rights... I guess now I should argue how TN civilized the union?
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Interestingly an early Tennessean (I forget his name. Seveir or something maybe) tried to create his own state, "The State of Franklin" and failed.
Yeah, Sevierville is nearby and there's a lot of State-of-Franklin stuff around too.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
16. June 2010, 21:00:37 (edited)
Originally posted by ensbb3:
I think if not the first we were one of the first back in after reconstruction.
Indeed, TN did the most arse-kissing after the War of Yankee Aggression.
Originally posted by Macallan:
TN was the first state to re-join the union and was never put under military rule during reconstruction.
Yup, the Yanks flushed TN down the proverbial toilet without much fight from them at all.
Perhaps that's why the University of TN is called the "Volunteers"? They volunteered to not fight?
(Yeah, yeah, I know that's not the real reason ensbb3.
)Edit: Well, at least we can count on some Tennesseans to provide entertainment:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Yup, the Yanks flushed TN down the proverbial toilet without much fight from them at all.
Perhaps that's why the University of TN is called the "Volunteers"? They volunteered to not fight?
(Yeah, yeah, I know that's not the real reason ensbb3.
just saying...
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Yup, the Yanks flushed TN down the proverbial toilet without much fight from them at all.
Perhaps that's why the University of TN is called the "Volunteers"? They volunteered to not fight?
(Yeah, yeah, I know that's not the real reason ensbb3.
just saying...
Indeed, but in Vicksburg, Confederate soldiers and civilians nearly starved (some did actually) before they surrendered.
What's more, look at what the arch-hypocrite Lincoln said of Vicksburg, MS:
http://americancivilwar.com/vicks.html
"Vicksburg is the key. The war can never be brought to a close until the key is in our pocket." - Abraham Lincoln
Also, today's tid-bit for the day is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vicksburg#Legacy
"Tradition holds that the Fourth of July holiday was not celebrated by Vicksburg until World War II, because of the surrender of the city on July 4."
(Even I didn't know that until very recently.
)http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
But alas, dawg you are more rebel than I. Long live the dead Confederacy!
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Indeed, Lets not forget shiloh, a bloody mess that slowed union progress. We lost memphis, our link to the mississippi river. However we took it back a year or so later.
Good point.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Long live the dead Confederacy!
Nah, let's just never forget that they stood up to Imperialism.It's a pity that the Feds didn't heed what President Ike said in his farewell address.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." -President Ike Eisenhower
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
I think I may be right in saying the the CSA government had a problem in that some States would not supply troops to be part of the Confederate army trying to stop the rampant tyrannical Yanks? If so then shame on them.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
I think I may be right in saying the the CSA government had a problem in that some States would not supply troops to be part of the Confederate army trying to stop the rampant tyrannical Yanks? If so then shame on them.
not sure on this. TNs early grievance with the union was they wanted us to send our whole army to them as a sign of loyalty leaving the state defenseless. Later some gripes about the CSA not sending us reinforcements arose when we were on the front lines and protecting the heart of the south, instead choosing to fortify coastal and port cities that hardy saw action. After nashville fell many Tennesseans shifted loyalties thinking the CSA had abandoned us as our capital fell. Never the less the Volunteer state still was able to raise a large enough army to retake cities an engage the yank meaningfully.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Care to point out why? Is there a difference between irrational gestures and irrational sounds in your opinion?
I think (I'm not sure, since I don't use or know that language) that gesture language for deaf people it will be less variable than their origin countries spoken language. I suppose that it should be a more universal language. Since it has a very practical component (gesture language has poetry? not translating it but creating poetry using gestures?) only logical, rational factors must be involved. Gesture language seems to me to be more "technical" and less creative.
Creativeness it's not a rational logic thing, it's much more than that.
That's not really the way the word creative is used linguistically. Regardless, yours seems mostly an argument from ignorance. It's not hard to find some resources indicating that sign languages have poets too. Whether you could really translate it into regular written or spoken speech is a different question altogether; it might be vaguely like translating from a Sino-Tibetan language to an Indo-European language, I suppose.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
That's not really the way the word creative is used linguistically. Regardless, yours seems mostly an argument from ignorance.
cre·a·tive (kr-tv)
adj.
1. Having the ability or power to create: Human beings are creative animals.
2. Productive; creating.
3. Characterized by originality and expressiveness; imaginative: creative writing.
Exactly the way I used it. Linguistically you use words with the meaning they have, as obvious.
Let's see the rest of my ignorance following your link.
ASL poetry. Fine. What does it means? American Sign Language poetry.
Now we even have American sign language. Americans do such a different gestures than the rest of the world that they have created an own sign language able to create "poetry".
Ridiculous.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Allowing the deaf to express themselves culturally is... Ridiculous?
this from such a civilized worldly citizen as yourself. wow.
ig·no·rance \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\, noun : the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness
Originally posted by Belfrager:
cre·a·tive (kr-tv)
adj.
