Slashdot Mirror

The plural of anecdotes is not data

Please take time to research the origin of this phrase.

Your misunderstanding of the basic mechanism of gathering observations makes you look like a meme-chanting person who does not willingly engage in analytical thought. That's a very big group around here, so you're not going to achieving anything that stands out with that approach - not like you could if you gave up the group-think.

Data are collections of reported observations. Observations can be made by instruments, humans, or other means. Determining the quality of the observations (and of the observers) can help determine the reliability of conclusions drawn from data, but discarding or rejecting observations because they have been categorized as "anecdotal" based on their congruence with your pre-existing beliefs is the polar opposite of science.

Or to put it more simply, please stop completely misquoting a very intelligent and useful aphorism. Learn what the real quote meant, and grow past your fellows. Thank you.

The Author in question is James D. Nicoll, http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-499.html.

I've seen it on T-shirts around Toronto here as well, which isn't surprising, given James lives just over in Kitchener, ON... haven't talked to him much in a few years, though.

"I should note that Jimbo Wales ran the Ayn Rand mailing list for years, has said "[F. A.] Hayek's work...is central to my own thinking about how to manage the Wikipedia project.", and I can give dozens of more examples of where Wales's somewhat far out political biases lay."

LOL if you think Hayek is far out you've been living in a very special [1] world. Others [2] evidently disagree with you, oracular tone or not.

[1] http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind 0411b&L=ads-l&P=3513
[2] nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/19 74/press.html

--
phunctor
"Useful idiots - gotta love 'em!" V.I Ulianov.

This is a logical fallacy called a Biased Sample, also known as a "Pauline Kael"

...there is empirical evidence that more highly educated people use more complex syntax than less educated people, consistent with the idea that greater exposure to literacy correlates with greater *use* of complex syntax...

The early beliefs about the education level of the Unabomber were that he was probably a relatively uneducated laborer. Yet the notes and letters he sent in connection with his mail bombs, as well his following Manifesto, gave strong indication that he was a more highly educated person.

As in previous studies of the exceptionally gifted, the kids in Gross's cohort tended to be the firstborn of small families. The parents were older than average, having delayed having babies until they had completed tertiary studies or achieved financial security. They and the children's grandparents were more highly educated than most people of their generation and more likely to be employed in professional or managerial positions. Children whose parents were born in Asia were significantly over-represented in the group.

There are theories that Shakespeare's plays were actually written by someone else, perhaps someone more highly educated. Names suggested include the statesman and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Southampton (Shakespeare's patron), Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford and even Queen Elizabeth.

Students believed that this is mostly because employers and supervisors in Dominica do not appreciate the talent of the more highly educated and self-motivated employees. Instead, those persons are perceived to be threats to the career mobility of their associates.

Pearl Harbor is the only correct American spelling. Harbour would be the English spelling; it's not our fault the founders were functionally illiterate.

From what I've read, children in most environments develop one of the languages as 'dominant' and are usually quite capable in that one - despite the best efforts of parents. Some children do develop as you describe, but in studying them long term it has been discovered that these same 'slow' children on average outpace their one language peers in the shared dominant language later because of their additional linguistic skills. Learning a second language early seems to give children the ability to abstract at an early age the concept of language itself. I'd go on, but actually a lot of research has been done on this topic. Here are some links. Enjoy!

http://www.cal.org/ http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/earlychild.htm l http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/home.html http://www.nabe.org/

Ask a linguist if you like:
http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/

Another linguist that was working with Gordon, and has lived with the Piraha people for 20 years has posted this short reply to the LinguistList. Following the link, you can find a link to his paper which is pending peer review.

"Gordon's conclusion in Science is that Piraha offers support for the
Whorf hypothesis. While I believe that this is plausible, my own view
is that the lack of counting must be seen in the larger cultural
context and that when thus viewed in conjunction with the lack of
color words, the lack of embedding, the simplest kinship system ever
documented, and various other characteristics, a different,
non-Whorfian picture emerges. The basic conclusion I reach is that
culture constrains grammar in ways many of us have not previously
imagined. I take this to be an argument against, for example,
Universal Grammar, at least the more widely-accepted versions of it."

