English and French did not evolve from a common parent.
I understand why you posted anonymously...
How would you explain the obvoius similarities in the basic numbers from English and French (and a lot of other European languages?) You don't think English had words for 1, 2 and 3 before they required it via French in 1066 or perhaps from the Danes around 850 AD?
Of course English and French evolved from the same common parent. Just as most other European languages did... Surprise, surprise, the Indo-European language family! Here's the linguistic lineage for French and English.
... written history trumps linguistic theories (well understood or not) any day of the week.
In what respect? That's like saying "leather belts are better than oranges"... If you don't define a context for your comparison it's pretty useless. Besides, written history might include linguistic data as well.
If you analyzed the vocabulary, you would conclude that English was a derivative of French.
That's not entirely true. Yes, you'd see that English has a lot of words from French, but then you'd iterate further and find out where French has it from etc.
Besides, when trying to determine language roots by using vocabularies, you'd use a core vocabulary, ie. words that are likely not to be borrowed from other languages. (Using words like prime minister, bulldozer etc. makes no sense, since they are very new words.) So with English <-> French, it could look a little like this:
head (En.); tête (Fr.)
foot (En.); pied (Fr.)
hand (En.); main (Fr.)
one (En.); un (Fr.)
two (En.); deux (Fr.)
three (En.); trois (Fr.)
...
From this you wouldn't immediately say that English was a derivative of French, because of the major differences in the words head, foot and hand, but rather that French and English probably branched from the same language. Note that regarding the numbers 1-3 there are similarities, which can probably even be boiled down to a few morphophonemic rules, but that's not necesarilly indicating that English derived from French, but might as well support the claim that it branched from the same language as French. However, even though the term foot in English is the commonly used term, we see the French influence in eg. biped.
Additionally, if you compared English to Danish, then you'd learn that English has a lot of common words from Danish, like get, give, take, they, both, dirt, egg, seat, sister, skin and sky. All of which were probably incorporated into Old English as a result of the Danish occupation of eastern Britain around 850 AD. (Source: Hudson, Grover: Essential Introductory Linguistics, 2000)
So did English derive from Danish? Not likely, but it was influenced by it. The vocabulary method of determining language roots isn't as simple as you indicate.
Using core vocabularies to determine language roots has been common practice for a long time, but using grammar also is a very welcome addition in diachronic linguistics. Fortunately, you don't have to use one over the other - the two methods can easilly co-exist and be used to supplement each other hopefully resulting in even more accurate determinations of language roots.
Going completely OT here...
Most Epson printers do well with Linux. I bought a cheap Epson Stylus C46 which works just great with CUPS and the Gutenprint drivers. Check out http://linuxprinting.org/ - they have loads of good info and docs.
It's plain BS stating that the indie games are easier to make on Windows... Why? Have you tried? (I haven't!) I hope you can see why your argument seems stupid, if I say "Open... Source...". And WTF do you mean by indie games? Games produced by an independent company? Or just not-so-commercial games?
You're right about people being refered to by other phrases than "firstname lastname", but any newspaper, in fact any text the least bit trustworthy would mention his entire name at least once. (You (hopefully) wouldn't see an article in NY Times about Bill Gates not mentioning his whole name even though mentioning Microsoft and using Gates to refer to him would be enough for most people to know who it was talking about.)
In other words, if someone writes something about someone else but doesn't refer to that someone else by his/her full name at least once, then I (probably) wouldn't trust it anyway.
Yeah, people trust lawyers way too much. It's like suing is becoming "the easiest way to solve your problems". When I become supreme overlord of earth, I'll have all the lawyers sent to dea-I mean, forced labo-Uhm... Happy Camps, and then force some common sense and decency down everyone's throats - at gunpoint!:-p
(applying the correct Google syntax for searching for the words, rather than as an exact phrase)
... but completely ignoring the fact that Jeremy Malcom is a name, so those two words should at least be grouped as a phrase... So, the correct search string would be: "jeremy malcolm" scientology (google search).
The search above only gives me ~29 results... most of them just flaming him. (I can arrange it so you can search for "oiawejiawejiajeidididididididididi crackpot nebula post-modernism coffee" and get about 29 results in a few days...)
Anyhow, it'd be a bit too ironic (and disgusting) if the Australian companies had to pay someone to use the word Linux. Doesn't Linus have some sort of world-wide, moral claim to that trademark? I mean, if they actually get through with it, can't he claim ownership and set the name Linux free again? (I know that "common sense", "moral" and "decency" doesn't apply in court, but wtf is wrong with this world!?!)
