Language arts (Spun-off)

[Nick Theodorakis]

This thread has been brought to you by The Partnership (http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2005/02/19/scripts/english.shtml) of English (http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2005/01/15/scripts/poem.shtml) Majors (http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2006/11/25/scripts/english.shtml).

Nick

[A.DIM]

Woe be gone!

[Nick Theodorakis]

BAUT forum: Where all the posts are above average.

Nick

[R.A.F.]

Completely off topic...Paul, I just noticed that you have Shawn the Sheep as your avatar picture...

I love that show.


edited to add an on topic comment...I think that most people here add their own distingtive expertise to the board. (Well, excepting Jay, who knows quite a bit about everything all by himself. :)) Together we become more than our individual "parts".

[Moose]

[cough, spurt, errr] The majority does have ... ;)

Sorry, kleindoofy. It depends entirely on the context. The majority rules as a group, but the majority have degrees as individuals. Gillian has it right.

[Fazor]

Gillian has it right.

Those are about the least shocking words I have ever read.

[kleindoofy]

Sorry, kleindoofy. It depends entirely on the context. ...
Shucks.

I got caught in my bilingual double-think translation matrix once again.

In my other language it's formally wrong, but many use it anyway.

But fear not, I'll get her yet! ;)

[Perikles]

talk louder
Which reminds me, with no personal dig intended, does this count as an adverb where you are? It doesn't sound right to me for UK English. Gillianren?

[Paul Beardsley]

Technically it should be "talk more loudly" but I doubt many people would quibble about it.

[Perikles]

Technically it should be "talk more loudly" but I doubt many people would quibble about it.There's the rub - is this correctness of grammar or just a quibble? Comparative adverbs can be tricky.

[Fazor]

Or it could be just a lazy shortening of the phrase 'talk more loudly [than you were to begin with]!' See, not only am I right, I'm loudly right!

Eta: Dang. I typed that all in caps but the board fixed it. Great feature that I didn't know we had, since I don't oft type in all caps.

[Gillianren]

There's the rub - is this correctness of grammar or just a quibble? Comparative adverbs can be tricky.

Why do these things always come up while I'm asleep, or spending my evening with my boyfriend instead of you guys?

"More loudly" is probably more correct. (I say this after much thought.) On the other hand, I think "louder" is also correct. I think it's correct because of lingual drift, and I think "more loudly" is probably on its way out. In this, I am on the side of lingual drift.

[korjik]

Apparently we have to be English experts, or the thread will get derailed

:)

[Celestial Mechanic]

Apparently we have to be English experts, or the thread will get derailed. :)
:clap:

[Paul Beardsley]

Apparently we have to be English experts, or the thread will get derailed

:)

engli'sh compitant's wood bee nice...

;)

[Arneb]

That would be "nigh's", not nice, please.

[pzkpfw]

Who aksed you?

[captain swoop]

Grammer flaames annoy me no end. I think that a lot of the time they are no better than thread hijack jhust like this one. How many poosts about an obscure bit of grammer that no one gives a flying one about?

[Nick Theodorakis]

Irregardless, I could care less. Hopefully, you won't be literally climbing the walls over there misteaks and will lay down for a rest before its to much of a problem.

Errors deliberately introduced to annoy Gillian.

Nick

[HenrikOlsen]

How many poosts about an obscure bit of grammer that no one gives a flying one about?
So far I haven't actually seen one on this board.

You might be more right if you replaced "no one" with "very few".

[Paul Beardsley]

It's about communication.

[Gillianren]

I like to think that there's a difference between a correction and a flame. (And this applies in more than just English, to haul things back to the original topic!) It is possible to correct someone in a way that is very rude indeed. When I see that happen, I duly use the little red triangle. However, I do believe that a correction in any subject can also be a gentle admonishment. "Here, you got this wrong. This is the right way." I expect corrections when I'm wrong in history, science, or any other field. I've even stood corrections in grammar, though more often than not, the person correcting me is wrong and I am right. (And, when people are right, can I just say that it doesn't take eight people telling me so for me to notice?) That's true of several people around here in their relative fields. I've often admired the dignity with which some people offer corrections--and with which others receive them.

[Perikles]

Grammer flaames annoy me no end. I think that a lot of the time they are no better than thread hijack jhust like this one. How many poosts about an obscure bit of grammer that no one gives a flying one about?My post about comparative adverbs was in fact a genuine question, hardly in the category of flamer. I for one do not think that the correctness of a part of speech can be construed as "an obscure bit of grammer that no one gives a flying one about". This question was about differences between types of English, specifically the American use (or not) of adverbs, which I find quite interesting. It takes all sorts. :)

[astromark]

It takes all sorts :)yep...sigh...
I have noticed that some over zealous indervidualls would have us sitting in the corner for not doing all the maths right or spelling foolishly and genraly being 'challenging' with our use of the language tools we use. I would be beter understood if I could be understood... yes I agree with myself about that. Pitty, I enjoy a good discussion.
I am often wrong. Being corected is just fine. If it helps in the understanding we win.

[JohnL]

Personally, I find that being over-pedantic doesn't help to make a forum accessible, especially when we're dealing with people for who English is not their first language. An example of being over-pedantic might be, say, having a long string of posts debating the finer points of grammar.

And this is in a thread asking about the forum's accessibility... I love the smell of irony in the early afternoon...

(How long before someone tells me I should have used "whom"?)

[Paul Beardsley]

(How long before someone tells me I should have used "whom"?)
I noticed it, but decided not to comment because it wasn't blocking understanding.

This "pedantic flamer" thing seems to be a recurring accusation without basis, and I am getting sick of it.

In point of fact, there is one regular poster I can think of whose grammar is so poor that I genuinely struggle to make head or tails what he is saying - often reading the post two or three times to get what I think is the gist. I have never commented because I cannot think of a way of doing so constructively.

[JohnL]

This "pedantic flamer" thing seems to be a recurring accusation without basis, and I am getting sick of it.

Well, look at the last page and a half in this thread. Sorry, but there's the basis right there. You can tell me that BAUT is not the only forum on the web with the problem (because it most certainly is not the only one) but don't try to tell me that it doesn't have the problem.

In point of fact, there is one regular poster I can think of whose grammar is so poor that I genuinely struggle to make head or tails what he is saying - often reading the post two or three times to get what I think is the gist. I have never commented because I cannot think of a way of doing so constructively.

Then you, sir, are a rarity, and I applaud your patience. If only everyone took the same view.

[Moose]

Well, look at the last page and a half in this thread.

If you're calling the last page and a half "pedantic flaming", I suggest you're making a serious mischaracterization of the discussion that took place. Nobody was flaming anybody.

And the use of correct grammar is no more pedantic than the use of correct math. Both are about accurate and clear communication. If your grammar is junk, you will not be able to communicate clearly and accurately whether or not your math is any good.

Granted, you may have had little interest in such discussions, but hey, there are at least four entire BAUT forums filled with topics that won't interest me at all. And I have to moderate there all the same. I cope.

[R.A.F.]

...don't try to tell me that it doesn't have the problem.

It doesn't have the problem... :)

If this bothers you so, then may I suggest using the red triangle found in the upper right corner to report the "offending" post.

[JohnL]

Meh, perhaps I was unclear - it's a web forum. All web forums have an element of grammar pedantic-ness (correct that if you want...), whatever the reason.

It doesn't make my blood boil or anything, it just seems ironic to me that a thread that is about the accessibility of the forum is more than half full of people picking apart each others' grammar and spelling. And on top of that, someone is telling me that it doesn't happen on this forum at all while I am observing it in the very same thread!

Flaming, maybe not, but over-pedantic, yes. Evidence worthy of consideration? Certainly. Red-triangle-worthy...? Maybe - probably not in this case. If I used the red triangle, what would the moderators do?

Ridiculously ironic bordering on the comedic? Abso-flippin'-lutely.

Edit: @RAF: Apologies I missed the smiley - I realise now that you weren't being entirely serious :S . And @Moose: The correctness of someone's grammar is only relevant as far as it hampers communication, and it's even debateable (and debated) half the time. Math isn't.

[R.A.F.]

If I used the red triangle, what would the moderators do?

They would decide if your "complaint" warrented action, then act upon it.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Meh, perhaps I was unclear - it's a web forum. All web forums have an element of grammar pedantic-ness (correct that if you want...), whatever the reason. [Snip!]
The word you are looking for is "pedantry".

[DonM435]

Grammer flaames annoy me no end
. ...

Hey, youse guys leave my Grandma outta this!


When I was a graduate assistant (in biology) at a university, I gave a test with essay questions to the students assigned me. "How would you conduct a genetics experiment crossing this type of fruit fly with this one to demonstrate dominant and recessive genes . . . ," that kind of thing.

I was appalled at the stuff that I had to read, if indeed I could read it at all. Never mind spelling and grammar: many of these kids couldn't put down one coherent sentence with a noun and a verb and things like that. These were college juniors and seniors, mind you, and they couldn't express the idea that you take some bugs from this bottle and put them in that one.

After this incident, I used objective test questions forevermore I also became determined to stick to technical fields in teaching, and have managed to do so.

[R.A.F.]

I realise now that you weren't being entirely serious.

Not entirely...

[ineluki]

However, in order to come to a rather scientific board with a claim that goes contrary to what mainstream theories claim, I think it is reasonable to at least ask whether there is some mathematical basis for the claims that are being made (math being the language of physics).


That probably applies to most boards that deal with facts.

It's the same as to go to http://www.knittinghelp.com/forum/ and claim that there is no difference between knitting and crochet work.

[Paul Beardsley]

If you're calling the last page and a half "pedantic flaming", I suggest you're making a serious mischaracterization of the discussion that took place. Nobody was flaming anybody.
Indeed. Most of it was clearly banter.

[Fazor]

Indeed. Most of it was clearly banter.

Speak for yourself. I took great offense! But no, I do not have the math(s) to prove that I was offended.

[DonM435]

Somewhere between brutal bantering and gentle flaming, I'd say.

[Paul Beardsley]

Somewhere between brutal bantering and gentle flaming, I'd say.

I vehemently disagree with this post except for the part about it being somewhere between brutal bantering and gentle flaming.

[weatherc]

So, am I understand that there is some sort of spectrum that includes bantering and flaming? Does anyone have the maths or measurements to back up this claim? Maybe someone could reference a paper somewhere?

[DonM435]

So's your old man!

[geonuc]

I'm sorry, have I stumbled into the SNPBATPT thread by accident? Beg your pardon.

[Gillianren]

I'm still confused. I wasn't flaming anyone; for the most part, I wasn't even bantering. Someone asked me a question, and I answered it. I think I was once rude enough about someone's language to merit a warning, but if so, it was a long time ago. You should know that there are at least a half-dozen people whose posts I don't really read on the premise that I can't really understand them anyway. As for the English-as-a-second-language thing, there are at least a half-dozen people whose posts make me forget that their native language is, to pick an example, Portugese.