In spite of your errant pedantry, some of your points are plainly wrong.

irregadless is most definitely a word. The OED, Webster's, and the American Heritage Dictionary all contain it as a listed item. (While all "words" are not necessarily listed, all listed items are necessarily words.) It's got nearly a century of documented history. Its usage may be discouraged, but it is nevertheless a word.

virii actually IS a word, however sad this fact may be. Its use is restricted to very specific groups, which qualifies it as part of a specific linguistic register (sort of like a dialect within a social subgroup of a population). So, "virii" is the plural of "virus" in and only in the context of computer viruses being discussed by the sorts of people who think writing them is a good way to spend an afternoon and their ilk. (You may find the discussion of plurals of virus in English & Latin to be found here of some interest. But these facts about what ought to be the correct plural according to English & Latin morphological rules do not discount the fact that "virii" entered one register of the English language via a route that "smacks of pseudo-pedantry.")

And, saddest of all, though this day has not yet come, alot will one day be a grammatical word in the English langauge. Words like "altogether", "instead", "nonetheless", "amiss", "already", and "alright" (the last of which is still in the process of gaining acceptance), all attest to the process by which words that frequently collocate coalesce into new words. Thankfully, we'll probably all be dead before "alot" becomes kosher in formal writing.

'cwm' isn't really an exception, is it's a borrowed word from Welsh, where w is a vowel. See also this interesting mailing list post.

Esperanto? A quick google search finds the top estimates to be anywhere from one million to ten million, and possibly much lower if you require fluency above that of, say, Arnold Rimmer. Feel free to refute this, it was merely a quick search. I suppose there might be a wider distribution of speakers than most other languages with that few speakers, but they'd still probably be better off learning some other language. French is pretty widely distributed, too.

It depends on what school of linguistics you subscribe to. In the US, Chomsky's generative grammar reigns nearly universally (MIT, etc.). In Europe, functional linguistics is widespread (Reading, Liverpool, Freiburg, Cologne, etc. but also Stanford, U AZ, etc.).

To us functional linguists, it is apparent that language does not determine thought, but also that language is determined by culture. In other words, use is what determines what language looks like (see Krug's work with string frequency, Lehmann and Traugott's grammaticalization, etc.).

Of course, it seems once again to boil down to the ancient question -- what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Once language appeared on the scene, it changed with usage. However, it is quite robust, as evidenced by the very slow linguistic changes compared with rapidly advancing culture.

As a NASA worker, I'd like to congradulate [...]

And now, we all know who slammed those drilling probes to neverland ;-)

So I thought until I found something .

There are a lot of linguistic links between Japanese and Chinese. There are countless words in Japanese whose pronunciation comes from the original Chinese pronunciation. An obvious example is "denwa" (katakana reading) which comes from "dianhua" (pinyin) which means "telephone" in both languages. This is only a modern example, but many were borrowed so long ago, that the Chinese don't even say it the same way anymore.

You're describing loan words, which proves nothing about Japanese being descended from Chinese (which was the original parent's assertion). By your logic, English is descended from Chinese because we've incorporated words like "Gung-Ho".

Look, I'm not a lone voice crying in the woods here; there is a lot of linguistic theory devoted to the study of language families, language isolates and the like, and none claim that Japanese is descended from Chinese, even though they all (as I do) acknowledge that Japanese borrowed much vocabulary from Chinese. There are fundamental, radical differences (agglutinative vs. not, tonal vs. not, inflected vs. not, Subject-Object-Verb vs Subject-Verb-Object, etc, etc, ad naseum) between the two languages that preclude the idea that one is descended from the other.

