Re: Indo European Origins
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:36:46AM -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: Very true. Communicating with a 14th century Englishman would be difficult. I took a similar major's course with Robert Kaske in the 80's without the benefit of the side-by-side. It was as close to learning a new language as I got without having it count towards my foreign language requirement. I think a modern reader would recognize a fair number of words and structures. In a good bit of that they would be mistaken in their understanding and overall would be hard-pressed to comprehend the texts in any depth. You don't even have to read 14th Cent. lit to experience that. Read A Clockwork Orange -- most folks find they read about 1/3 to 1/2 before they go back and start over. Gibson, at least the earlier stuff, like Neuromancer, is a bit like that, but Burgess really almost invented a new language. Language evolves more rapidly than the yours (and Tim's) examples tho -- look at innercity blackspeak, especially Chicago. Forget the ebonics jokes -- this is a genuine language change. Or look at other areas of the country with older language evolution -- Gullah in So. Caroline, for instance, a much earlier language specialization. When I was at the Univ. of So. Alabama in Mobile, I came across a group of country blacks in a grocery store whose language was totally incomprehensible, at least to me. I asked black friends about it, and they could mimic it a bit, but confessed that they too had a lot of difficulty understanding it, and they were native Mobilians. I was raised, for the most part, in the deep South, but I've also come across many whites there whose speech was very difficult to understand, and which, I'm sure, if one tried to read an accurate phonetic rendition, without benefit of body language, would seem be essentially a foreign language. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Indo European Origins (language mutability, efficiency)
On Ken's All contemporary natural languages, like all biological species, are the same age. At first this parsed because I was thinking in the sense of all organisms have ancestries going back the same amount of time. (And humans aren't the 'goal' of evolution.) Not sure if non-bioheads got this. Anyway others' complaints clarified speciation --if you are willing to identify a bifurcation point then you *can* age a species or any other fork --Linux 2.4, Latin, Corvettes, etc. At 10:36 AM 1/14/03 -0800, Michael Motyka wrote: An interesting question that arises out of the observation that some languages are relatively static and others - like English - have been changing steadily. Is there any connection between the evolution behavior of the language and the vitality of the culture? I think so. Vitality is fuzzy. Clearly America admitting everyone (cf Japanese) helps. Clearly not having an Acadamie Anglaise helps (cf surrender-monkeys). Electronic media probably help. There's an even more interesting technical evolution: English is also undergoing entropic refinement or Hamming-like coding, as speakers prune or invent for efficiency. As it is, it takes fewer letters in English to say something than every other common language. Look at the instruction manuals for your domestic appliances. Forms (memory requirements) get simpler ---can you believe that the surrender-monkeys retain a gender-bit for every friggin object-- and phonetically simpler too. The sounds get more orthogonal. Also the influence of immigrants and children and lazy native speakers who can't tell a v from a w or d from th, or remember the 150 irregular verbs. Some of this is natural. I've adopted the southern y'all because English has no plural third person and this ambiguity is annoying when you're emailing to several people. Note also the efficiency of the contraction. You hear data used as singular enough times, you say fuck it, I'll have a beer, or several beer [sic]. Talk to Eastern Europeans long enough, you'll start dropping your articles, though you may miss the FEC/prompting and flash back to Boris Natasha cartoons...
