| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Left handed and right handed languages
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Left handed and right handed languages

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 01:36
Name me just a single "absurd hypothesis" I have to regreat about it.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 10:22
Most recently, that Inuit 'sunglasses' polarise light.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 13:23
I see. You read my posts. Good. You can read this now, then.

With respect to Inuit googles and narrow slits, it seems I wasn't wrong after all.

http://www.physicssource.ca/docs/ebook/13_PearsonPhysics_ch13.pdf

There you can find an explanation about Young's two slits experiment on polarizing, which, curiously, was made by two narrows slits... and as a curiousity they mention the Inuit device... Wink

Yes, sure, I said "polarizing".... Instead I should have said that narrow slit physics is the basis of both "inuit goggles" and modern polarizing glasses.





Edited by pinguin - 02 Jul 2011 at 13:46
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 14:38
Clarification from another thread:
 
Styriborn posts:
Originally posted by pinguin

With respect to Inuit googles and narrow slits, it seems I wasn't wrong after all.
You are still just as wrong:


http://www.physicssource.ca/docs/ebook/13_PearsonPhysics_ch13.pdf
There you can find an explanation about Young's two slits experiment on polarizing, which, curiously, was made by two narrows slits... and as a curiousity they mention the Inuit device... Wink
 
Young's experiment did not polarize the light; the slits diffract the light, creating interference which is a proof of the wave-nature of light. Read the paragraph again. They did mention the Inuit goggles - as a tidbit, they did not say they were polarizing.

Penguin:
Yes, sure, I said "polarizing".... Instead I should have said that narrow slit physics is the basis of both "inuit goggles" and modern polarizing glasses.
No it isn't and you would still be wrong. The slit is a mechanical analogy: the modern polarizing glasses have lines of conducting material which cancel the passing electrical field in the direction of the lines. Your pdf don't explain how a polarizing filter works (probably because its complicated and they don't want to confuse and distract the reader from what seems to be the essential discussion: the wave-particle duality).



Edited by drgonzaga - 02 Jul 2011 at 14:39
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 16:16
Follow it in the other thread, doc. I see you are getting interested in Physics.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 17:03
Penguin, a bit of advice: Cease embarrassing yourself with the proferring of the preposterous while asserting that your competence in other disciplines is stellar and outshines that of others. As already underscored. you misread your own link and then further propounded the error by assigning the Inuit competence in "narrow slit" physics! What next expertise in optics? Reserve this urge to perorate for the appropriate venue, such as the following:
 
 
As for my "following it", what is there to follow unless you want me to begin a historical catalogue on egregious errors by the Penguin.
 
 
 



Edited by drgonzaga - 02 Jul 2011 at 17:05
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 17:36
Go back to the thread an discuss and argue it there. Here we are discussing about postpositioning, which is something in the field of yours knowledge.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 17:55
Er...Penguin you "invented" the diversion given the fact that the premise of this thread has failed to consider what in Language Study is known as the Infinite Rule of Finite Means. When it comes to the Prescriptive and Descriptive did you not read my link? If you are attempting the descriptive then all of your arguments premised upon the prescriptive are null since positioning is in and of itself arbitrary. Predetermined standards on how to speak and write are of dubious origin, have no linguistic justification, and have no relevance at all for the linguist.

 

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 18:04
What about the philologist?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 18:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Er...Penguin you "invented" the diversion given the fact that the premise of this thread has failed to consider what in Language Study is known as the Infinite Rule of Finite Means. When it comes to the Prescriptive and Descriptive did you not read my link? If you are attempting the descriptive then all of your arguments premised upon the prescriptive are null since positioning is in and of itself arbitrary. Predetermined standards on how to speak and write are of dubious origin, have no linguistic justification, and have no relevance at all for the linguist.


I didn't start an argument. I just asked a question why -it seemed to me- that all languages I studied had a reverse order in the adjective-noun secuence, in comparison to Spanish. It was only that. In the process, from the answers that I received, I learned that Indian languages (from India), Persian, Arab and many other languages followed the same order than Spanish and most Latin languages. That's what I learned. I have formulated no hypothesis at all.

It was you, as usual, who transformed any conversation in a discussion, and in an opportunity to show your scholarly knowledge. And to grab the attention, converting it in a scholastic topic.

So, please, don't blame on me the "invention" of a diversion. It is you who started all the show; as usual.


Edited by pinguin - 02 Jul 2011 at 18:15
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 20:39
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

What about the philologist?
 