Look at my post count. Look at some of the lack of writing ability some people show. Look at what my post count would be if I really flamed people every time I saw a mistake.

[Fazor]

And of course, it all begs the question, can it be called flaming if there are no heated, emotional arguments?

I could see an argument for hijacking in this thread, though I'm personally not bothered by what I perceive as organic evolution of conversation (rather than blatant derailing of a discussion).

[Perikles]

I'm still confused. I wasn't flaming anyone; for the most part, I wasn't even bantering. Someone asked me a question, and I answered it. I think it was my post asking you the question which for some reason somebody took as flaming. I was actually interested in the answer. Thanks by the way.
Portugese or even Portuguese :D

[PetersCreek]

It's long been my opinion that far too many people confuse being blunt with being rude. My short time as a moderator has only reinforced that opinion.

[HenrikOlsen]

Personally, I find that being over-pedantic doesn't help to make a forum accessible, especially when we're dealing with people for who English is not their first language. An example of being over-pedantic might be, say, having a long string of posts debating the finer points of grammar.
Actually, for people for whom English is not their first language, the problem is that the mistakes made by a bad or lazy native speaker is harder to understand for them than for another native speaker, which is why you'll find that the majority of posters for whom English is not the first language care at least as much if not more about writing correctly than the native speakers.

[DonM435]

I suppose that's why there's a "Location:" field attached to every post. The native language won't necessarily correspond to the country, but it can serve as a reminder for us to be considerate.

(Unless it's a wise guy who puts "Up in the Sky" or some such.)

[Paul Beardsley]

Actually, for people for whom English is not their first language, the problem is that the mistakes made by a bad or lazy native speaker is harder to understand for them than for another native speaker, which is why you'll find that the majority of posters for whom English is not the first language care at least as much if not more about writing correctly than the native speakers.

I totally agree!

As a teacher of English to speakers of other languages, I often feel humbled by my students' tendency to care about the language they are learning. On several occasions I have confided in them that, "Most English people get this wrong!"

I would also note that some of the most articulate and knowledgeable posters on BAUT use good, accurate grammar. Somehow I don't think that's a coincidence.

[ineluki]

As a teacher of English to speakers of other languages, I often feel humbled by my students' tendency to care about the language they are learning.

I believe there is a general tendency to be more careful with a foreign language than with one's own.

[Fazor]

I believe there is a general tendency to be more careful with a foreign language than with one's own.

We talked about it on the Spanish site I visit. The other part is with a native language, you can ignore trivial* things like, the definition of a gerund or what you call a prepositional phrase. We get the usage from living in and around the language.

But with a foreign language, you need to learn these things, because that's the only way to learn the new language. It'd be like trying to learn science without knowing the math or the terms. Granted, you could still ignore them and learn by submersing yourself in the language, but that takes much longer and your grammar will likely suffer.

*Okay, so those things aren't trivial. Just wanted to get a reaction from Gillian and all the other language buffs.

[Gillianren]

Okay, so those things aren't trivial. Just wanted to get a reaction from Gillian and all the other language buffs.

I will be magnanimous and agree that the average person doesn't have to know the word gerund, just what a gerund is and its place in a sentence. (For the record, a gerund is the present participle form of a verb that is used as a noun. Running, for example, as in "I like running." All gerunds end in "-ing.') It is, I suspect, one of the places where language is different. You do kind of have to know what most of the technical terms are in a science in order to call yourself fluent in it.

[Fazor]

You do kind of have to know what most of the technical terms are in a science in order to call yourself fluent in it.

I'd still say they're the same thing. You can be a "fluent" scientist, but not know the thermal interactions involved in tectonic sublimation, for instance. So long as you understand the process of how other scientists figure it out.

Same way I can be fluent in English, and never have uttered the phrase "I hate when I get peanut butter on my monkey colored slippers." I may not have been previously familiar with the phrase, but I can break it down and understand what it's saying.

And like language, there's multiple ways to learn science. I've learned a lot of science here at BAUT. But since I'm learning it by "living it", I only know things in the context that they were presented, and likely (assuredly) couldn't work the advanced details out.

Despite grammar classes in school, I'd argue that most native speakers, at least in America, have learned the language mostly just from exposure to it. Which is why most Americans can speak to one another and be understood, but why most would likely fail even a moderate-level grammar test.

When learning a foreign language, you are often doing so through instruction and books. Thus, it becomes markedly more important that you understand grammar use and terms, so that you can construct your sentences.

Now admittedly, it's not like I've ever studied groups and their native versus non-native learning patterns. I can attest that my grammar in Spanish is superior, from a "I actually pay attention to it" standpoint, than my English grammar. And, while I've always hated grammar classes (sorry Gillian), I find learning Spanish grammar very interesting.

[Moose]

I would argue that it isn't different in language arts. I've had kids in my 4th grade class insist they were "fluent" in English. They weren't. Oh, most of the time, they said the right words in the right ways, but it's largely by accident.

Tiger Woods plays golf. Mike Weir plays golf. Joe from Idaho hits the ball that-away.

Until you can justify why you've chosen certain words or constructs to say exactly what you intend to mean (no more and no less), then you're not speaking or writing the language. It's speaking or writing you.

[geonuc]

Until you can justify why you've chosen certain words or constructs to say exactly what you intend to mean (no more and no less), then you're not speaking or writing the language. It's speaking or writing you.
Interesting, although I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. If what you say is correct, then I must conclude I am not fluent in English. But I do think I am.

If someone were to ask me yesterday what a present particle was, I'd have been at a loss. I do know how to use one, but I couldn't explain why my choice of usage is correct.

[jlhredshift]

I find that:

rude or blunt
rhetorical or not
metaphorical or not

are all difficult to discern in low context situations both for me reading and others understanding what I have written. I have, from time to time added explanation in parentheses to be sure that I am understood. If there is a better methodology I would be glad to learn of it. (respectfully)

EDIT: Irony and idioms can be confusing as well and throw a wrench into the conversation.

[Moose]

If what you say is correct, then I must conclude I am not fluent in English. But I do think I am.

There is a difference between proficiency and mastery, and nothing I've said should be construed as a "black and white" distinction.

[mugaliens]

I would argue most people in the US, UK, CA, and AU are fluent in English! Fluency isn't determined by absolute mastery, it's determined by whether or not a person can generally communicate with most others who also speak the language.

The vast majority of native-born English speakers are fluent in English.

Many of these people speak and write English quite well.

A few of these people are experts - they speak and write English exceptionally well.

A very few of these people have mastered the English language. They're not perfect, but they're closer to perfection than 99% of the others.

Now I'd like to return to the issue of BAUT being only for experts.

Unlike English, which is used many times each day by Westerners, science is rarely used, unless you're one of the few in a job where daily use of science is required.

Then there are those for whom science is a hobby! Welcome to BAUT. Despite daily use, however, I wouldn't say BAUTers are fluence in science, as science is fundamentally different from English. True, science terminology is an extension of English terminology, but that means little.

English is a language, and the study of it involves it's proper (commonly-accepted) use across multiple fronts. Science, on the other hand, is a mental discipline involving the use of various algorithms of analytical thinking. I'm not saying English ignored analytical thinking. It's just that unless one is diagramming sentences or composing in iambic pentameter, analytical thinking rarely enters into even the most masterful use of English, yet remains at the forefront of most scientific endeavors.

[mahesh]

...or even Portuguese :D

Our American cousins have a thingie about using 'u'....like a lot of our Nordic cousins have affinity for jellow yumpers

...Unlike English, which is used many times each day by Westerners, science is rarely used, unless you're one of the few in a job where daily use of science is required.....
mugs, Indians, real, Asian ones, use English everyday too, and not only those working the call-centres.

For me, fluency in a language is reflected by one's ability to use puns in that particular language.

...Running, for example, as in "I like running." All gerunds end in "-ing.'...
Thank you Gillian. For reminding me of another aspect of children, learning the language, any mother tongue.
I have experience, only of English, in that, I find it fascinating, that the little children's use of past tense of a verb is always '-ed', until they learn to differentiate the various irregular verbs. Most charming. Just the attempt at verbalising their concept of time, past / passed.

edit:
I have no experience / exposure to this in a formal setting of a classroom or what have you.

[Perikles]

I'm not saying English ignored analytical thinking. It's just that unless one is diagramming sentences or composing in iambic pentameter, analytical thinking rarely enters into even the most masterful use of English, yet remains at the forefront of most scientific endeavors.I hear what you say, and you are differentiating between the thought processes used in a natural language such as English and the processes used in scientific argument. I'm not so sure that this difference, if there is one, can simply be identified as 'analytical thinking' or not much of it. I admit I can't improve on this on the spot, but perhaps we have a linguistics expert here who could give a label to the mental processes involved in the use of a natural language.

[mugaliens]

mugs, Indians, real, Asian ones, use English everyday too, and not only those working the call-centres.

True, true...

For me, fluency in a language is reflected by one's ability to use puns in that particular language.

Punny... :lol:

In the human brain, the two areas which play a critical role in language are Broca's area and Wernicke's area. However, other areas are involved, as well, as the left hemisphere processes the linguistic meaning of prosody, while the right processes the emotions conveyed by prosody. Prosody is the rythm, stress, and intonation of connected speech, as opposed to smaller elements like syllables or words.

Broca's area is principally handles the more complex aspects of grammar, such as the difference between "the goat was kicked by Tom" and "the goat kicked Tom."

Wernicke's area is involved with both speech comprehension as well as in naming things.

[Perikles]

In the human brain, the two areas which play a critical role in language are Broca's area and Wernicke's area. However, other areas are involved, as well, .Have they identified clearly different areas for language and mathematical analysis?

ETA: the question seems ambiguous. I mean are the areas for language clearly different to those for maths?

[mahesh]

So, am I understand that there is some sort of spectrum that includes bantering and flaming? Does anyone have the maths or measurements to back up this claim? Maybe someone could reference a paper somewhere?

There was a lot of bantering and flaming in our garden the other day.The barbeque was a nice focal point for everyone.

Sorry, we neither bothered to measure the juicy marinaded bits being flamed, nor did I keep any maths for it. Let's just say it cost a few bucks.

I could've referenced a paper on it, but re-cycling took priority and paper away.

I'm sorry, have I stumbled into the SNPBATPT thread by accident? Beg your pardon.

yah, I meant to ask what the initials mean. Pardon my ignorance.
I keep thinking snabbt, snabbt; hurry, step on it...

[HenrikOlsen]

The vast majority of native-born English speakers are fluent in English.
If you replace "English" with "whatever bastar​dized version of the English languages is spoken in their neighborhood" and replace "fluent" with "can communicate verbally" you'd probably be closer.