It's a fascinating subject, and I'd usggest you do some research on it. Here is but one reference among many, many articles that have been written on the subject of Japanese and it's (lack of descent from) the Sino-Tibetan languages (specifically Chinese). Salient quotes:

Azerbaijani Turks write Turkish with a Cyrillic alphabet, like the Russians use. But that doesnt make Russian and Azeri Turkish related languages. Serbian and Croatian are one and the same language but the Serbs write with the Cyrillic alphabet and the Croats with a Latinate one. Chinese writing and Japanese writing may look somewhat alike, but in fact Japanese and Chinese dont work alike, dont form sentences or words in the same way, and are about as different as any two languages can possibly be.

Nor should you confuse borrowing of words with being linguistically related. Japanese and Korean both have borrowed many Chinese words but that doesnt make Chinese the "origin" of Japanese. Japanese and Korean are simply not demonstrably related to Chinese. "Related to" means "share a common linguistic ancestor with". There is no known, reconstructed, or even speculated at prehistoric language which is thought to have been the ancestor of both Chinese languages and Japanese and Korean.

Either Mirriam-Webster is in error, or it is referring to a highly unusual and archaic grammar usage.

Keep in mind that Mirriam-Webster may be considered authoritative (well, *I* consider it authoritative, though the really anal-retentive folks will look for the OED) for spelling -- not for grammar. I have always seen English style references state that use of the apostrophe-"s" combination is incorrect. All of the serious resources that Google digs up on short notice (aside from m-w) also back this -- take a look at the MLA style apostrophe guidelines or this linguist's lengthy analysis with an eye on "BOUNDARY MARKER (EXCLUSIVELY)".

Quote from an intersting summary:

"My brother was once hiking around Gomera with a friend. They ran out
of drinking water and asked a local person for some. This person said
she didn't have any (it was a very dry area!) but her neighbor up the
mountain could help. "I'll let her know you're coming" she said, and
whistled up the mountain. They walked up the mountain. My brother
walked ahead and arrived first. When he got to the house, a stranger
sitting there said: "Ah, there you are. The water's right around the
corner there; but where is your friend?"

I wonder if it is possible to somehow make music with Silbo Gomero. I assume regular whistling-along would become impossible or at least more difficult--but then again, people speaking pitch-based langugages can sing, so maybe it's possible with Silbo as well :)

That said, I wish they had more details about the language in the article... Though here's what I found so far:
Wikipedia entry, and another link mentioned there.

So let's examine this particular change (for that is what it is, not just some random 'error'). We are interested in trying to give some sort of explanation for why this pronunciation might have arisen in the first place, since, as you point out, it is quite common. [Never mind what your grammar school teacher told you about 'quite' -- it now means 'very', at least in America.] Obviously, the word 'nuclear' is composed of at least two parts: 'nucle-' and '-ar'. The second is a predictable variant of '-al' after a Romance stem which contains an 'l', often at the end of the stem: scale - scalar. Note that the stem may be an independent word, as in the last example. Now, when we add -al/ar to a word or stem, certain changes regularly take place. If the stem ends in a consonant plus 'l', a vowel is inserted before the 'l': carbuncle /karbunkl/ - carbuncular, circle /sirkl/ - circular, etc. What appears to have happened here is that instead of a rather strange stem /nukli/, where the insertion of the 'u' would not take place since the 'l' is not at the end of the stem, the stem has been reformed by a process similar to 'folk etymology', and we end up with the stem /nukl/, which will quite naturally give us 'nucular', just like 'circular'. In general in English, when a word has an unusual structure in one way or another, and especially if it is fairly common, it tends to get restructured so as to make it more like other common words in the language. Some aspects of this process are what we call 'folk etymology'.

Stressing is mine. The full text can be found here So, it seems, this pronunciation isn't just some random combination of sounds. It is an attempt to homogenize the english language. Go fucking figure.