Re: Indo European Origins
At 04:25 PM 01/14/2003 +, Ken Brown wrote: All contemporary natural languages, like all biological species, are the same age. This statement is so silly it leaves me speechless... [] Nonsense. Icelandic is little changed from the Old Norse of 1000 A.D. Icelanders can easily read the sagas without help; modern Danes and Norwegians cannot. English, by contrast, is substantially different from just the Middle English of Chaucer, let alone the Old English of Beowulf. Er, that's exactly what I said - they are the same age, but some change more slowly than others... and I did warn that I was being unreasonably pedantic. If you're going to be pedantic, it would be nice if you start by defining the objects you're measuring the age of, because otherwise I have to strongly agree with Tim's statement - I don't see how you could claim either that all natural languages date from the year X BC when Mitochondrial Mama Eve learned to talk, or that all biological species have been extent since our first cellular ancestors crawled their way up out of the primordial soup to declare themselves to be the prime-time slime. The one set of definitions I'm familiar with that would lead to statements like yours is creationism, in the 4004BC Big Bang sense, with a subdefinition that anything created the same week is the same age, since of course the plants, animals, and humans were created on different days. In modern scientific creationism*, the same events occurred stretch out over a longer and earlier time, with plants and animals and humans showing up in different periods, so they're much different ages. But neither one of those definitions makes all _languages_ the same age; at minimum there are the languages descended from what Noah's family spoke and the different languages that appeared after the Tower of Babel (unless you want to argue that those are supernatural languages?) but I don't see Biblical evidence asserting that other languages didn't appear as people needed them. Hawai'ian pidgen simply didn't exist until Europeans moved into Polynesian territory and started trading with them, and unlike the evolution of English since Shakespeare and/or Chaucer, the languages that emerged from the collision of English Anglo-Saxon and Norman after the Conquest (plus the collisions of Anglo and Saxon and Latin and Celtic and Pictish-if-it's-different that happened before) are sufficiently different from what either side spoke beforehand that I can't see any pedagogue worth his salarium asserting that they're still instantiations of the same Original Linguistic Object. You might as well argue that Esperanto** is just a rapidly evolved Indo-European. Were you trying to make some different point your pedagogue taught you, about the age of all these things being Brand New Every Day? Or is there something fundamental that I'm just missing that you had in mind? * Stop giggling, the difference is important to my point here... ** You probably _can't_ argue that about Logban; hacking the grammar to make it yacc-parseable is pretty radical surgery.
Re: Indo European Origins
On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 07:42 AM, Ken Brown wrote: R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 4:25 PM -0500 on 1/9/03, Trei, Peter wrote: Basque is unique, as you say I remember someone saying somewhere, probably on PBS, that Basque is *very* old, paleolithic, and lots of popular mythology has cropped up that it's the closest living relative to some other ur-language, which even Indo-European is derived from. pedant mode ON All contemporary natural languages, like all biological species, are the same age. This statement is so silly it leaves me speechless... Getting my breath back, Of course some might change more slowly than others (Greek seems to have a;ltered less than Latin in 2500 years), or might remain in one place longer than others (it is silly to say that Welsh is an older language than English, but it is older in Britain) Nonsense. Icelandic is little changed from the Old Norse of 1000 A.D. Icelanders can easily read the sagas without help; modern Danes and Norwegians cannot. English, by contrast, is substantially different from just the Middle English of Chaucer, let alone the Old English of Beowulf. I took a class in The Canterbury Tales, in the original with a side-by-side translation, from a Chaucer scholar. A few recognizable words, a few familar patterns. But quite clearly there has been significant evolution of English in the past half-millennium. By contrast, the Koran is readable in the original by modern Arabs. Other such examples abound. --Tim May
Re: Indo European Origins
R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 4:25 PM -0500 on 1/9/03, Trei, Peter wrote: Basque is unique, as you say I remember someone saying somewhere, probably on PBS, that Basque is *very* old, paleolithic, and lots of popular mythology has cropped up that it's the closest living relative to some other ur-language, which even Indo-European is derived from. pedant mode ON All contemporary natural languages, like all biological species, are the same age. Of course some might change more slowly than others (Greek seems to have a;ltered less than Latin in 2500 years), or might remain in one place longer than others (it is silly to say that Welsh is an older language than English, but it is older in Britain) I don't know. The youth of today. They should make them all do cladistcs. pedant