1. Having the ability or power to create: Human beings are creative animals.
2. Productive; creating.
3. Characterized by originality and expressiveness; imaginative: creative writing.
Exactly the way I used it. Linguistically you use words with the meaning they have, as obvious.
Linguistically it means something more along the lines that humans can essentially make endless combinations of words and in a related manner also that we use language for things without functional purpose and to talk about things that can be far away or non-existent. Unless you associate poetry exclusively with rhyming sounds and spoken rhythm or some such there is no reason to assume that sign language is incapable of creating outlets like poetry. Sign language has all the attributes I just talked about and all the rest (like using language for its own aesthetic value) automatically follows. It's not like we're talking about some species where we aren't entirely sure about the limits of their capabilities (like bonobos), but we're talking about human beings just like you and me.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Let's see the rest of my ignorance following your link.
ASL poetry. Fine. What does it means? American Sign Language poetry.
Now we even have American sign language. Americans do such a different gestures than the rest of the world that they have created an own sign language able to create "poetry".
Ridiculous.
How you managed to obtain that from it is beyond me. You seem to be repeating some kind of pre-1960s misconceptions about sign language (i.e. that they were made up by regular people so that deaf people can communicate a little or some such) and unwilling to end your ignorance about the matter. There's nothing wrong with ignorance and I'm mostly ignorant about sign language myself [1], but I do think there's something wrong with making bogus claims from ignorance.
[1] My wife speaks ASL a fair bit and says it's also been very useful for her to teach it to toddlers who cannot quite use their mouth properly yet so they can communicate better.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
doing something in a different way doesn't mack it less relevant.
Au contraire, doing something in a different way doesn't necessarily make it more relevant.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
Allowing the deaf to express themselves culturally is... Ridiculous?
Never suggested that. C'mon ensbb3 you're arguing against your own imagination.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Unless you associate poetry exclusively with rhyming sounds and spoken rhythm or some such there is no reason to assume that sign language is incapable of creating outlets like poetry. Sign language has all the attributes I just talked about and all the rest (like using language for its own aesthetic value) automatically follows.
As I said, maybe some experimental work at the modern dance/expression area can be able to create something near "gesture poetry".
Poetry it's made form several things but an essential one would be how we can alter, transform and create new relationships between signified and signifier.
The day I see that happen with gesture language I'll gladly accept your theory, but not until then.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
You seem to be repeating some kind of pre-1960s misconceptions about sign language (i.e. that they were made up by regular people so that deaf people can communicate a little or some such) and unwilling to end your ignorance about the matter.
At the other hand I've no doubt that you are repeating the actual "positive discrimination" theories about minorities.
Sign language allows deaf people to communicate so much better than if they don't have it but pretending that it excels regular language it's false.
Good intentions can't support false theories.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
As I said, maybe some experimental work at the modern dance/expression area can be able to create something near "gesture poetry".
Poetry it's made form several things but an essential one would be how we can alter, transform and create new relationships between signified and signifier.
The day I see that happen with gesture language I'll gladly accept your theory, but not until then.
How does one do this? Do apostrophes, metonyms, metaphors, and other tropes come into play there or is there more than that? If so, what? It sounds to me like you're defining something that you think sign language doesn't have as being poetry, which probably goes against established definitions of poetry regardless of whether or not sign language actually has whatever capability this would be.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
At the other hand I've no doubt that you are repeating the actual "positive discrimination" theories about minorities.
Sign language allows deaf people to communicate so much better than if they don't have it but pretending that it excels regular language it's false.
Good intentions can't support false theories.
When did I ever say it's better? While hunting (or in other situations where silence is preferred or hearing might be impaired by noise or some such), obviously gestures are better, whereas while communicating in the dark (or while not in direct visual contact, etc.), speech is of course better. Otherwise, they're more or less equivalent for practical purposes; faster in some circumstances and slower in others.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
How does one do this? Do apostrophes, metonyms, metaphors, and other tropes come into play there or is there more than that? If so, what?
Yes, absolutely.
Poetry often uses particular forms and conventions to suggest alternative meanings in the words, or to evoke emotional or sensual responses. Devices such as assonance, alliteration, onomatopoeia, and rhythm are sometimes used to achieve musical or incantatory effects. The use of ambiguity, symbolism, irony, and other stylistic elements of poetic diction often leaves a poem open to multiple interpretations. Similarly, metaphor, simile, and metonymy[4] create a resonance between otherwise disparate images—a layering of meanings, forming connections previously not perceived. Kindred forms of resonance may exist, between individual verses, in their patterns of rhyme or rhythm.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
It sounds to me like you're defining something that you think sign language doesn't have as being poetry,
Basically I'm talking about possibilities. And defending that regular language it's the one who permits a bigger variety and extent of possibilities.
