Disclaimer: I am really an expert in spatial cognition, yadda-yadda yadda, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
The easy question first: > describe their orientation as upwards, downwards, etc > Got any info on that?
I think Stephen C. Levinson (perhaps with Penelope Brown) working on Tenejapa Tzeltal argued that there is only the Uphill/Downhill/Side in that language. This seems to be specific to the Tenejapa variant, presumably having something to do with the locale there. I've been working on Petalcingo Tzeltal and have not come across this, but that may not mean much - I really did not investigate it, it is too complicated;)
> What if you ask the absolute direction-language guy, > With which hand do you throw a spear?"? Hmmmm... I don't _really_ know, but I could speculate. If the language really only has cardinal reference, then possible answers might be "THIS hand" (if the interlocutor is visible) and "The one currently north/south and I am facing east/west" though this last one seems silly. There is an interesting typological question as to whether there are ANY languages that have ONLY cardinal reference and nothing else - I really don't know the answer, but it seems unlikely. I think usually there are different modalities available for different tasks: absolute for open spaces and large distances, perhaps relative or body-part analogy ("the coke bottle is at the foot of the table") for proximate locations. So my coke bottle example in a previous post is a bit unfortunate in that respect - perhaps a house and a tree would be better. So clearly there are languages where the cardinal reference is PRIMARY (at least for certain tasks), but that is different.
If you believe that your native language is learned, then you are probably right. However, if you (like many linguists) hold that language is not learned, but rather aquired (it does not matter what that means right now), that is that the mechanisms that go into children "learning" to speak are radically different from from those that underlie you learning math, then the S/W hypothesis becomes more interesting. This also resolves the strong version paradox you present.
I think part of the reason Sapir/Whorf went out of fashion is because "researchers" used to say things like this all the time... "Look at those guys they don't have a word for X, and they cannot understand X, therefore they are REALLY primitive". The first observation is an empirical one, though hard to prove generally (how do you show that language A does not have a word for X), while the second is impossible to prove, and the third... well, that's just a value judgement.
It must be noted that neither Sapir nor Whorf engaged in this type of analysis, as far as I know. The weak form of the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis does not suffer from this esthetic flaw: it is concerned more about what people can do rather than what they cannot.
> If that's so, isn't that just like saying "on its east side" > instead of "on starboard", just using seperate words instead of inflections?
Well, yes and no. In this case whether it is inflection or separate works really does not matter. If the only (main) devices for describing spatial locations your language has are cardinal, then you can't say things like "grab the apple to the left of the coke bottle, not the one on the right", but instead you must use North/South/East/West, right? If so, then you always have to be aware of your orientation in absolute space, even indoors, at night, and in unfamiliar surroundings, etc. If this was true, then at least some part of Sapir/Whorf hypothesis would be right, because it seems that speakers of non-cardinal direction languages are NOT generally aware of their absolute orientation in space. The cardinal direction speakers experience "reality" differently because they are aware of the absolute orientation always, or at least that would be one claim one could make.
But that's just using cardinal orientation when you have to. So now imagine a guy is telling a story about almost drowing, nearly getting eaten by a shark, etc. The first time he tells the story, he is facing (say) north, and he flips his left hand forward from palm down to palm up while holding it perpendicular to the direction he is facing. The next time though, he is facing east, and flips his hand counterclockwise, while holding it parallel to the direction he is facing. This way he positions the "boat" always the same ABSOLUTE way - along east/west axis. I would imagine no speaker of English would do that. More likely, I think, the gesture would reflect the orientation of the speaker relative to the boat at the time she/he saw it capsize, no? If this is true, then the Gugu Yimidhir speaker is attending to the cardinal orientation even when he really does not need to - who cares how the boat was REALLY positioned when you are talking about narrowly escaping from shark-infested waters.
I probably should say here that while some linguists (Levinson for Tenejapa Tzeltal) have argued that absolute direction speakers are worse at completing tasks requiring use of relative direction manipulation, others have challenged this with their own studies. So the jury is still out, and this is an interesting debate that has been raging in linguistics for some time, and looks set to go on much longer. This left/right lobe distinction is a puzzling (to me) contribution to the discussion.