Did everyone throw such a fit when Eisenhower pronounced it this way? I doubt it. Just because George W. is an idiot doesn't mean *every* word he says is wrong.

does this require us to accept 'nucleus' and 'nuculus' as interchangable words?

Are bow and bough interchangable? (can you say "-1 offtopic"? Sure you can!) Go fuck yourself. Now that's not only *on* topic, but highly relevant.

In the latest chapter of Google protecting their trademark, they even asked the dictionary folks at Wordspy to change their definition of the word "google" to prevent it from becoming a generic word. All this has caused mixed reactions and lots of news coverage by microdocs (formerly Google Village), Search Engine Watch, and Internet.com. Their latest target seems to be the Google Web APIs-based automated search service Googlert, who changed their name to "Google Alert" and explain that they were asked "politely" and have been "sympathetic" to Google's concerns. All this recent activity might be in the spirit of shoring up the Google brand and business image before an IPO...

In the latest chapter of Google protecting their trademark, they even asked the dictionary folks at Wordspy to change their definition of the word "google" to prevent it from becoming a generic word. All this has caused mixed reactions and lots of news coverage by microdocs (formerly Google Village), Search Engine Watch, and Internet.com. Their latest target seems to be the Google Web APIs-based automated search service Googlert, who changed their name to "Google Alert" and explain that they were asked "politely" and have been "sympathetic" to Google's concerns. It's nice to see that they let them keep the word 'Google' in the name - I guess Google is trying to keep web developers on its side.

Funny that the article didn't mention the fact that Google's lawyers recently asked Paul McFedries to remove the word 'google' from his excellent wordspy lexicon. A company that 'gets it' indeed.

Dear Mr. McFedries:

I am trademark counsel for Google. I have recently become aware of a
definition of "google" on your website, www.wordspy.com. This definition
implies that "google" is a verb synonymous with "search." Please note that
Google is a trademark of Google Technology Inc. Our brand is very
important to us, and as I'm sure you'll understand, we want to make sure
that when people use "Google," they are referring to the services our
company provides and not to Internet searching in general. I attach a copy
of a short, informative piece regarding the proper use of "Google" for your
reference.

We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of
"google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the
trademark status of Google. [basically saying: Note: Google (TM) is a registered trademark of Google Technologies].

Apparently you didn't read the linked article (it's okay - not the first time on Slashdot, and won't be the last).

Verb usage is specifically exempted from US trademark law. So while it is true that Google would have to sue to prevent dilution of its trademark in the case of other "Google sites" or "Google services", when it comes to "googling" (esp. as in the current case, that is, dictionary, word, and usage tracking) they have no legal leg to stand on.

Google on, friends.

-renard

All dialects, including those who developed in England, are incorrect. Most dialectic differences were develloped by illiterate people. There is a correct way to use plurals in English which is well-documented, and it does not matter where you are from.

This is misinformation. All dialects are correct, in that all dialects are self consistent with their own sytaxes and vocabularies. One can speak of the standard dialects, for instance, Received Standard Southern British, which is the canonical British dialect for public discourse, and Standard American English, which is the canonical American dialect for public discourse, or . Another widely used dialect in the United States is African-American Vernacular English, which is sometimes called by linguists Standard African American English, and politically sometimes called "ebonics" and distinguished as a different language by well-meaning idiots who have no background in linguistics.

If one wishes to take part in public discourse, particularly in print, and especially "learned" discourse, it is necessary to learn one of the standard dialects, and it is helpful to learn more than one (e.g., both the American and British standard dialects). If one wishes to converse with persons from other regions that speak English and be sure to understand them, it is helpful to know something about the non-standard dialects which we all use (for instance, The Jargon File is in part a dictionary of a particular non-standard dialect used by self-identified "hackers," and like all dialects, its use is part of that process of self-identification).