[Perikles]

If you replace "English" with "whatever bastar​dized version of the English languages is spoken in their neighborhood" and replace "fluent" with "can communicate verbally" you'd probably be closer.I couldn't agree more. Living on a foreign island which is a popular holiday destination for the English, the 'English' I hear is hardly ever what I would understand as the English language, but a very primitive degenerate part of it pronounced very often with some unpleasant accent. Some British accents are in fact impenetrable for me. Sorry if that sounds elitist, but I am actually appalled at the poor standard of language spoken by your 'average Brit', something I was not really aware of when living in the UK.

[Moose]

Ordinarily, when a thread's original topic has been more than adequately covered, we'll let a thread drift where it will. Sometimes, the thread winds up adrift towards shoal waters, and we need to tack it back into the channel.

This thread has been drifting into partisan value-judgments. There be dragons. In particular, one called "Rule 12 (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html)".

It's okay to chat about the importance of good grammar, and it's okay to talk about the apparent deterioration of communication skills in modern society in general and what might be done about it. It's not okay to wide-brush entire groups of people in such a discussion.

[01101001]

Have they identified clearly different areas for language and mathematical analysis?

Sources of Mathematical Thinking: Behavioral and Brain-Imaging Evidence ::: Abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/5416/970)

Does the human capacity for mathematical intuition depend on linguistic competence or on visuo-spatial representations? A series of behavioral and brain-imaging experiments provides evidence for both sources. Exact arithmetic is acquired in a language-specific format, transfers poorly to a different language or to novel facts, and recruits networks involved in word-association processes. In contrast, approximate arithmetic shows language independence, relies on a sense of numerical magnitudes, and recruits bilateral areas of the parietal lobes involved in visuo-spatial processing. Mathematical intuition may emerge from the interplay of these brain systems.

This title returned by a Google search functional mri mathematics (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=functional+mri+mathematics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) probably has much to say in the PDF document, but it's a stale link: Functional brain imaging study of mathematical reasoning abilities ...

Wait. The view as HTML (link probably fragile) (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:D_zZatr2UgkJ:scsnl.stanford.edu/Eliez_Functional%2520Brain_01.pdf+functional+mri+m athematics&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari) is still working, and probably provides enough to locate it:

Functional brain imaging study of mathematical reasoning abilities in velocardiofacial syndrome
Stephan Eliez, MD, Christine M. Blasey, PhD, Vinod Menon, PhD, Christopher D. White, BA, J. Eric Schmitt, BS, and Allan L. Reiss, MD

Purpose: Children with velocardiofacial syndrome (VCFS) often have deficits in mathematical reasoning. Previous research has suggested that structural abnormalities in the parietal lobe region might underlie these deficits. Thepresent study utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to explore the relationship between brain function and mathematical performance in VCFS. Methods: Eight children with VCFS and eight comparison subjects underwent fMRI scanning and completed an arithmetic computation task. Results: In the VCFS group, increased activation was observed in the left supramarginal gyrus (LSMG) as the task difficulty increased. Conclusion: Aberrant LSMG activation, possibly due to structural deficits of the left parietal lobe, may explain decrements in arithmetic performance observed in VCFS. Genetics in Medicine, 2001:3(1):49–55.

Oh, this might be enough:

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies with “normal” subjects also have implicated several brain regions as being associated with arithmetic performance. 14,15 During “approximate” computation, brain activation has been observed in the bilateral inferior parietal lobule, right precuneus, bilateral precentral sulci, left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left superior prefrontal gyrus, left cerebellum, and left and right thalami. 15 During “exact” computation, activation has been reported in left and right prefrontal regions, left cingulategyrus, left precuneus, right parieto-occipital sulcus, left and right angular gyrus, and right middle temporal gyrus. 16 Despite considerable variability in regional patterns of activation, these imaging studies collectively suggest that both prefrontal and parietal cortices are involved in arithmetic tasks

[grant hutchison]

If you replace "English" with "whatever bastar​dized version of the English languages is spoken in their neighborhood" and replace "fluent" with "can communicate verbally" you'd probably be closer.Thing is, these "bastar​dized versions" of English have their own vocabulary and grammar, and their speakers are indeed fluent in that vocabulary and grammar, in the sense that it "flows easily and readily from the tongue" (to paraphrase the relevant definition from the OED).
And such "native speakers" would readily identify you and Perikles as being non-fluent in their style of English, because of your limited vocabulary and distorted grammar.

Grant Hutchison

[robross]

Interesting, although I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. If what you say is correct, then I must conclude I am not fluent in English. But I do think I am.

If someone were to ask me yesterday what a present particle was, I'd have been at a loss. I do know how to use one, but I couldn't explain why my choice of usage is correct.

Another example of correct usage was that very sentence that started "If someone were to ask me...", which is an example of the subjunctive tense. I don't know why I remember that from school (I only remember a few *formal* rules, but like you I seem to have a pretty good understanding of how to use English).

I have noticed that a sizable minority of people would have written "If someone was to ask me..." and it grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Rob

[HenrikOlsen]

And such "native speakers" would readily identify you and Perikles as being non-fluent in their style of English, because of your limited vocabulary and distorted grammar.

Grant Hutchison
I'll quite readily admit that.

I would however say that I consider the ability to communicate in writing to be part of fluency and that would be where many would fail.

[grant hutchison]

I would however say that I consider the ability to communicate in writing to be part of fluency and that would be where many would fail.A number countable in billions worldwide, I suspect. Indeed, entire languages have come and gone without a single record written by a native speaker. Was no-one ever fluent in these languages?

Grant Hutchison

[tdvance]

It would depend on the language, but you really have to be able to write to be fluent in English, just as you need to be able to read, draw, and think pictures to be fluent in Geometry. You DO at least have to know that text message speak is not written English.

At one time, telegrams were a common mode of communication, and the charge was "per word". So, there was no advantage to writing "txt msg", but plenty of advantage of writing "tmessage", say. But as far as I know, kids didn't turn papers in to their teachers in telegraphese.

And those who communicate by radio, such as pilots, don't generally say, "Pass the Alpha wun steak sauce for my niner ounce steak".

[mugaliens]

I'll quite readily admit that.

I would however say that I consider the ability to communicate in writing to be part of fluency and that would be where many would fail.

I strongly disagree! Many people who're fluent in a language can neither read nor write it, yet they're often hired as translators in light of their fluency not only in one language, but in two or more.

I believe you're confusing "fluency," which is defined as "capable of using a language easily and accurately" with "literacy," which means "able to read and write."

If you were to replace your use of the terms "fluent/fluency" in your previously preceding posts with the terms "literate/literacy," I believe you'd be much closer to the mark.

[Paul Beardsley]

I agree with mugaliens. Fluency means it flows; when you're speaking another language, the word you need comes to you as you need it - you don't keep saying "err, umm" as you struggle to remember the word for "lampshade".

[Perikles]

Another example of correct usage was that very sentence that started "If someone were to ask me...", which is an example of the subjunctive tense. It is usually classified as a mood, one of the five attributes of a verb (number, person, voice, tense, mood).I have noticed that a sizable minority of people would have written "If someone was to ask me..." and it grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard. It grates on me too, but I would like to know whether this sizeable minority is in fact a majority these days, and I'm certain there are differences between UK and American in this respect. This is particularly interesting for me at present, learning Spanish and living in the back of beyond with locals who are, let's say, a long way from Madrid. Spanish has a very nicely developed subjunctive mood system which I can detect on TV and in books, but I can't detect it locally.

[Gillianren]

It grates on me too, but I would like to know whether this sizeable minority is in fact a majority these days, and I'm certain there are differences between UK and American in this respect.

Almost certainly and I don't think so. There isn't a difference in correctness between its use in British and American English, at least, though I'll admit my experiences with talking to British people in general are fewer and probably not representative.

[mahesh]

If you replace "English" with ...
Very observant, Henrik.


...poor standard of language spoken ...
Accents are fine, as they go, Perikles, it's the use of grammar, or lack of, that hurts to hear. On the street, I mean.


edit:
oops...missed a page.
i mean comments at #89 and #90, page three
inserting links...why do i keep thinking periwinkles...every time i see your name...peri...?

[Perikles]

Accents are fine, as they go, Perikles, it's the use of grammar, or lack of, that hurts to hear. On the street, I mean.Good grief - I never meant that any dialect or any accent was per se in for criticism. It was the lack of grammar or simple inability to express oneself which hurts. The trouble is, I perceive there to be a correlation between accent and just bad grammar or inability to express oneself, but I'm inhibited about expounding lest I get ticked off again by a moderator.

[antoniseb]

... I'm inhibited about expounding lest I get ticked off again by a moderator.
Perhaps you meant 'kicked off'.

[grant hutchison]

Perhaps you meant 'kicked off'.British idiom: "ticked off" meaning "scolded". In potentially embarrassing contrast to the meaning in US idiom.
A "ticking off" is a reprimand, in the UK.

Grant Hutchison

[R.A.F.]

British idiom: "ticked off" meaning "scolded".

I did not know that. So what you are saying is that Perikles has a "simple inability to express oneself". :)

[grant hutchison]

I did not know that. So what you are saying is that Perikles has a "simple inability to express oneself". :)While being entirely fluent in his own idiom, yes. :)

Grant Hutchison

[Celestial Mechanic]

I believe it George Bernard Shaw who defined Americans and British as "two peoples separated by a common language". ;)

[mugaliens]

From what I've encountered here and across the pond, it sometimes seems were a common people separated by two languages.

[Perikles]

I did not know that. So what you are saying is that Perikles has a "simple inability to express oneself". :)Nice one - I had no idea the expression was so idiomatic. But it highlights an interesting point about an internet forum. Whenever I am aware that I am amongst people who do not have English as a mother tongue (and I mean English English) I have always consciously avoided idiomatic expressions (after an embarrassing meeting with some Germans once who had fluent English but were baffled by my claim that their argument was a red herring). Not only that, I always tried to modify my English according to where I was in the U.K. On a forum such as this one, the rules of engagement appear undefined, because unlike other forums (or fora) it does not appear to have an overwhelming flavour of a particular brand of English. Often, the only clue to a poster's origin is 'incorrect' spelling of a common word. :)

[grant hutchison]

Nice one - I had no idea the expression was so idiomatic.The particular danger is when the same phrase has different idiomatic usages, as in the case of "ticked off": an American reader thinks you're saying that a moderator has made you angry, rather than that a moderator has reprimanded you.
There are others: one that the nanny software renders as a string of asterisks, which means "drunk" in British English and "angry" in American English. And then there's the classic "to knock up", which means "to waken by knocking on the door" in British English, and "to make pregnant" in American English. I have an Australian colleague who uses "knocked up" to mean "tired out" or "ill", and I have no idea of the regional affiliations of "to knock up" meaning "to hastily assemble".

Grant Hutchison

[DonM435]

I believe there is a general tendency to be more careful with a foreign language than with one's own.