Yes I think you are right about "information source" distinction grammaticalized in languages - supporters of Sapir/Whorf would argue that somehow those speakers attend more to these kinds of distinctions between "I know"/"I heard"/"Everyone knows".
You are also right about English speakers using cardinal directions - it seems to be more common in some locales than others, as you point out. I think it would be interesting to do a study on whether we can see any more cardinal "awareness" in people who live in those places.
I think the strong form of Sapir-Whorf is generally taken to be that - too strong. However, Steven Pinker is not the only authority on the subject, and there are plenty of smart people who think that there is something to the weaker form of this (something like "the categories present in the speaker's native language must be attended to by the speaker"). This would mean that you can, in fact, learn concepts like "schadenfreude" but also if concepts like "schadenfreude" are present in your language you are probably more attuned to them. Which is what the study demonstrates, I think.
This is easier to talk about with more "differing" concepts (rathen than simply presence/absence of a lexical item, such as "schadenfreude", like absolute (north-south) directions versus relative (left-right). This http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/jlin.1 993.3.1.3 is a link to an article about a speaker of an absolute direction-language modifying his gestures showing how the boat capsized based on his (the speaker's) position at the time of the telling. The storyteller always used the correct ABSOLUTE gesture showing the flip (say, along the east-west axis): something that's hard (for me, at least) to imagine a speaker of English doing.
First of all, let me say that I (as many other Sladoters) appreciate your efforts.
My question is about code is speech. I have heard an argument that goes something like "If it can be printed on a t-shirt it is speech". The examples like obfuscated Perl contest, or programmers expression ">/dev/null" also point to code being speech. On the other hand, if I steal a bunch of credit card numbers and print them on T-shirts, I could try to argue that I am exercising my right to free speech.
Question: What are your arguments (and will there be any) in favor of code being free speech? [BTW, I think many people on slashdot could come up with wonderful examples of code as speech]
The fourth paragraph you quote (describing one subject's collection of stuff which has references to his sexual interest in children) is rather distressing. The issue is that sexual interest is not a crime, not should it be. It is reasonably well established, for example, that Reverend Dodgeson (better known as Lewis Carrol, the author of Alice in Wonderland) probably experienced sexual attraction to children. This is not a crime, as long as the person does not engage in sex with someone who is not able to withhold prudent concent - such as a child. By the same rules, videotaping children at a playground, is not a crime either. It is used in Freeh's address purely as a scare tactic: they are watching you!
Yes, it is easy to defend those people's right to speak who happen to agree with you. Those that do not - defending their right to speak is another matter. As far as consitution is concerned, I would defend "morons/lunatics/facists", KKK members and Republican's right to speak, just because I value my own right to speak when the majority does not agree with me.
The subject of Trollers on Slashdot is a different story, however. This is not a country, it's a web site / community, whatever. No one has a "right" to post to Slashdot, but since it's a "community" that is in theory being developed here, everyone should have input as to how they would like/. to be. Here's mine:
I think the current solution to the Troll problem goes a bit too far. I think the ideal solution would have the following properties:
1. Allow anyone to post (yes, even Trolls) 2. Allow the anyone to choose not to see the Trolls.
I went back and looked at the posts that probably started this whole thing. The Trollers were not interested in Linux, Pearl, or whatever else: they wanted to inflame. Some people get off on that. But I think it would be best for everyone if Trollers (and the people who find it necessary to respond to them) have their space. People not interested in those games, do not have to be involved. More moderation options would take care of that. Trollers at other times may post interesting material. So preventing them from posting seems bad, other than in exceptional circumstances (such as overloading the server. The same goes for AC posts (Plenty of people have spoken more eloquently than I could about why anonymous access is valueable and why posts should not be deleted outright).