Therein the "rub" with respect to the historical.  The crux in Philology is diachronic analysis [structural development], which is what distinguishes it from Linguistics. However, when we go bonkers with structuralism we eventually run into Chomsky and his preoccupation with syntax. This latter depends heavily upon presenting language as an ossified phenomenon with respect to synchronic analysis and the dreary realm of cognitive philology.
 
Naturally, as in all else there is ample room for controversy, and herein we could make quick reference to the problems confronted by Flipper each instance a wild assertion surfaces on the Forum [e.g. Etruscan as Turkic!]. Within the ambit of the historical, competent philology is essential to decipherment however when the discipline moves into the realm of textual criticism once again the bugaboo of interpretative assumptions often reflect bias rather than neutral scholarship.
 
The theme struck on this thread would fall into the category of Comparative Linguistics--which on its own may be treated as a subset of traditional Philology--exploring the relationships between languages. After all it was this curiosity that represents the birth pangs of Philology and its "child" Linguistics. Yet, the assertion of "left" and "right" handed languages fails as a determinant in both Philology and Lingustics because of its assumption that the "nicety" of rules prevailed at all moments in language formation. Such is an academic conceit because it was the "Academic" that formulated such rules during the Enlightenment frenzy. One rule that does have to be kept in mind: the Philologist concerns himself with the written records through historical usages. The Linguist always has the present in mind and concerns himself with the spoken language with the vicissitudes such entails as meanings and usages change.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 21:03
So, doc, what are the modern ideas about the origin of those differences? Are they at random or not?
Are the modern classification of languages coherent with these morphological differences or it is rather that modern languages are grouped by vocabulary rather than by gramatical structure?

That's something I am interesting to know.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 00:37
You will be sorry you asked:
 
Begin here:
 
On the Indic Language and the Origin of the Gypsies
 
You might say, damn that stuff was published in the 18th century of what use can it be? The retort: One must always start at the beginning!
 
As to what it might become well you had best familiarize yourself with the terminology (e.g. pragmatic markers) and understand that the current standard for the explicative is transcription into Romanization.
 
An example of a dissertation in Linguistics respecting the philological:
 
 
And a final hint: The German view is not the English view of things...specially when it comes to recognizing the proper parameters of Philology. Here's a bibliography:
 
 
Happy reading!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 17:04
Add Korean to languages where adjective (which are not quite identical to their English counterparts) placement is much like English. I.e., pretty flower  ... flower (is) pretty. For the record, my Korean is limited to "Bring me two beers, please" (Du Ghe maek-ju, jusseyo)" and somesuch. But I did learn to read simple words (necessary for travel prior to the 2002 World Cup). Since the writing is grouped by syllables, it appears similar to Chinese characters but is in fact an alphabet. (Han Gul)


Edited by lirelou - 03 Jul 2011 at 17:07
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 17:37
Interesting.
Actually, the Koreans don't have an alphabet, but a syllabary.
Japanese also have syllabaries, in fact they have two syllabaries, that work like the Korean system of writing. Those are called Haragana and Katanana. But it seems that unlike in Korean, Japanese mix Chinese characters (Kanji) with the syllabaries; making it even more complex that Chinese itself Confused
Now, Chinese, Japanese and Korean have the same adjetive-noun order. 

Edited by pinguin - 03 Jul 2011 at 17:40
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 02:18
Penguin, I believe your are mistaken in re Korean being written with syllabaries. Modern Korean is written with letters, not symbols (as was the case with Hanju).  http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/Language/Korean.htm

Korean and Japanese are members of the same language family, and your allusion of Chinese characters being used in conjunction with Japanese characters is interesting in the Korean newspapers once did the same. Since the Korean language has a fair number of homonyms, the use of Chinese characters made it clear which of the various homonyms applied.


Edited by lirelou - 04 Jul 2011 at 02:27
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 02:38
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Penguin, I believe your are mistaken in re Korean being written with syllabaries. Modern Korean is written with letters, not symbols (as was the case with Hanju).  http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/Language/Korean.htm

Korean and Japanese are members of the same language family, and your allusion of Chinese characters being used in conjunction with Japanese characters is interesting in the Korean newspapers once did the same. Since the Korean language has a fair number of homonyms, the use of Chinese characters made it clear which of the various homonyms applied.


Quite interesting. And thanks for your knowledge. You are the expert in Korean, not me. Wink
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.