You may remember William F. Buckley, Jr., who seemed to speak English at a higher level than most of than most of the people with whom he argued. (In any event, he used bigger words.) Well, I read that he effectively learned English as a second language. He picked up Spanish first because his nanny spoke it (he was a rich kid).

[Moose]

Just some housekeeping. The thread's drifted far enough from the OP (Is BAUT for Experts Only? (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/90365-baut-experts-only.html)) that spinning this off into it's own thread and relocating it to OTB seems justified. Our own young thread, in a place all it's own. *sniff* I'm so proud.

Speaking of which, if anybody has a better title than the one I've given it on the spur of the moment, feel free to let me know.

[jlhredshift]

Dialect can be a severe barrier to communication. When watching BBC or ABC reporters give the news, they speak in a non dialectical voice (? flat affect?)intentionally so as to communicate with the widest audience. Culturally induced dialects between two groups can cause distrust and rancor that can lead to the perception or reality of discrimination. There was a recent story in the news about a group of children of one ethnicity using a swimming pool that was of a different social group. Problems with the parents arose. A candid interview was given by one of the distressed parents. The parent expressed concern over his child "picking up" the vernacular of the other group. There was no concern amongst the parents of the other group of their children being exposed to the other dialect because it was common to experience both dialects in their environment. They just wanted equal access to the pool. The clash was primarily one of cultural language differentiating the two groups whose distinction was then relegated to a visual rather than a vocal cause. Whose fluency is correct? I do not have a solution.

The language of science used to be Latin. Communication was primarily written with the commonality of "tongue" fascillitating the spread of ideas. Now the language of science is English. The written form is non dialectical.

[Perikles]

Dialect can be a severe barrier to communication. ... Culturally induced dialects between two groups can cause distrust and rancor that can lead to the perception or reality of discrimination. I have firsthand experience of this. At the age of six my family moved from the south coast of England to Yorkshire. I was beaten up at school for 'talking posh' and I got into big trouble at home for adopting a Yorkshire accent. (It is a rather tender age for someone to conclude the world was insane, but experiences in the following half century have merely confirmed this view.) Anyway, my solution to the problem was simply not to speak much for a decade, after which I usually adopted the accent of whomever I was with, which was not always taken as a compliment.

The language of science used to be Latin. ... Now the language of science is English. The written form is non dialectical.Of course, Latin was used for any specialised area such as Law or the Catholic Church. Also, academic papers in the humanities as well, even into the 20th century.

By the way, in academic circles, someone used to be literate if they were fluent in Latin and Greek, and semi-literate if they had Latin but no Greek.

[Perikles]

From what I've encountered here and across the pond, it sometimes seems were a common people separated by two languages.Well, on this side, we do at least try and put apostrophes where there is a letter missing; it makes for easier reading. :) Am I jumping into another thread?

[jlhredshift]

I have firsthand experience of this. At the age of six my family moved from the south coast of England to Yorkshire. I was beaten up at school for 'talking posh' and I got into big trouble at home for adopting a Yorkshire accent. (It is a rather tender age for someone to conclude the world was insane, but experiences in the following half century have merely confirmed this view.) Anyway, my solution to the problem was simply not to speak much for a decade, after which I usually adopted the accent of whomever I was with, which was not always taken as a compliment.

There are two points here. Cultural diversity of tongue causes social isolation. Humans can be mean. :sad:

[Gillianren]

Nice one - I had no idea the expression was so idiomatic. But it highlights an interesting point about an internet forum. Whenever I am aware that I am amongst people who do not have English as a mother tongue (and I mean English English) I have always consciously avoided idiomatic expressions (after an embarrassing meeting with some Germans once who had fluent English but were baffled by my claim that their argument was a red herring). Not only that, I always tried to modify my English according to where I was in the U.K. On a forum such as this one, the rules of engagement appear undefined, because unlike other forums (or fora) it does not appear to have an overwhelming flavour of a particular brand of English. Often, the only clue to a poster's origin is 'incorrect' spelling of a common word. :)

I knew the expression, and I could guess from context which version it was. (Grant, I'd always heard "knocked together.") However, as you may have noticed, my awareness of the language is a little more complex than the average.

I was talking yesterday afternoon about (and here, I'm strictly talking language, not religion!) the King James Bible. The friend I was talking to and I agreed that it's a rotten translation, but it's probably got the best language of any version out there. (Though there's one I need to track down at some point that's written the way they think Hebrew oral versions would have sounded.) And, no, your average five-year-old isn't going to know "begotten," but it doesn't take much explaining, after all. This is, frankly, one of the reasons I continue in my use of idioms. Sure, I may have to explain them, but they add a depth and colour to the language that removing them entirely takes away. I have also encountered some charming ones translated directly from whatever language the person I'm talking to speaks.

[mahesh]

Or it could be just a lazy shortening of the phrase 'talk more loudly [than you were to begin with]!' See, not only am I right, I'm loudly right!

Eta: Dang. I typed that all in caps but the board fixed it. Great feature that I didn't know we had, since I don't oft type in all caps.
Fazor, we had this function, discussed as a diversion for a few days here, not so many weeks ago.
If you had had even one letter in lowercase, all yours would've been caps, except that letter....

A few moons ago (Yah!), I remember, I saw a comic strip...Snoopy and Woodstock... not a true Schultz..
Snoopy: Who was the formula one champ in 1975?
Woodstock: Lauda!
Snoopy repeats: who was the champion ...1975?
Woodstock:LAUDA!
Snoopy: WHO WAS THE CHAMPION..1975?
Woodstock: goes blue....expletive deleted
you should've seen Snoopy's surprised expression...

[grant hutchison]

(Grant, I'd always heard "knocked together.") Yep. Meals, in particular, seem to be "knocked together" by self-effacing cooks. Whereas my father's shed was "knocked up" out of spare lengths of wood. I'm thinking that "knocked up", in this sense, nowadays requires some significant vertical extent, but I'm open to counterexamples. (The OED's examples contain several historical references to "knocked up" meals, but that's not something I've heard.)

Grant Hutchison

[Perikles]

I was talking yesterday afternoon about (and here, I'm strictly talking language, not religion!) the King James Bible. The friend I was talking to and I agreed that it's a rotten translation, but it's probably got the best language of any version out there. I can't speak about the Hebrew, but I do agree that the translation from Greek is very questionable in places, even though the language is admirable. I think 60% of all the words are just one syllable, by the way, not that I've counted them. And, no, your average five-year-old isn't going to know "begotten," but it doesn't take much explaining, after all. Very odd that you should use this example, because at the age of six I actually asked my father what it meant. I remember it clearly because this was the only time in my life he ever referred to sex education. This is, frankly, one of the reasons I continue in my use of idioms. Sure, I may have to explain them, but they add a depth and colour to the language that removing them entirely takes away.I quite agree, and this is the reason why a text on a scientific subject, devoid of colour, can be very dry, irrespective of the content.

[ngc3314]

... a text on a scientific subject, devoid of colour, can be very dry, irrespective of the content.

Indeed, authors of papers for research journals are often admonished in the publishers' instructions to avoid use of idiom or cultural references, because so may readers have English as a second, third.. language (even though one for which cultural content of some kind of very widely disseminated). However, this hasn't prevented a paper on the structure of line in quasar spectra from being titled "Twin Peaks", or this paper (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134..846S), on the winds of evolved stars, having more Tolkien references than I can recall outside of a Con.

[grant hutchison]

However, this hasn't prevented a paper on the structure of line in quasar spectra from being titled "Twin Peaks", or this paper (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....134..846S), on the winds of evolved stars, having more Tolkien references than I can recall outside of a Con.And then there is the strange and sad occurrence of the word "embiggen", from The Simpsons, in this string theory paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610212).

Grant Hutchison

[Fazor]

And then there is the strange and sad occurrence of the word "embiggen", from The Simpsons, in this string theory paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610212).

Grant Hutchison

What's sad about that? I love when I get the chance to use 'embiggen'. It shows that you can be smart, and know your pop culture!

[grant hutchison]

What's sad about that? I love when I get the chance to use 'embiggen'.Then your head's not really in a place from which the true and deep sadness can be appreciated. ;)

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

I can't speak about the Hebrew, but I do agree that the translation from Greek is very questionable in places, even though the language is admirable. I think 60% of all the words are just one syllable, by the way, not that I've counted them.

I watched The Story of English a long time ago, and as I recall, the only two specific works talked about for modern English (you got Beowulf and The Canterbury Tales for Old and Middle, respectively) were the complete works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible. And it wouldn't surprise me about the use of one-syllable words. I'm running through a lot of the stuff I know, and it seems right to me.

Very odd that you should use this example, because at the age of six I actually asked my father what it meant. I remember it clearly because this was the only time in my life he ever referred to sex education.

Mine was seven and "virgin" (I was Catholic), but the same basic concept applies. And she hauled out The Encyclopedia of Science and coloured transparencies. (My father had died the previous year, and I probably would have asked Mom anyway, since she was home more often.) I still have scars.

I quite agree, and this is the reason why a text on a scientific subject, devoid of colour, can be very dry, irrespective of the content.

The thing is, I would be greatly surprised to find a language free of idiom, simply because that's how humans work. I think it was in Spanish II that my teacher taught us a list of basic Spanish expressions. Essentially none of which I remember.

And, oddly, while I use "cromulent," I wouldn't use "embiggen." And I wouldn't use either in formal writing.

[Perikles]

....King James Bible. And it wouldn't surprise me about the use of one-syllable words. I'm running through a lot of the stuff I know, and it seems right to me.I remember this because we were taught that English works with a larger number of small words, and long words, although obviously necessary, should be avoided. The small words produced a clarity which long ones can obscure. This was the argument against the introduction of new expressions. If a concept were new, then a new expression would be accepted, but there was no need to introduce a word like hospitalized when the existing expression taken to hospital was perfectly acceptable. I can see the virtue of this.

[grant hutchison]

And, oddly, while I use "cromulent," I wouldn't use "embiggen." And I wouldn't use either in formal writing.Indeed. Setting aside the teasing of Fazor (at least for the time being :)), it's that old thing about writing for the reader and not for yourself.
If you're writing for a multinational and multicultural audience with the purpose of imparting information clearly, then dropping in a cultural nonce word is just bad writing. It's saying to your readers, "I care more about a cartoon character than I care about you."

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

I remember this because we were taught that English works with a larger number of small words, and long words, although obviously necessary, should be avoided. The small words produced a clarity which long ones can obscure. This was the argument against the introduction of new expressions. If a concept were new, then a new expression would be accepted, but there was no need to introduce a word like hospitalized when the existing expression taken to hospital was perfectly acceptable. I can see the virtue of this.

I don't know; "hospitalized" does the job it's intended to very well, and it dodges the British "taken to hospital"/American "taken to the hospital" issue. It also allows the person to convey a lengthier stay. Someone with long-term issues can have been hospitalized for longer than someone who was just "taken to the hospital." I was taken to the hospital when my daughter was born. The hero of one of my favourite mystery novels was hospitalized for weeks with a leg in traction.