Thus, in the end, I would recommend that Slashdot admins allow Trollers to have their space, and everyone else their space, and let's make it easy for people to separate the TrollSpace from DiscussionSpace. Let's be an inclusive community, rather than exlusive one, even to people who annoy us.
Which modems does mgetty/vgetty support for voice features? From what I gathered in the posts here, 3COM v90 and old Multitechs work well. I don't know if it is even possible to get those Multitechs now. The list of best modems supported on ohio-state seems to be hopelessly outdated.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I am really an expert in spatial cognition, yadda-yadda yadda, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
;)
The easy question first:
> describe their orientation as upwards, downwards, etc
> Got any info on that?
I think Stephen C. Levinson (perhaps with Penelope Brown) working on Tenejapa Tzeltal argued that there is only the Uphill/Downhill/Side in that language. This seems to be specific to the Tenejapa variant, presumably having something to do with the locale there. I've been working on Petalcingo Tzeltal and have not come across this, but that may not mean much - I really did not investigate it, it is too complicated
> What if you ask the absolute direction-language guy,
> With which hand do you throw a spear?"?
Hmmmm... I don't _really_ know, but I could speculate. If the language really only has cardinal reference, then possible answers might be "THIS hand" (if the interlocutor is visible) and "The one currently north/south and I am facing east/west" though this last one seems silly. There is an interesting typological question as to whether there are ANY languages that have ONLY cardinal reference and nothing else - I really don't know the answer, but it seems unlikely. I think usually there are different modalities available for different tasks: absolute for open spaces and large distances, perhaps relative or body-part analogy ("the coke bottle is at the foot of the table") for proximate locations. So my coke bottle example in a previous post is a bit unfortunate in that respect - perhaps a house and a tree would be better.
So clearly there are languages where the cardinal reference is PRIMARY (at least for certain tasks), but that is different.
If you believe that your native language is learned, then you are probably right. However, if you (like many linguists) hold that language is not learned, but rather aquired (it does not matter what that means right now), that is that the mechanisms that go into children "learning" to speak are radically different from from those that underlie you learning math, then the S/W hypothesis becomes more interesting. This also resolves the strong version paradox you present.
I think part of the reason Sapir/Whorf went out of fashion is because "researchers" used to say things like this all the time... "Look at those guys they don't have a word for X, and they cannot understand X, therefore they are REALLY primitive". The first observation is an empirical one, though hard to prove generally (how do you show that language A does not have a word for X), while the second is impossible to prove, and the third... well, that's just a value judgement.
It must be noted that neither Sapir nor Whorf engaged in this type of analysis, as far as I know. The weak form of the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis does not suffer from this esthetic flaw: it is concerned more about what people can do rather than what they cannot.
> If that's so, isn't that just like saying "on its east side"
> instead of "on starboard", just using seperate words instead of inflections?
Well, yes and no. In this case whether it is inflection or separate works really does not matter. If the only (main) devices for describing spatial locations your language has are cardinal, then you can't say things like "grab the apple to the left of the coke bottle, not the one on the right", but instead you must use North/South/East/West, right? If so, then you always have to be aware of your orientation in absolute space, even indoors, at night, and in unfamiliar surroundings, etc. If this was true, then at least some part of Sapir/Whorf hypothesis would be right, because it seems that speakers of non-cardinal direction languages are NOT generally aware of their absolute orientation in space. The cardinal direction speakers experience "reality" differently because they are aware of the absolute orientation always, or at least that would be one claim one could make.
But that's just using cardinal orientation when you have to. So now imagine a guy is telling a story about almost drowing, nearly getting eaten by a shark, etc. The first time he tells the story, he is facing (say) north, and he flips his left hand forward from palm down to palm up while holding it perpendicular to the direction he is facing. The next time though, he is facing east, and flips his hand counterclockwise, while holding it parallel to the direction he is facing. This way he positions the "boat" always the same ABSOLUTE way - along east/west axis. I would imagine no speaker of English would do that. More likely, I think, the gesture would reflect the orientation of the speaker relative to the boat at the time she/he saw it capsize, no? If this is true, then the Gugu Yimidhir speaker is attending to the cardinal orientation even when he really does not need to - who cares how the boat was REALLY positioned when you are talking about narrowly escaping from shark-infested waters.