One's speech can be incorrect with reference to a particular dialect; for example, one who speaks of a cracker as a "hacker" is not speaking in correct hacker dialect, and is thus identifying himself (or herself) as a poser (i.e., is unintentionally emphasizing an false affectation). Thus one can, in the schools (one of whose primary purposes is the teaching of the local standard dialect), speak of right or wrong use of plurals, in reference to that standard dialect. But one cannot apply the rules from one dialect to others and necessarily identify what are right or wrong uses correctly. Indeed, this is a case in which the American and British standard dialects differ; if one says "Apple is," one is identifying oneself as an American or a wannabee; if one says "Apple are," one is identifying oneself as a Brit/Canadian/etc. (I think this is the usage in the various Commonwealth countries) or a Brit wannabee.

Here's an excellent thread on a linguists list that talks a little bit about prestige or canonical dialects and standards.

I leave the enumeration of the number of different dialects intentionally used in this posting as an exercise to the reader, though I point out that it is an exercise intended to show how shifts in dialect can change one's sense of the "identity" of a writer/speaker.

> ... the indigenous population of the Canary Islands. They lived on the string of islands, but never built boats and thus never actually met. They communicated between islands using whistles. In fact, their entire language was built on whistles. They are the only group of humans known to have a language built on whistles. Unfortunately, upon colonization of the Canaries, the Spanish all but wiped them out.

Close, but you got the details all wrong.
"Silbo Gomero", the whistling language of the Canary Islands is a whistled encoding of SPANISH. It would be hard for them to never have left their island and never have met strangers yet still speak a variation of Spanish. It would also be incorrect to say the Spanish colonized and wiped them out... they ARE Spanish.

You are also incorrect on two other points:
The language is spoken (whistled?) on only one of the Canary Islands, so it could not have created it in order to "communicate between islands". Instead it is theorized that it was created to facilitate communicating across the rugged and difficult to navigate terrain of the mountainous interior.
They are also NOT the only group of humans known to communicate using a whistled language. There are many examples in South America and some other locations.

thank you for yr reply - it made me think a little more about th subject than i had before

yes you are right that there are two versions of all th greek letters - i felt foolish when i read yr reply as i had forgotten this fact - however i am not sure if they were used as we use our 'upper case' and 'lower case'

before writing more on th subject extemporaneously i want to do some further searching on th internet and thinking - my thought processes at th moment are running along the lines of an initial script designed with high legibility of each letter - evolving into a second more cursive script which is less 'blocky' and easier to write and which increases legibility of whole words rather than th individual letters - and later these two scripts being combinded according to certain rules which vary from language to language when printing was industrialised

one interesting source on this topic i have found so far is here

let me know if you want to continue this discussion further - cheers

Small followup:

Bzzzzt. Sorry, thanks for playing though. Its is a possesive pronoun; pronouns aren't modified by the genetive ending ('s). If we apply your 'logic' than it should be he's instead of his and I's instead of mine, and so forth.

The 'logic' you mentioned would apply more in (here I'll use some technical terms, since you seem to value that) agglutinating languages (such as many Finno-Ugric languages), or in polysynthetic languages (such as most Eskimo languages), but it generally doesn't apply in inflectional languages (such as most Western European languages), and can't apply in isolating languages (such as Chinese).

"It's" is more technically correct

If you'd like to learn some accurate technical things about languages, I suggest you check out what the Linguists say: http://www.linguistlist.org. Afterall, they spend a bit more time thinking about this kind of stuff, and they use a little more empirical data than their own opinions.

Chris

A noble spirit enslickens the lamest GUI.

--
Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand.-- Cool Hand Luke

Have a look at an issue of the linguist list from 1995 here.

Known as the Muhlenberg vote, it was an attempt by a group of Germans to have all Federal laws printed in German as well as English. From waht I can gather there was a vote on ajournment of the discussion which was carried by one vote, the final result of the discussion was unrecorded (but I can assume it failed!). The story since seems to have acquired urban legend status that the overall referendum on an official language failed by one vote, beleivable since at the time there were a fair number of German speakers in the population and there most wanted to assert their independence from the Brits.

Good story though!