Indeed. Setting aside the teasing of Fazor (at least for the time being :)), it's that old thing about writing for the reader and not for yourself. If you're writing for a multinational and multicultural audience with the purpose of imparting information clearly, then dropping in a cultural nonce word is just bad writing. It's saying to your readers, "I care more about a cartoon character than I care about you."

Or "I am a product of my culture." I agree that it's not thinking outside your culture, and I agree that such a thing can be problematic for a work intended for an international audience. However, I don't think it's insulting so much as thoughtless. And I think "thoughtless" has become an increasing part of writing lately, I'm afraid. I'm not citing any individual. I'm certainly not blaming any individual. However, I don't think the average writer is as concerned about understanding as they should be. I do drop pop culture references into my movie reviews. I drop them in my writing here. And, yes, I am madly amused by the Twin Peaks reference mentioned above--but it isn't fudamental to the understanding of the paper that the person reading it be aware of an American TV show from 1991. That's the issue, isn't it?

[grant hutchison]

However, I don't think it's insulting so much as thoughtless.I intended to suggest thoughtlessness, rather than a deliberate insult. The author, I'm sure, didn't think of a trade-off between audience and cartoon when he decided to use "embiggen" rather than "enlarge" or "expand".

... but it isn't fudamental to the understanding of the paper that the person reading it be aware of an American TV show from 1991. That's the issue, isn't it?That's the issue. If you don't get the reference, you still understand the title "Twin Peaks": presumably the words appropriately describe some part of the paper's content. If you don't understand the word "embiggen", and you can't find it in a dictionary, you may or may not be able to puzzle out its likely meaning, depending on your English skills and how suggestive the context is. But it's going to become an inconvenient and unnecessary distraction, as well as introducing a sense of doubt about the meaning of the text.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

I intended to suggest thoughtlessness, rather than a deliberate insult. The author, I'm sure, didn't think of a trade-off between audience and cartoon when he decided to use "embiggen" rather than "enlarge" or "expand".

I'm sure we can point to a lot of not-cartoon references that do the same thing. In fact, my favourite series of mystery novels does, and in the other direction. Dorothy L. Sayers seems to assume that everyone has the same education as she does. I believe it's Gaudy Night that contains a passage of Greek not merely untranslated but inexplicable from context--left in the Greek alphabet; Busman's Honeymoon, I think, contains several paragraphs of untranslated French. I'm frankly grateful that the letter that's pivotal to the solution in Clouds of Witness is shown both in French and English instead of just French. The fact that the reference is The Simpsons is not, to me, relevant to the issue of understanding or not.

That's the issue. If you don't get the reference, you still understand the title "Twin Peaks": presumably the words appropriately describe some part of the paper's content. If you don't understand the word "embiggen", and you can't find it in a dictionary, you may or may not be able to puzzle out its likely meaning, depending on your English skills and how suggestive the context is. But it's going to become an inconvenient and unnecessary distraction, as well as introducing a sense of doubt about the meaning of the text.

I find "embiggen" quite obvious in meaning, actually. After all, no definition is given on the show. The Simpsons assumes you're smart enough to get it from context. (For the record and for those who don't know, the context is "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.") Likewise "cromulent." ("I'd never heard the word 'embiggens' before moving to Springfield" is followed by "It's a perfectly cromulent word.") Which, arguably, is harder to get from context but, to me, more valuable to the language. As you say, there are viable alternatives to "embiggen," which is clearly intended to be evidence of Jebediah Springfield's (or Hans Sprungfeld's!) pretentiousness coupled with a lack of education. On the other hand, I don't really like "viable" in that sentence, and "reasonable" doesn't really convey what I mean. "Cromulent" is more useful than "embiggen," but really, the meaning of "embiggen" is pretty obvious to anyone who knows enough English to read the paper in the first place, I should think.

Of course, as we know, I am not necessarily a fan of adding random words into the language, and we'll see how long "cromulent" lasts before I accept it as anything more than slang. However, there is a place for slang. I do not dispute that the paper in question isn't it. This is in part because of my just-developed Gillian's Sliding Scale of Language Usage. The paper is at the high end and should eschew slang altogether and be careful of its idiom use. We here are in the middle; slang is okay, idioms are free ground, but text speak is rightly frowned upon. No, I don't ever use text speak, nor do most of my friends. But I acknowledge that it has its place in, well, text messages, to me the bottom end of the scale.

[grant hutchison]

The fact that the reference is The Simpsons is not, to me, relevant to the issue of understanding or not.Yes, the origin is irrelevant. It's the fact that it's a made-up word which is relevant to the issue of understanding.

... the meaning of "embiggen" is pretty obvious to anyone who knows enough English to read the paper in the first place, I should think.That cultivated grinding of Greek against Old Norse against Old English might throw off a few. :) "Enlarge" does the job equally well and has the advantage of being in the dictionary. Probably a lot of us here know the sense of unease that comes from being pretty sure we know what a word means, but not entirely certain.

The author is making life just a little more confusing for those who don't share his cultural referents, in order to endear himself to those who share and admire his cultural referents, while irritating those who share but dislike his cultural referents. Most people manage to work through these impulses by wearing a T-shirt with a recondite slogan on it. I know I do.

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

Well, I would say embiggen is easily within the range of what can be understood once you know enough about English to understand its LEGOness, so it's only the chance of irritating those who recognize it's Simpsonsosity that 's really bad.

My personal favorite example has always been "easily turn-off-and-on-able" about an electrical appliance. Seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv2tdCEBkKg) around 0:40.

[dwnielsen]

Yeah, I heard an advertisement for a show that I would normally like, calling it "make-your-blood-boil television". Isn't a similar word "enraging" or such? And doesn't "make-your-blood-boil" have the wrong sound to it? Wouldn't it be better to say "informative", "engaging", or "a show that addresses outrageous and persistent problems"?

[Gillianren]

Yes, the origin is irrelevant. It's the fact that it's a made-up word which is relevant to the issue of understanding.

I do so wonder what you would have made of Shakespeare.

That cultivated grinding of Greek against Old Norse against Old English might throw off a few. :) "Enlarge" does the job equally well and has the advantage of being in the dictionary. Probably a lot of us here know the sense of unease that comes from being pretty sure we know what a word means, but not entirely certain.

Or, worse, having no clue because the author's writing over our head. As I mentioned before. And those annoyed about Greek added to Norse would be well advised to learn a language that isn't English.

The author is making life just a little more confusing for those who don't share his cultural referents, in order to endear himself to those who share and admire his cultural referents, while irritating those who share but dislike his cultural referents. Most people manage to work through these impulses by wearing a T-shirt with a recondite slogan on it. I know I do.

I don't even do that. I don't wear T-shirts with messages much more complex than that you should attend ren faire. However, I do think you're imparting motives to him that are not evident from context.

[dwnielsen]

To bring a bit of the homeopathy topic on-board, this is one that bothers me: like cures like.

This grammatically makes no sense, but it is understood and accepted generally.

To fill in the blanks,
A like B cures C like D.

It sounds like it is an incomplete statement, since four variables are there, and only two variables are accounted for. What is implied is actually,
A like B cures B like A.

So, what is grating to the ear due to its sound of incompleteness, is then found to be redundant.

Why don't they just say, "Cure's like malady".

[grant hutchison]

I do so wonder what you would have made of Shakespeare.I'd have been entertained. Shakespeare had a different job to do.

And those annoyed about Greek added to Norse would be well advised to learn a language that isn't English.There you go. My point was about comprehension (not annoyance) in non-native English speakers, who perhaps aren't exposed to such a mix of roots in everyday speech.

I don't even do that. I don't wear T-shirts with messages much more complex than that you should attend ren faire.Yeah. I remember having to ask what a "ren faire" was, on another thread. ;)

However, I do think you're imparting motives to him that are not evident from context.I certainly am.

Grant Hutchison

[Jens]

To bring a bit of the homeopathy topic on-board, this is one that bothers me: like cures like.

This grammatically makes no sense, but it is understood and accepted generally.

To fill in the blanks,
A like B cures C like D.


I thought it meant something different. I thought it meant A cures B if A is similar to B. So there are only two variables in that interepretation.

[HenrikOlsen]

Actually I think like cures like is about the principle of similarity where stuff that gives symptoms in one dose will cure diseases with those symptoms in a much lower dose, so (a causes b) ^ (c like b) -> ( (bit of a) cures c )

[ngc3314]

That cultivated grinding of Greek against Old Norse against Old English might throw off a few. :)
At this point I feel obliged to point those who haven't seen it to Poul Anderson's "Uncleftish Beholding", which suggests what English might have been like without that flood of borrowing that was so greatly enhanced by the Normans. (The text is online, but I won't link because I suspect it's in violation of copyright). I never did figure out his challenge to tell what "undrunkstuff" must be.

[grant hutchison]

At this point I feel obliged to point those who haven't seen it to Poul Anderson's "Uncleftish Beholding", which suggests what English might have been like without that flood of borrowing that was so greatly enhanced by the Normans.Yes, I'll add my hearty recommendation, although it's a long time since I read it. :)
I recall that it's a text describing some aspect of atomic physics, using words assembled solely from Teutonic roots. Or am I misremembering?

Grant Hutchison

[ngc3314]

I recall that it's a text describing some aspect of atomic physics, using words assembled solely from Teutonic roots. Or am I misremembering?


That's the one. Splitly samesteads, bernestonebits of forward and backward lading, and weapons-grade ymirstuff. (That first phrase never ceases to remind me of a fitting name for a villain in an episode of Dudley Do-Right).

[dwnielsen]

I thought it meant something different. I thought it meant A cures B if A is similar to B. So there are only two variables in that interepretation.

I believe that's equivalent to, Where A is like B, it cures B, which is like A.

Note that (A like B) = (B like A).

[Gillianren]

I'd have been entertained. Shakespeare had a different job to do.

My point, which you seem to be consistently missing, is that the issue is not where the word came from. You seem to be more upset about the Simpsons origin of the word than I think is strictly necessary. Shakespeare made up words because they were useful a lot of the time, but a lot of the time, he made them up because they were funny and fit what he was trying to do with a character. I can't think of a specific example at the moment, but I know there's at least one of those we still use. (It'll come to me, probably while I'm on the bus.) We do use a lot of words that we know Shakespeare was at minimum the first to record; given sheer numbers, he was probably first to use them. Arguably, he was not unlike a Simpsons staff writer.

There you go. My point was about comprehension (not annoyance) in non-native English speakers, who perhaps aren't exposed to such a mix of roots in everyday speech.

Then they're not speaking English. Or, indeed, several words in other languages which have borrowed from English. There are plenty of words with mixed roots.

Yeah. I remember having to ask what a "ren faire" was, on another thread. ;)

My T-shirt makes it much more clear, in that it gives the full name of our faire and has a lovely picture of King George slaying the dragon.

