Kim,

you mention Russian as antipole (this is not a political pun!) to Tee-Dumm: 
no article in talking - yet they have gender and apply it as consequently as 
e.g. the Latin-s (yet not having been derived from their habits). Hungarian 
has Tee-Dumb, but no gender and the classic rhytmical poetry can be found in 
it as in Latin. (Not an Indo-European language), plus the nonchalance for 
using plural (e.g. when quantity is named - even such as "many") singular is 
used.
So the conclusions about languages - and especially language-families - is 
scary, it goes back further than 'habits by USING a language' - it is a 
complexity-formation (I use evolution in a different sense) by evolving 
life-style in different habitat-areas and origin of the folks. From the 
proto-caveman on.

English is a good mixture, the vocabulary is IMO more from Latin than from 
Anglo-Sachsen - when (after moving to the US) an English word did not come 
up in fast speaking and I remembered the Latin word and said it 
'Anglicized': in many cases people did understand it.

Have fun in misunderstandings!

John M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kim Jones" <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au>
To: <everything-l...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: KIM 2.1



On 21/12/2008, at 6:12 AM, John Mikes wrote:

> Kim,
> although I try to keep my common sense, I do enjoy sometimes the
> follies in the transport and zombie etc. abominations.
> To bring in, however, why a 'machine' should be in English a lady,
> is too much for me.
> In 'my' language there are NO genders at all,  almost  as in Swedish
> (utrum = human and ne-utrum = non human?) - using pronouns.
> In my view the gnder-designation in many IndoEuropean languages is
> somewhat arbitrary and just serves to deface the foreigner.
> *
> Anything 'gay' is sex-related (identical that is).


I think we can and should do without genders, yes. This bothersome
language practice arose with the over-fussy latino concept of the
definite/indefinite article; the need for a word to always precede the
noun with an introductory flourish of some kind: "The" "la" "il"
"some" "une" "those" - it's essentially a rhythmic function of the way
Romance (and English) languages work. "The dog" "a house" "some
apples" "les lettres" - it's the good old "tee-DUM tee-DUM tee-DUM"
rhythmic language pattern archetype. "Iambic Pentametre" in English
verse. It's clearly not NECESSARY to assign gender to objects, but the
MUSICAL language function of always having to go "tee-DUM" when you
designate something means the system responds to that with whatever
fits. It's perfectly and utterly illogical in every other sense.

Note that TONIC languages (Russian, Japanese etc. ) - languages which
don't bother with an article or distinguish the plural (who cares if
it's one or many? Why do you have to attribute a gender to
everything?) - any languages MINUS "tee" before "DUM" have a
completely different rhythmic feel and verse scansion.

They go "Dum dum dum dum duuuum dum duuuuum" or any variant of that,
always minus the referrent weak upbeat syllable "tee"

"tee-DUM tee-DUM tee-DUM" pockmarks the whole of the English language.
Imagine if we had opted for genders as well like the latinos. Why the
Germans succumbed to it as well can only have something to do with
their being civilised rather quickly by the Romans



> You wanted to mention a-sexual? Well, a cute machine can be 'sexy').
> (Ferrari sportscar?)



Jeremy Clarkson and I would probably agree with you - Ferraris are sexy.




> *
> If Bruno wants to help you
> "climb on the shoulders of Post, Godel, Lob,
> > Solovay, Matiyasevitch (among others):
> (like: Robinson, Peano) I remember that all those learned names
> acted in a secluded domain at a lower level than ours - in the ever
> broadening epistemic enrichment's cognitive inventory (not
> restricted to math-view). It
> broadened since their time. This list is at a much higher (broader)
> level than it was for the named mathematicians.



Well - those mathematicians didn't have "Grand Theft Auto-IV" and
iPods to play with, so how could they possibly have as broad a field
of view as us?



>
>
> And:
> Do not lose your musical point of view.



see above!

K





>
> JM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Kim Jones
> <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> On 18/12/2008, at 5:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > Gosh, Kim, don't tell me that you will enjoy the full UDA, because
> > this would, not doubt, trig in me a strong motivation for explaining
> > to you the arithmetical version of the UDA; that is; how to explain
> > the UDA to the universal machine, and then ask "her" what *she*
> > thinks about all that. (In french, for a machine,  you refer to
> > "herself", and I feel impolite to say "itself" (given what will
> > follow, and the fact that "itself" does not exist in french).
>
>
> French-speakers are truly bizarre (well read "interestingly bizarre")
>
> you think it's impolite to think of a machine as a sexless "it" (as in
> Anglais) -- yet you quite arbitrarily assign a feminine gender to the
> word!!! What's so feminine about a machine anyway? What if the machine
> is gay? "It" might fit
>
>
>
> >
> > The universal machine is not only the UD Dreamer (Robinson
> > Arithmetic, Combinators), in situations it can be the lucid dreamer
> > (Peano Arithmetic, Combinators+induction).
>
>
> The machine computes the Everything. It can read and it can write,
> like any machine. But because everything by definition will take an
> infinite time to compute (just to buffer the file, let alone write it
> to disc) the machine must commence reading out the file before the
> full file is written. Hence "Dovetailer". The Dreamer gathers the
> information and assembles the file for the lucid dreamer who writes
> and reads (verifies) the file
>
> ├ža va, toi?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The universal machine *is* the real surprise, eventually.  It is the
> > observable "white rabbit" that  I put clearly and publicly in the
> > hat. No magic.
>
>
>
> The most magical thing of all is that there is no magic
>
>
>
> >
> > But to explain this I will have to explain to you some amount of
> > elementary math, and then some amount of computer science, and then
> > some amount of mathematical logic, and then,  just to be able to
> > illustrate or verify what the machine says about "matter", some
> > amount of quantum mechanics.
>
>
>
> Just remember to take the mathematical part out of the maths. I will
> cope easily with the rest
>
>
> >
> > i have to help you to climb on the shoulders of Post, Godel, Lob,
> > Solovay, Matiyasevitch (among others): from there you will see that
> > the universal machine is (incredibly) creative; so much that she can
> > lose herself in its creations, but she can remember, also. Actually
> > she cannot not remember, eventually.
>
>
> Sounds like you have been up there already. I guess you know what the
> view is like from there.
>
> I'm climbing.
>
>
> K
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >





--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to