Re: Indo European Origins and other stuff
Major Variola wrote... Reference). Of course, the Bhagavad Gita is a subsection of the Maybe your highschool has firewalled off anything that will lead you to Hoffman, Ott, Huxley, etc. Yeah, read all a lot of that shit 25 years ago. Seems easier to ask in an email while making some points. My mind only has a finite stack, and right now its still filled with SONET and OFAs. New financial crap comin' in knockin' the stuff out the bottom. Blame it on the 70s and (at the time) legal MDMA. Hmm, the 21st century: all the world's libraries at your fingertips, but now you're obligated to use them! Bullshit. A tiny fraction of what's been in print is available online. Try to find Jung's Eranos Jarbuchs online (well, maybe it has shown up recently). ... Of course Hitler and the gang appropriated this term and pumped it with some very different meanings, LIST: even playing with a kitten and a laser pointer get tiring eventually. Tyler, we know this shit. We're not undergrads doing September here. Next you're going to tell us how the swastik was a groovy Amerind sign before it was coopted by Austrians. Or continue to slog through the history of the old world tribes. See _guns germs and steel_, btw. Hard to tell, based on what I read here. I've been assuming everyone was so totally friggin' clever here, but its occuring to me that a lotta the shit I've written here was completely misunderstood. including notions of racial purity. I was curious as to whether Tim May meant this version of the term or what (and all that is concomittant, including hoped-for genocides), in which case bludgeoning him with a heavy, blunt object in the base of the skull would be a break for all humanity. -TD Here's a very general clue: Tim has a clue. Tim's exposed himself under that nym for some time now, do some research. Yeah, I did a little bit and that which I found was inconclusive. He seemed to reject the concept of race (indicating he has a clue), but he's also indicated that frying 2 million welfare mutants would be desirable. How much time do you think I need to spend? How much time do you think I have? Seemed a hell of lot easier to ask. Another hint: keep your irony meter powered up when reading posts here. Carefully remove the sarcasm filter from the satire window to detect tongue-in-cheek rays. Bigger hint: you might have saved us all some once-ever-so-precious-bandwidth by writing off Aryan as a simple sound pun: Bay Area -an, get it? Finally, here's something to keep in mind: culture != race. You can slam a culture --after all, values are choices-- pretty rationally, thought there's not much evidence for slamming gene-based human groups. You can decry zionist colonialism without animosity towards hebrews. You can mock decrepit urban negro, or appalachian caucasoid, or suburban soccermom culture without impugning the genome of the actors. Well, this I agree with, and in certain special cases it may actually be a fruitful thing to do. Believe me I'm not so politically correct as to not say I'm not sure the culture of most people in mainland China is such that they could handle something like democracy (I lived in China in the 80s). Or African Americans have made absolutely world-class contributions to the arts, but most of them settle for the white-produced ghetto bullshit that's designed to keep them away from white jobs. But this explaining of the obvious is becoming painful, please assume we're a group of at least peers, if not polite tolerant but decreasingly amused elders. OK, I'm hearing your pain. For the larger part, what you yourself post has seemed to be on the money, and there's a significant fraction of what May posts that I agree with (unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realize that because my own opinions are not couched in the obvious rhetoric). At the same time, throwing out praise for the death of millions indicates the guy's never seen any real suffering in his life. Add to that the fact that he has consistently told me not to post, or reiterated his rules for whatever, and smells to me like a fascist. Do I need to stick my nose up his ass in order to figure out what he had for dinner? As for Elders, how old are most residents here?. Don't confuse an online personality with reality. Granted, I'm not in my 50s yet, but I've been around the block a time or two. I do, however, allow myself to periodically morph into and out of said online personality (sometimes mid sentence). I'd also point out the need to be deliberately oblique. I'm not sure we aren't actually headed towards a time where any of us can be carted away for expressing how we really think. I also don't kid myself about whether someone could be listening. And I'm also not convinced that those techniques our boys at the School of the Americas have been teaching might not start to be used here at home for our own good. You know, I really don't want to be tortured.