I certainly am.

I mean you seem to be ascribing genuine malice, or else you see much more evil in thoughtlessness in this case than I. If you like, I can give you much worse examples of malice through thoughtlessness. Ones that don't involve just words.

[Fazor]

Well jeeze, I missed out on some conversation! I was indeed joking about finding nothing wrong with the use of 'embiggin' in a professional writing . . . though I wasn't joking about loving the opportunity to use a Simpson's reference.

And IMHO, the difference between using 'cromulent' and 'embiggen' is that the first is clearly* a fake word, the later looks much closer to a real word. That makes it's meaning more clear, but also makes it harder to determine if it's bad vocabulary or if you meant it as a joke (particularly if you don't know the reference).

*'Clearly' is a relative term there, as oft one can make up a word and so long as context gives enough clues, the "meaning" might appear to be clear making it more difficult to tell it's not just a word you don't know. I use to do this in my school reports all the time.

[grant hutchison]

My point, which you seem to be consistently missing, is that the issue is not where the word came from.I'm not missing it. I agree entirely. I've already written the words "the origin is irrelevant (http://www.bautforum.com/1529482-post107.html)" in response to the first time you made this point.

You seem to be more upset about the Simpsons origin of the word than I think is strictly necessary.I'm not at all upset about the word coming from The Simpsons. What makes you think I am?

Shakespeare made up words because they were useful a lot of the time, but a lot of the time, he made them up because they were funny and fit what he was trying to do with a character. I can't think of a specific example at the moment, but I know there's at least one of those we still use."Softhearted"? "Gnarled"? "Laughable"?

Then they're not speaking English. Or, indeed, several words in other languages which have borrowed from English. There are plenty of words with mixed roots. But fewer in many European languages than in English. English speakers often don't realize the sheer variety of roots we are exposed to by virtue of English's mongrel heritage. Spanish and French speakers find many of the Germanic roots in English new and strange; likewise German speakers with the French and Latinate.

I mean you seem to be ascribing genuine malice, or else you see much more evil in thoughtlessness in this case than I. If you like, I can give you much worse examples of malice through thoughtlessness. Ones that don't involve just words.Malice? Evil? Where have I ascribed these motives to the author of the "embiggen" paper? I suggested he'd been guilty of thoughtlessness, and I ascribed a pretty standard-issue human failing to him: showing allegiance to one group while (wilfully or unwittingly) ignoring the sensibilities of another. And then I acknowledged that same failing in myself: "I know I do (http://www.bautforum.com/1529482-post107.html)."
How on earth does that parse into an accusation of evil or malice?

Grant Hutchison

[korjik]

I believe that's equivalent to, Where A is like B, it cures B, which is like A.

Note that (A like B) = (B like A).

But is it still equal in a quantum situation?

:)

[korjik]

I'm not missing it. I agree entirely. I've already written the words "the origin is irrelevant (http://www.bautforum.com/1529482-post107.html)" in response to the first time you made this point.

I'm not at all upset about the word coming from The Simpsons. What makes you think I am?

"Softhearted"? "Gnarled"? "Laughable"?

But fewer in many European languages than in English. English speakers often don't realize the sheer variety of roots we are exposed to by virtue of English's mongrel heritage. Spanish and French speakers find many of the Germanic roots in English new and strange; likewise German speakers with the French and Latinate.

Malice? Evil? Where have I ascribed these motives to the author of the "embiggen" paper? I suggested he'd been guilty of thoughtlessness, and I ascribed a pretty standard-issue human failing to him: showing allegiance to one group while (wilfully or unwittingly) ignoring the sensibilities of another. And then I acknowledged that same failing in myself: "I know I do (http://www.bautforum.com/1529482-post107.html)."
How on earth does that parse into an accusation of evil or malice?

Grant Hutchison

So, are you saying she misunderestimated what you said.....

Sorry, couldnt help it.

:)

[Gillianren]

I'm not missing it. I agree entirely. I've already written the words "the origin is irrelevant (http://www.bautforum.com/1529482-post107.html)" in response to the first time you made this point.

Yes. However, in my attempts to make it general, because I think it's a good general point, you keep going back to this one word.

I'm not at all upset about the word coming from The Simpsons. What makes you think I am?

Your repeated references to "allegiance to a cartoon." Where the word comes from is irrelevant, as we've agreed. Possibly the person has never even seen the episode, and their references to it are an in-joke in their social circle. I don't know how likely that is, but I certainly wouldn't keep going on about how the importance is the source material.

"Softhearted"? "Gnarled"? "Laughable"?

I'm not sure that's quite the sort of thing I mean, but indeed. (If I've got my word sequence correctly, "assassin" was an old word, but Shakespeare was the first to use "assassination.") Now, not all of his new words took. But the language is full of words and phrases that may well have been just trendy pop culture references when they were new.

But fewer in many European languages than in English. English speakers often don't realize the sheer variety of roots we are exposed to by virtue of English's mongrel heritage. Spanish and French speakers find many of the Germanic roots in English new and strange; likewise German speakers with the French and Latinate.

I believe you mean "other" than English. In that English is a European language. I'm perfectly aware that most English-speakers don't really understand the roots of their own language. Many, many people have complained to me about how hard English is to spell, and of course I explain why it is. Most of them are shocked to find out the sheer variety of languages we've "borrowed" from. Or how much the mere fact of the Norman invasion changed the language all by itself. However, again, anyone who speaks good enough English to read an advanced science paper in it has probably worked out that English does that, and while "embiggened" will be obvious to them as incorrect, I don't think it would be impossible to work out.

Malice? Evil? Where have I ascribed these motives to the author of the "embiggen" paper? I suggested he'd been guilty of thoughtlessness, and I ascribed a pretty standard-issue human failing to him: showing allegiance to one group while (wilfully or unwittingly) ignoring the sensibilities of another. And then I acknowledged that same failing in myself: "I know I do."
How on earth does that parse into an accusation of evil or malice?

"It's saying to your readers, 'I care more about a cartoon character than I care about you.'" There's malice implied there, in that it implies an active (or even passive, if you'd rather) intention to confuse the reader. (And again the implication that caring about a cartoon character is lesser than, oh, caring about a character out of literature.) You also referred to it initially as "sad," which is not the word I would have chosen. "Irritating," perhaps. "Incorrect," certainly. But sad? Only inasmuch as using any other slang term would have been. In that it could be worse; it could be text speak.

Heck, I might even accept "embiggen" were it properly in quotation marks to show that it's a reference to something else. But probably not, in context.

[dwnielsen]

But is it still equal in a quantum situation?

:)

Hey, I'm supposed to be the one who derails attempts at meaningful conversation with a bad oneliner!

[grant hutchison]

Yes. However, in my attempts to make it general, because I think it's a good general point, you keep going back to this one word.As representative of the class I object to. It could just as well have been "pericombobulation".

I'm not at all upset about the word coming from The Simpsons. What makes you think I am?Your repeated references to "allegiance to a cartoon."I'm confused. If the author had used "pericombobulation", I'd have discussed it terms of "allegiance to a British TV comedy". How does identifying the origin of the word indicate that I am upset about the origin of the word?

But fewer in many European languages than in English. English speakers often don't realize the sheer variety of roots we are exposed to by virtue of English's mongrel heritage. Spanish and French speakers find many of the Germanic roots in English new and strange; likewise German speakers with the French and Latinate. I believe you mean "other" than English. In that English is a European language.No, I'll stick with what I wrote, thanks. :)
The contrast between "many European languages" and "English" works perfectly well, since the one doesn't necessarily include the other. If I'd written just "European languages" or "all European languages", then I'd have had to reach for an "other".

"It's saying to your readers, 'I care more about a cartoon character than I care about you.'" There's malice implied there, in that it implies an active (or even passive, if you'd rather) intention to confuse the reader.I've already indicated that I believe the author was transmitting the message thoughtlessly. The message need not be of the author's devising at all, and some of our worst errors are in sending unintended messages.

(And again the implication that caring about a cartoon character is lesser than, oh, caring about a character out of literature.)Oh dear. That reflects rather more on your mental image of me than on what I wrote. For my purposes I could just as well have written, "I care more about Jane Eyre than I care about you," had the author used a word coined by Charlotte Brontë (if such exist). The problem the author created for his reader would be just the same, the demonstration of allegiance to a particular group would be just the same. It so happens this author used a word from The Simpsons, but you seem to have generalized an élitist attitude for me from that happenstance. Thanks for letting me know what you think of me. :lol:

You also referred to it initially as "sad," which is not the word I would have chosen. "Irritating," perhaps. "Incorrect," certainly. But sad?Yes, "sad". It's a common enough adjective for people who advertise their private enthusiasms in an inappropriate public arena. Given that I have many private enthusiasms that I feel I need to share with people, I've been "sad" often enough to recognize its manifestations in others.

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

May I suggest we try to get back to discussing the plurality of root languages for English and stop discussing what we each think the others though when they said something?

What's the root language that gave us the -ness ending I used to make the word LEGOness?

[grant hutchison]

May I suggest we try to get back to discussing the plurality of root languages for English and stop discussing what we each think the others though when they said something?Is that what we were discussing?

What's the root language that gave us the -ness ending I used to make the word LEGOness?Something ur-Germanic, I'd imagine, since the thread runs back through Old English, via Saxon and Frisian, to link with German, Dutch and Gothic. (According to the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

And since LEGO is constructed from "leg godt" (play well), which are both of Germanic origin, that would actually make LEGOness a fairly pure construction:D

[Perikles]

What's the root language that gave us the -ness ending I used to make the word LEGOness?It is a Germanic suffix, Old English -nes, Old Friesan -nesse or -nisse, Old High German - -nessi, -nissi, -nassi, originally attached to past participles and adjectives to form nouns, expressing a state or condition. :)

ETA: cross-posting. Sorry.

[Fazor]

Completely random, but what are the origins of the word "refrigerate" ? I mean, the 're' seems unnecessary, as you're not re-doing anything. And friger isn't a verb that I'm familiar with. Then you have to add the 'ate' to show that the verb friger means you've changed the state of something? I'm assuming it all has to do with the word 'frigid'.

I suppose it's good that I didn't develop the word. Otherwise we'd be going around telling people that those leftovers needed to be frigidated.

[Perikles]

There are plenty of words with mixed roots. e.g. Television, Greek-Latin. I thought these were called Portmanteau words, specifically from two different roots, but either I got it wrong or the definition has shifted to mean any word made from two other.