And trying to show that this not a matter of opinion but a fact.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Otherwise, they're more or less equivalent for practical purposes;
But we are not talking about practical purposes (witch also both languages are not equivalent) but a particularly elaborated one.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Now we even have American sign language. Americans do such a different gestures than the rest of the world that they have created an own sign language able to create "poetry".
Ridiculous.
Damn that imagination of mine. I'm still imagining the word ridiculous is in that statement.
I'll tell you what is ridiculous... Wild speculation based on what you read on wiki.
My cousin happens to be deaf so I have some experience with american signs and have looked into others out of curiosity. Your Ignorance on this subject is starting to show, so you might wanna try changing subjects again.
Differences between gestures really isn't too much different from the differences between words in separate languages. If you don't know the gesture for a concept or word... just spell it out. works for my cousin all the time when I can't recognize his expression.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Basically I'm talking about possibilities. And defending that regular language it's the one who permits a bigger variety and extent of possibilities.
First you deny that you're talking about sound-specific things such as rhythm and rhyme, yet "Devices such as assonance, alliteration, onomatopoeia, and rhythm" are the only ones that are clearly unique to spoken language. You must consider these requirements for poetry rather than devices that may or may not be used, otherwise I'm afraid that your argument doesn't seem to make sense. And whether spoken language allows for more variety of poetry or not is quite different from whether sign language can be used to create and share poetry or not. There are certainly more devices available to those who aren't deaf, if only because we can include both visuals and sound into the mix.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
But we are not talking about practical purposes (witch also both languages are not equivalent) but a particularly elaborated one.
Feel free to replace practical purposes with whichever phrasing does include poetry for you. "Almost all intents and purposes" or some such could convey that meaning better, I suppose.
Anyhow, you seem to have switched from your previous standpoint (sign languages can't have poetry) to a far more defendable one (sign languages have less means available to aid in the creation of poetry).
This has peaked my interest and i'm supposed to visit my cousin tomorrow... I'll ask 'em.
I'll admit to some ignorance as he has to spell out some of the complicated thoughts to me. The basics of small talk and communicating intent seems natural to me. but he was born deaf and i've made it a point to be able to communicate with him on some level at least.
Once on a time God said:
"Sing, little fellow, sing
A sweet tune for that girl there
On the lawn.
She is watching, she is waiting,
She is listening, listening, listening."
The bird sang.
At the end God said:
"That was a good song. My choir
Back home was listening in,
And I think that We
Shall have better music from now on.
That girl there
Couldn't hear you,
But she is satisfied too."
.........................................
The poem was written by a deaf person. The quotation at the opening if from Keats.
.........................................
More to the point, though, is the following:
Keeping time, time, time, 100
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the throbbing of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells—
To the sobbing of the bells;
Keeping time, time, time, 105
As he knells, knells, knells,
In a happy Runic rhyme,
To the rolling of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells:
To the tolling of the bells, 110
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells—
To the moaning and the groaning of the bells.
.........................................
What would a profoundly deaf person -deaf from birth- make of that?
Even if I speak the lines soundlessly within my mind, I can "hear" the cadences. Could our deaf person do likewise? I doubt it. Something has to be missing, as you suggest.
On the other hand, one need not be deaf to be missing of whatever mix is needed to appreciate poetry, let along write it.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
I'll admit to some ignorance as he has to spell out some of the complicated thoughts to me. The basics of small talk and communicating intent seems natural to me. but he was born deaf and i've made it a point to be able to communicate with him on some level at least.
I posted the above before I read what you wrote. Your cousin's response should be helpful.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
I posted the above before I read what you wrote. Your cousin's response should be helpful.
I think so too, I regret that I haven't put in the time to be more fluent. It's preventing me from really knowing him in a way. I haven't really ever tried to discuss these kind of issues. I'm eager to ask him for sure! may have to get my uncle to translate for this one tho.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
What would a profoundly deaf person -deaf from birth- make of that?
Even if I speak the lines soundlessly within my mind, I can "hear" the cadences. Could our deaf person do likewise? I doubt it. Something has to be missing, as you suggest.
On the other hand, one need not be deaf to be missing of whatever mix is needed to appreciate poetry, let along write it.
Of course I agree - however, we'd equally be missing the subtleties of deaf poetry, with gestures resembling other gestures, or the "rhythm" of gesturing, etc. To claim that these are absolutely required for poetry and that they can't be replaced by other things unavailable to spoken language (remember, gestures are 3D, that might open up awesome possibilities of insinuation and such) or that things can't be poetry without it would a) be excluding things we do indeed refer to as poetry and b) seems mostly intent on proclaiming spoken language and its written form as superior to any potential alternatives for no particular reason other than to proclaim it superior.
Humans are creative with language. An inability to hear and speak isn't going to stop that.