Re: Indo European Origins and other stuff
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: I'd also point out the need to be deliberately oblique. I'm not sure we aren't actually headed towards a time where any of us can be carted away for expressing how we really think. I also don't kid myself about whether someone could be listening. And I'm also not convinced that those techniques our boys at the School of the Americas have been teaching might not start to be used here at home for our own good. You know, I really don't want to be tortured. Some people think list-servs are a form of torture :-) The main thrust of destroying the constitution was completed in the 70's with RICO and polished off with the WoD in the 80's. By 2000 even some congress critters were noticing and were actually trying to slow down forfiture law. But it's all out the window now, and the precedents are set. The illegal combatant fiction is just one more small step in a few decades of totalitarian crap. Fortunatly dictators are incompetent idiots. It's not that hard to stay out of their way. But it seems to me it's safe to assume the US is a totalitarian state and act accordingly. Be a bureaucrat to survive, and maybe we'll get a Gorbachev to tear the whole thing down. Only another 40 years to go! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Indo European Origins
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Soma? Despite the fact that I've read large chunks of the Rig Vedas, I don't remember anything called Soma (unless this is a Brave New World Reference). Of course, the Bhagavad Gita is a subsection of the Mahabaratabut I don't imagine this is what you are referring to... Then you need to read the Vedas [there is only one Rig-Vega, which is the oldest of the four Vedas] again more closely. Soma is mentioned repeatedly throughout the Vedic hyms. Soma is both an intoxicating elixir, and the god that represents it. Soma is sometimes thought to have been alcohol, a mead-like substance, marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, or other nourishing substances. (The composition of soma is hotly debated by scholars -- I have no firm answer myself.) Soma is said to have nourishing properties, and even the power to instill immortality. (C.f. the eclipse myth of the Hindu demon Rahu.) And, as you mention, soma is a prozac/valium or MDEA-like socially acceptable drug in Huxley's classic, as well as a brand name for the muscle relaxant carisoprodol (whose effects are a great disappointment, if one is expecting it to be anything like the Hindu or Huxley substance of the same name.) The original poster was, no doubt, refering to the original Soma, however. -MW-
Re: Indo European Origins
At 03:32 PM 1/9/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Soma? Despite the fact that I've read large chunks of the Rig Vedas, I don't remember anything called Soma (unless this is a Brave New World Reference). Of course, the Bhagavad Gita is a subsection of the Mahabaratabut I don't imagine this is what you are referring to... Well then do a fucking google on the word in the Indian context. Maybe your highschool has firewalled off anything that will lead you to Hoffman, Ott, Huxley, etc. Hmm, the 21st century: all the world's libraries at your fingertips, but now you're obligated to use them! ... Of course Hitler and the gang appropriated this term and pumped it with some very different meanings, LIST: even playing with a kitten and a laser pointer get tiring eventually. Tyler, we know this shit. We're not undergrads doing September here. Next you're going to tell us how the swastik was a groovy Amerind sign before it was coopted by Austrians. Or continue to slog through the history of the old world tribes. See _guns germs and steel_, btw. including notions of racial purity. I was curious as to whether Tim May meant this version of the term or what (and all that is concomittant, including hoped-for genocides), in which case bludgeoning him with a heavy, blunt object in the base of the skull would be a break for all humanity. -TD Here's a very general clue: Tim has a clue. Tim's exposed himself under that nym for some time now, do some research. Another hint: keep your irony meter powered up when reading posts here. Carefully remove the sarcasm filter from the satire window to detect tongue-in-cheek rays. Bigger hint: you might have saved us all some once-ever-so-precious-bandwidth by writing off Aryan as a simple sound pun: Bay Area -an, get it? Finally, here's something to keep in mind: culture != race. You can slam a culture --after all, values are choices-- pretty rationally, thought there's not much evidence for slamming gene-based human groups. You can decry zionist colonialism without animosity towards hebrews. You can mock decrepit urban negro, or appalachian caucasoid, or suburban soccermom culture without impugning the genome of the actors. But this explaining of the obvious is becoming painful, please assume we're a group of at least peers, if not polite tolerant but decreasingly amused elders. Merci
RE: Indo European Origins
Tyler Durden[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Most of the people from the British Isles over to Northern India speak a variant of the original Indo-European language, with Sanskrit and Lithuanian likely being the closest languages surviving. Some interesting exceptions (I believe) are the Basque in Spain, Hungarians, The (Italian) Etruscans, and (as far as I remember) the Flemish. Basque is unique, as you say. The main other European non-IE group is the Finno-Ugric, comprising Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and a handful of other minor languages (I'm half Estonian by ancestry). Flemish is firmly in the IE group, somewhere between German and Anglo-Saxon. See http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2282/finno.html for more info on the Finno-Ugric languages. (No, I don't speak Estonian) Peter Trei