[grant hutchison]

e.g. Television, Greek-Latin. I thought these were called Portmanteau words, specifically from two different roots, but either I got it wrong or the definition has shifted to mean any word made from two other.Such mixtures are sometimes called heteroradical, from ἕτερος, "other", and rādīx, root. So "heteroradical" is heteroradical. :)

Grant Hutchison

[Perikles]

Completely random, but what are the origins of the word "refrigerate" ? I mean, the 're' seems unnecessary, as you're not re-doing anything. As with most English words, it depends on the etymology. Large numbers of words have been invented by taking the Latin root and adding the prefix Re- to denote back or again. However, this word comes straight from the Latin refrigerare, where the prefix does not have this force. :)

ETA - prefixes are deceptive. Inflammable derives from French, meaning capable of burning, but now superceded by flammable to avoid confusion with the idea that in- means un-. Similary, the Greek prefix a- (alpha) actually has eight different meanings, and the most common one, meaning not as in atom not capable of being cut is not always what is meant.

[Fazor]

As with most English words, it depends on the etymology. Large numbers of words have been invented by taking the Latin root and adding the prefix Re- to denote back or again. However, this word comes straight from the Latin refrigerare, where the prefix does not have this force. :)

Well, why would I want to use Latin? I don't live in Latainia.

. . . in all seriousness, or, as much seriousness as I can muster . . . I do sometimes wish I had taken Latin back in grade school, as it seems like it would be fairly helpful. Not that I don't like knowing the limited Spanish that I learned instead, mind you.

[Perikles]

Such mixtures are sometimes called heteroradical, from ἕτερος, "other", and rādīx, root. So "heteroradical" is heteroradical. :)

Grant HutchisonNice one, thanks, but I suspect that ράδιξ is the root of rādīx :)

[grant hutchison]

Nice one, thanks, but I suspect that ράδιξ is the root of rādīx :)Interesting. :)
The OED makes no such Greek connection for radix (or radish!), and my (slim) Classical Greek dictionary doesn't admit to knowing ράδιξ at all, preferring ῥίζα (which gives us rhizome, of course).

Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

... "heteroradical" is heteroradical.
Just imagine: without heteroradicals, we would be driving either an ipso-mobile or an auto-chinese. :D

[HenrikOlsen]

And watching bad movies on the teleopticon:)

[Gillianren]

e.g. Television, Greek-Latin. I thought these were called Portmanteau words, specifically from two different roots, but either I got it wrong or the definition has shifted to mean any word made from two other.

I believe "portmanteau words" was coined by Lewis Carroll in Alice's Adventures Through the Looking-Glass. It generally refers to a word made of two other words smooshed together. (Am I the only one who thinks "smushed" looks better?) The original portmanteau words were "slithy" and "mimsy"; the former is "lithe and slimy" (it should be "slimy and lithe," really), and the latter is "flimsy and miserable." (Also backward.) For the curious, a "portmanteau" is also a form of suitcase.

[grant hutchison]

Of all Carroll's portmanteau inventions, "chortle" seems to be the only one that has made much of a life for itself outside his writings. Why "chortle", one wonders, and not "slithy", "frabjous" or "gallumph"?

Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

... Why "chortle", one wonders, and not "slithy", "frabjous" or "gallumph"?
Perhaps because it's scrumptulicious.

[Gillianren]

We use "gallumph" as onomatopoeia. It's the sound my cat makes running all out across the apartment. (Fog may come in on little cat feet, but not D's.)

[Perikles]

Interesting. :)
The OED makes no such Greek connection for radix (or radish!), and my (slim) Classical Greek dictionary doesn't admit to knowing ράδιξ at all, preferring ῥίζα I think the OED only gives etymologies if they are reasonably sound, and I'm just guessing, so maybe the OED is correct. ράδιξ is first attested for Nicanader, 2nd century BC, and later for Dioscorides Pedanius. The latter was a famous Greek surgeon with the Roman army, so his Greek may be just a transliteration of the Latin.

Also, (I think) the OED gives the etymological root which is the entry into English. A word could be originally Greek, but moved into English directly via Latin from Greek or via French from Latin from Greek, and so on. It has been estimated that 30% of Greek is derived from Egyptian.....You can spend a lifetime speculating about these roots.

[Perikles]

I do sometimes wish I had taken Latin back in grade school, as it seems like it would be fairly helpful. Not that I don't like knowing the limited Spanish that I learned instead, mind you.Latin is helpful in all kinds of ways, especially in understanding the grammar of English. If it's any consolation to you, I have been trying to learn Spanish and thought Latin would be a great help with vocabulary because Spanish is mostly derived from it. I am disappointed to find that in fact Spanish is derived from Vulgar Latin, and Classical Latin is of almost no use at all.

[grant hutchison]

We use "gallumph" as onomatopoeia.Yeah, it works as a soft gallop.

The story goes that Carroll's original idea was to pack "gallop" and "triumph" into his portmanteau, though I don't believe Carroll ever said as much (I'm distant from my Annotated Alice at present).
That's how Frank Warrin seems to have dealt with it in his brilliant French translation of Jabberwocky.

The fifth verse goes as follows in English:

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

Warrin renders this in French as:

Un deux, un deux, par le milieu,
Le glaive vorpal fait pat-à-pan!
La bête défaite, avec sa tête,
Il rentre gallomphant.

Gallomphant looks to be a portmanteau of galloper and triomphant.
But look at what he does in line three: he not only preserves the galloping rhythm of Carroll's original, he improves it. Even if you don't speak French, I think you should be able to hear the prancing hooves of a triumphant horse in "La bête défaite, avec sa tête". :clap:

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

Well, if you pronounce French well enough to get the rhythm.

The first time Harry Dresden referred to a blade going "snicker-snack," it was cute. Possibly were it just once a book. It does get a bit tired. I like my "Jabberwocky" as well as the next person, but really.

I do find it amusing to speculate on which words will stay slang and which will become more permanent fixtures. However, anyone's guess is probably as good as mine.

[Perikles]

I think this thread is about the use of English generally, so hopefully this is not off-topic.

Do members think that various languages have qualities which make them appropriate vehicles for specific tasks and inappropriate for others? (Of course, if you only have one language, then you are stuck with it). Languages survive of die depending on their flexibility to incorporate new concepts. This is one great strength of, for example, English, which seems highly adaptable, and a great weakness of, say, Welsh, which (with no offence intended) is fossilized and incapable of embracing new ideas such as maths and physics. This to me is primarily why English is so suited to scientific discourse, because the language can evolve with the subject, and the vocabulary can develop at a rate unknown to other modern languages because the multiple roots of the language have provided a history of word invention.

Anyway, I was reading, as one does, the preface written by Liddel and Scott to their epic Greek-English Lexicon, which is what they called a dictionary in 1843. To me, their language is the best English prose I have ever seen, with a precision and simplicity which should be emulated. If you could ignore the non-PC masculine pronouns and other crimes of the times, it is worth reading just for their view on the different qualities of languages, and their having to justify translation into English. Their view of French is interesting, as is their spelling (labor? Shakspere?). The preface starts thus:

We are at length able to put forth this Lexicon. It has cost us several years of labor, and that very heavy, because we had few hours to bestow. Events, of which it is needless to speak particularly, threatened more than once to break it off altogether.
However, we have at length finished it. And we send it forth in the hope that it may in some wise foster and keep alive the accurate study of the Greek Tongue; that tongue, which has been held one of the best instruments for training the young mind; that tongue, which as an organ of Poetry and Oratory is full of living force and fire, abounding in grace and sweetness, rich to overflowing, while for the uses of Philosophy it is a very model of clearness and precision; that tongue, in which some of the noblest works of man's genius lie enshrined, - works, which may be seen reflected faintly in imitations and translations, but of which none can know the perfect beauty, but he who can read the words themselves, as well as their interpretations.

It will be proper, by the way of a Preface, to say something of the nature of our Work, of the sources from which we have drawn, and of what we ourselves have done.
But first it may be well to notice an objection that may be taken, at starting, to the notion of an English Lexicon of the Greek Tongue. It may be asked, whether such a Lexicon should not be in Latin, as in the old times; whether the other is not an unworthy condescension to the indolence of the age.
In answer, we would draw a distinction between an English Lexicon and English Notes to Classical Authors. We hold that Critical Notes on these authors will always be best in the Latin Tongue. No other will be found so brief, clear, and easy of remembrance; no other has the advantage of technical terms and phrases which all scholars have agreed to use; no other will be so readily understood by Readers of all countries and all ages. But though this is our opinion in regard to Critical Notes, it by no means follows that we should hold the same in regard to Lexicography. The chief business of Lexicography is one, to interpret words; of Criticism another, to unravel the idioms and intricacies of language. The Latin Tongue may be the best organ for the latter work, yet very unequal to the due execution of the former. And quite unequal it is. For just as impossible is it to render the richness, boldness, freedom, and variety of Greek by Latin words, as it is to give any adequate conceptions of Milton or Shakspere by French translations. Yet French is, confessedly, the language of Mathematics. So Latin is the language of Classical Criticism. But we hold it feeble and defective for purposes of Lexicography. And when we add to this the fact, that in richness at least and freedom (though certainly not in beauty or exactness) our own language is not unworthy to compare with the Greek, we conclude confidently that the best Lexicon an Englishman can use to read Greek with, will be in English. A Frenchman may have reason for using a Greek-Latin Lexicon; an Englishman can have none. ......

[kleindoofy]

... ράδιξ ... may be just a transliteration of the Latin. ...
I had a Greek professor (i.e. a professor for Greek, not a professor from Greece) over at the office a few hours ago and asked him about that. He said ράδιξ is most definitely *not* Greek and must be a so-called loan word.

... It has been estimated that 30% of Greek is derived from Egyptian ...
I asked him about that very carefully, not wanting to sound like a trecky asking a physics professor about warp speed, and he said it's total poppycock*. (He actually said "Unsinn," but I thought I'd translate it. ;) ) In the 19th century, western philologists were all trying to prove that Greek was a pure indo-european language, pristine and clear. They failed.

Seeking a derivation, at least in part, from Egyptian seems to be a backslash from that period. Again headed for failure.




* I'm assuming that "poppycock" is not a portmanteau of a plant and a chicken. ;)

[grant hutchison]

Shakspere?A spelling based on one of his signatures, championed by Furnivall's New Shakspere Society (1873) and the Oxford English Dictionary in its first edition.

* I'm assuming that "poppycock" is not a portmanteau of a plant and a chicken. ;)There's an interesting word. Many dictionaries trace it to Dutch pappekak, "soft faeces" (which certainly has a ring of etymological plausibility to it). But the Oxford English Dictionary is silent beyond calling it "slang (orig. U.S.)". Why's that? Because the Dutch equivalent of the OED, the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, has no record of pappekak: no such word recorded in Dutch since 1500.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

There's an interesting word. Many dictionaries trace it to Dutch pappekak, "soft faeces" (which certainly has a ring of etymological plausibility to it). But the Oxford English Dictionary is silent beyond calling it "slang (orig. U.S.)". Why's that? Because the Dutch equivalent of the OED, the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, has no record of pappekak: no such word recorded in Dutch since 1500.