I probably should say here that while some linguists (Levinson for Tenejapa Tzeltal) have argued that absolute direction speakers are worse at completing tasks requiring use of relative direction manipulation, others have challenged this with their own studies. So the jury is still out, and this is an interesting debate that has been raging in linguistics for some time, and looks set to go on much longer. This left/right lobe distinction is a puzzling (to me) contribution to the discussion.
Yes I think you are right about "information source" distinction grammaticalized in languages - supporters of Sapir/Whorf would argue that somehow those speakers attend more to these kinds of distinctions between "I know"/"I heard"/"Everyone knows".
You are also right about English speakers using cardinal directions - it seems to be more common in some locales than others, as you point out. I think it would be interesting to do a study on whether we can see any more cardinal "awareness" in people who live in those places.
I think the strong form of Sapir-Whorf is generally taken to be that - too strong. However, Steven Pinker is not the only authority on the subject, and there are plenty of smart people who think that there is something to the weaker form of this (something like "the categories present in the speaker's native language must be attended to by the speaker"). This would mean that you can, in fact, learn concepts like "schadenfreude" but also if concepts like "schadenfreude" are present in your language you are probably more attuned to them. Which is what the study demonstrates, I think.
1 993.3.1.3 is a link to an article about a speaker of an absolute direction-language modifying his gestures showing how the boat capsized based on his (the speaker's) position at the time of the telling. The storyteller always used the correct ABSOLUTE gesture showing the flip (say, along the east-west axis): something that's hard (for me, at least) to imagine a speaker of English doing.
This is easier to talk about with more "differing" concepts (rathen than simply presence/absence of a lexical item, such as "schadenfreude", like absolute (north-south) directions versus relative (left-right). This http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/jlin.
First of all, let me say that I (as many other Sladoters) appreciate your efforts.
/dev/null" also point to code being speech. On the other hand, if I steal a bunch of credit card numbers and print them on T-shirts, I could try to argue that I am exercising my right to free speech.
My question is about code is speech. I have heard an argument that goes something like "If it can be printed on a t-shirt it is speech". The examples like obfuscated Perl contest, or programmers expression ">
Question: What are your arguments (and will there be any) in favor of code being free speech? [BTW, I think many people on slashdot could come up with wonderful examples of code as speech]
Thank you
The subject of Trollers on Slashdot is a different story, however. This is not a country, it's a web site / community, whatever. No one has a "right" to post to Slashdot, but since it's a "community" that is in theory being developed here, everyone should have input as to how they would like /. to be. Here's mine:
I think the current solution to the Troll problem goes a bit too far. I think the ideal solution would have the following properties:
1. Allow anyone to post (yes, even Trolls)
2. Allow the anyone to choose not to see the Trolls.
I went back and looked at the posts that probably started this whole thing. The Trollers were not interested in Linux, Pearl, or whatever else: they wanted to inflame. Some people get off on that. But I think it would be best for everyone if Trollers (and the people who find it necessary to respond to them) have their space. People not interested in those games, do not have to be involved. More moderation options would take care of that. Trollers at other times may post interesting material. So preventing them from posting seems bad, other than in exceptional circumstances (such as overloading the server. The same goes for AC posts (Plenty of people have spoken more eloquently than I could about why anonymous access is valueable and why posts should not be deleted outright).
Thus, in the end, I would recommend that Slashdot admins allow Trollers to have their space, and everyone else their space, and let's make it easy for people to separate the TrollSpace from DiscussionSpace. Let's be an inclusive community, rather than exlusive one, even to people who annoy us.
Which modems does mgetty/vgetty support for voice features? From what I gathered in the posts here, 3COM v90 and old Multitechs work well. I don't know if it is even possible to get those Multitechs now. The list of best modems supported on ohio-state seems to be hopelessly outdated.
Thanks