Heh. I was going to go there. Since the word, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary (alas, I cannot afford an OED), was apparently first recorded in 1865, there may well be a strong presumption of falsity involved, especially given the Victorian era's distaste for anything so crude. They still go with the Dutch, and I certainly wouldn't try to do the investigation on my own!

[Perikles]

In the 19th century, western philologists were all trying to prove that Greek was a pure indo-european language, pristine and clear. They failed.

Seeking a derivation, at least in part, from Egyptian seems to be a backslash from that period. Again headed for failure.I was unaware of any 'political' move to try and prove anything. How any philologist could try and prove the purity of a language developed in the Mediterranean, with sea trade between many nations with non indo-european languages, is beyond me. Even the alphabet was borrowed from the Phoenicians, why not vocabulary from elsewhere as well?

[Perikles]

alas, I cannot afford an OED!I have just noticed advertisements for the brand new OED on a CD, rather more convenient than 20 large books, and much cheaper, priced in the UK at around 170 pounds sterling. Still expensive, though. :)

[Gillianren]

I was unaware of any 'political' move to try and prove anything. How any philologist could try and prove the purity of a language developed in the Mediterranean, with sea trade between many nations with non indo-european languages, is beyond me. Even the alphabet was borrowed from the Phoenicians, why not vocabulary from elsewhere as well?

I'm not sure when the attempt to prove it was, but depending on when and whom, I'd hazard that the attempt could be summed up in one word--"racism." It wouldn't be the first time. Much of European history is built on Greek history, if you dig deep enough, and a lot of people would not be okay with a European history built on not-Europeans.

I have just noticed advertisements for the brand new OED on a CD, rather more convenient than 20 large books, and much cheaper, priced in the UK at around 170 pounds sterling. Still expensive, though. :)

Put it this way--the US government gives me the whopping sum of $674 a month US. Of which my expenses take $500. If I were willing and able to save every spare penny for a while (I'm not sure of the current conversion rate), I could afford it--but even leaving aside my rent/utilities/internet check, there's the expenses for my poor cat and so forth. I love the idea of owning the OED, but not more than my cat. Not even more than having a few dollars every week to spend as I please.

[Perikles]

I love the idea of owning the OED, but not more than my cat. I see your point, and would never dare to question your priorities. :)

[Gillianren]

I see your point, and would never dare to question your priorities. :)

He may be a stupid cat, but he's my stupid cat!

[geonuc]

He may be a stupid cat, but he's my stupid cat!
I'm certain your cat agrees with your priorities, as well.

That said, I'd love a copy of the OED.

[Perikles]

There's an interesting word. Many dictionaries trace it to Dutch pappekak, "soft faeces" (which certainly has a ring of etymological plausibility to it). But the Oxford English Dictionary is silent beyond calling it "slang (orig. U.S.)". Why's that? The OED is remarkably cautious about etymologies, and I have no idea how modern eymologists assess the likelihood of various candidates for the origin of a word. Take for example skedaddle. Etymologists have puzzled over this one, the OED simply giving it as 19th century U.S. military slang meaning to retreat hastily, to run away. Nobody is prepared to suggest a connection with the Greek skedannumi (also skedao) meaning to disperse, of a routed army. There is no direct evidence, but a very odd coincidence if unrelated.

[grant hutchison]

The OED is remarkably cautious about etymologies ...Or others are remarkably impetuous. :) In the case of "poppycock", I'd say the fact that the imputed origin-word is not recorded in Dutch was a pretty good reason to avoid that etymology.

For skedaddle, the OED has quite a lot to say, but none of it relates to your Greek:[prob. a fanciful formation.
‘Said to be of Swedish and Danish origin, and to have been in common use for several years throughout the Northwest, in the vicinity of immigrants from those nations’ (Webster, 1864); but there are no forms in Sw. or Da. sufficiently near to be seriously taken into account. There is some slight evidence of the currency of the word in English and Scottish dialect use before it became prominent in America, but it is doubtful how far this is of importance for its origin.]
Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

Tounge-in-cheek German likes to differenciate between "Etymologie" and "Etymogelei."

The German verb "mogeln" means to fudge around with something, to cheat or falsify.

So, "Etymogelei" means more or less "etyfudgoly" and is used humorically for poor etymology.

[grant hutchison]

Tounge-in-cheek German likes to differenciate between "Etymologie" and "Etymogelei."

The German verb "mogeln" means to fudge around with something, to cheat or falsify.

So, "Etymogelei" means more or less "etyfudgoly" and is used humorically for poor etymology.Sounds similar to "folk etymology" in English. People tell each other the story often enough for it to become "common knowledge", without there being any demonstrable basis.
A classic example would be the derivation of "sincere" from sine cērā, "without wax", referring to an alleged practice among sculptors of filling defects in their marble with wax.

Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

Sounds similar to "folk etymology" in English. ...
No, that's "Volksetymologie."

Etymogelei is used jokingly among linguists for pointing out mistakes to peers who should know better.

[grant hutchison]

Etymogelei is used jokingly among linguists for pointing out mistakes to peers who should know better.Ah, I see. Thanks. :)

Grant Hutchison

[megrfl]

Sinus supremus is a line in the movie E.T.

Here is a link to the movie script.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial

Tyler: Hey, Elliott, where's your goblin?
Michael: Shut up.
Steve: Did he come back?
Greg: Well, did he?
Elliott: Yeah, he came back. But he's not a goblin. [blurts out] He's a spaceman.
Steve: [mockingly] As in extraterrestrial?
Tyler: Where's he from? Uranus. Get it. Your anus?
Greg: He doesn't get it Ty.
Tyler: Get it? Your anus?
Greg: He doesn't get it.
Elliot: You're so immature!
Greg: And you're such a sinus supremus.
Elliott: Zero charisma!
Greg: Sinus supremus!
Elliott: Zero charisma!
Greg: Sinus supremus!
Elliott: Shut up, Greg!
Pretty Young Girl: Hi, Elliott.
Greg: Sinus supremus!
Elliott: Zero charisma!
Greg: You wimp!

The best translation for sinus supremus is far supreme, which does not make sense.

Obviously someone wrote the script, where did they get this line from? Why would you call someone you are tormenting far supreme? I can see if he initially called Elliot a name followed by far supreme, but that isn't the case.

Any ideas/thoughts?

[Moose]

I'm thinking "sinus" for nose. Loosely: big nose.

[grant hutchison]

The best translation for sinus supremus is far supreme, which does not make sense.Hmmm. That looks like two translations of suprēmus, and nothing to do with sinus.
"Last bay"? "Final embrace"? "Greatest hiding place"? Without context it seems impossible to assign a definite meaning, unless this is a stock Latin phrase like manus suprēma ("finishing touches"). Not one I've heard, though.

Grant Hutchison

[Fazor]

I'd wager that Moose's explanation is correct. "Big Nose"

[grant hutchison]

I'd wager that Moose's explanation is correct. "Big Nose"I'd wager the same. :lol:
We probably shouldn't expect either small boys or scriptwriters to know much actual Latin, these days.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

There is also, of course, what's called "dog Latin," a term I've never had clearly defined but can work out from context. From context, it seems to mean "this sounds Latin-y, even though it doesn't really follow the rules or necessarily use real Latin vocabulary." It's possible the screenwriter was familiar with the concept.

[grant hutchison]

There is also, of course, what's called "dog Latin," a term I've never had clearly defined but can work out from context. From context, it seems to mean "this sounds Latin-y, even though it doesn't really follow the rules or necessarily use real Latin vocabulary."Yes, if Moose's "translation" is correct, sinus supremus would be a fine example of Dog Latin, just like all those variants of ni lesse illigetimi te carborundum.

Grant Hutchison

[Fazor]

So, where do the word 'hullabaloo' and the word 'hootenanny' come from?

[kleindoofy]

... what's called "dog Latin," ...
We used to call that "pig Latin."

As to the "Sinus Maximus" (ok, Supremus), that's still better than "Biggus Dickus" from The Life of Brian. ;)

... illigetimi. ...
[cough, cough] illegitimi. ;)

[sarongsong]

..."dog latin"...We used to call that "pig Latin"..."No cigar!" :)Unlike the similarly-named language game Pig Latin (a form of spoken code popular among young children), Dog Latin is more of a humorous device for invoking scholarly seriousness...often, correct Latin is mixed with English words for humorous effect or in an attempt to update Latin by providing words for modern items...
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Latin)

[grant hutchison]

We used to call that "pig Latin.""Pig Latin" is more often applied to that tiresome business of baffling the listener by moving the first consonant to the end of the word and adding "-ay": so "Pig Latin" is rendered "Igpay Atinlay" in Pig Latin.

[cough, cough] illegitimi. ;)Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you? :sad:

Grant Hutchison

[megrfl]

Thanks guys! Big nose and "dog latin", excellent.

Unfortunately, this thread isn't showing up on a web search for sinus supremus. It's the best explanation out there.

[kleindoofy]

pig Latin -- dog Latin
Oops.

correct Latin is mixed with English words for humorous effect
Well, errare my little hominum est, and a hardy quousque tandem to you. ;)

[Moose]

Unfortunately, this thread isn't showing up on a web search for sinus supremus. It's the best explanation out there.

Give it a day or two. The web crawlers are fast, but not quite _that_ fast.

[megrfl]

Give it a day or two. The web crawlers are fast, but not quite _that_ fast.

Yes, I suppose. I guess there isn't a mad rush for an explanation twenty-seven years after the movie. :)

[Moose]

We fill our niche. :) Not always very quickly, but we do fill our niche.

[megrfl]

So, where do the word 'hullabaloo' and the word 'hootenanny' come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hootenanny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hullabaloo

:)

[Fazor]

Well anyone can use wikipedia (in fact, that's how I checked how to spell hootenanny ;)) but I wanted to hear it from the mouths of these lingophiles.

[megrfl]

Well anyone can use wikipedia (in fact, that's how I checked how to spell hootenanny ;)) but I wanted to hear it from the mouths of these lingophiles.

Perhaps if your words ended in us, such as hootenannyus, you may have received a more immediate and comprehensive response. :)

[kleindoofy]

Well anyone can use wikipedia ...
Yes. The Wiki entries both offer short histories of late use of the words, but have nothing about their origins.

A correct etymology would propose possible origins and then show the development of early forms or derivations down to the present form.

At a first glance those two words do seem suspiciously onomatopoeic, but I wouldn't want to suggest that definitely without further evidence.

[Gillianren]

Well anyone can use wikipedia (in fact, that's how I checked how to spell hootenanny ;)) but I wanted to hear it from the mouths of these lingophiles.

The Online Etymology Dictionary lists "hootenanny" as dating from 1940, tied to the earlier version meaning "a gadget," dating from 1927. It has no known origin other than that. As for "hullabaloo," it dates to 1762 as "hollo-bollo" and might be a rhyme of "hello," a premise I find shaky, given that it really isn't. Other than that, they have no guess.