Hehe, that aside, I sure hope (given that a robots.txt actually WOULD/COULD prevent satelite images from being taken) that besides running a nuclear plant, they would have the technical know-how to compile a decent robots.txt...
Perhaps a satelites.txt mowed in the lawn!:-p
/me gets his tin-foil hat and a lawn-mower out. Now I just need a lawn...
I'll agree with you. Many things that I can't hold in my hand have intrinsic value. Knowlege is one of them. It is simply my position that knowlege has, or rather, ought to have, no monetary value since it takes nearly zero effort to reproduce.
Oh, right... So the 5 years I spend at the university to gain the knowledge about one specific subject doesn't count. Only the time/effort it takes to reproduce it after I've gotten my master.
You are free to fix your car yourself if you want to, so don't bitch about a trained mechanic charging you money for his services.
Somehow I can't really make it seven fewer... I've got the same keyword thingy in firefox, but I only save like 5 keystrokes... (?)
"http://php.net/strings" <-> "php strings"// 15 strokes less (":" is shift-. on Danish keyboards and "/" is shift-7 so 2 strokes for each of them). "php.net/strings" <-> "php strings"// 5 strokes less. (".net/" is 6 strokes but there's still a space between "php" and "strings" in the keyword search.)
But yeah, keywords are great, I've got them setup for wikipedia, mysql.com/doc, php.net, discogs, apache... Everything... Thank you Mozilla-people!:)
What other language has the plural of "tooth" as "teeth", and why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"?
I'm sorry, but apparently you only know one language... Many languages have these irregular plurals - it's pretty common actually... Instead of making plurals by affixing morphemes you simply make a suprasegmental change, such as the change from "tooth" to "teeth"... Nothing unusual about it... Danish has it too: "fod" (foot.SG) "fødder" (foot.PL) (google for the Leipzig Glossing Rules if you don't get the notation).
And if I may just stray back to the topic for a while... First thing you learn as a linguist is NOT to be a grammar/spelling nazi. It's simply not constructive and trying to force something down peoples throats simply slows language development. I've recently written a paper (in pragmatics) on how minimal responses like "lol" and "rofl" slowly make their way into the spoken language... It's not a problem - it's evolution. Same goes for the spelling grammar... (Yeah, I know... Some of you Americans have a big problem with evolutionary theories...) How do you think we got from what the language sounded like 500 years ago and to what it sounds like now? I can tell you one thing, it wasn't grammar and spelling reforms...
I'm sorry, but this question is simply stupid and a lame excuse for grammar and spelling nazis to team up, pat themselves on the back and keep patronizing people who spell bad (or different) or use bad (or different) grammar.
I've said it a thousand times before... It's the language users that form a language - not grammars and dictionaries... Grammars and dictionaries are only intended as guides!
Two perfectly good examples of this are the words "nickname" and "apron".
apron
Was originally spelled/called napron, but since it was impossible to determine where the initial n belonged when uttered ("a napron" vs. "an apron") it eventually became apron.
nickname
This was originally spelled ekename but when people used it it was impossible to hear if it was "an ekename" or "a nekename" and thus it eventually became nickname.
Spotted a spelling error or grammatical curiousity in my post? Well, good for you. I don't really care...
I thought that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America only applied to... well... Americans... But iirc Freedom of Speech is actually one of the basic human rights, which fortunately applies to all human beings.
Regarding filtering search results on google, then putting -blog in the query often helps a lot. Of course this shouldn't be needed in the first place/ideal world, but unfortunately some people seem to exploit everything to the point where it just becomes an annoyance.
Slashdot Mirror
Flamebait, sure, I'll bite...
English and French did not evolve from a common parent.
I understand why you posted anonymously...
How would you explain the obvoius similarities in the basic numbers from English and French (and a lot of other European languages?) You don't think English had words for 1, 2 and 3 before they required it via French in 1066 or perhaps from the Danes around 850 AD?
Of course English and French evolved from the same common parent. Just as most other European languages did... Surprise, surprise, the Indo-European language family! Here's the linguistic lineage for French and English.
In what respect? That's like saying "leather belts are better than oranges"... If you don't define a context for your comparison it's pretty useless. Besides, written history might include linguistic data as well.
If you analyzed the vocabulary, you would conclude that English was a derivative of French.
That's not entirely true. Yes, you'd see that English has a lot of words from French, but then you'd iterate further and find out where French has it from etc.
Besides, when trying to determine language roots by using vocabularies, you'd use a core vocabulary, ie. words that are likely not to be borrowed from other languages. (Using words like prime minister, bulldozer etc. makes no sense, since they are very new words.) So with English <-> French, it could look a little like this:
From this you wouldn't immediately say that English was a derivative of French, because of the major differences in the words head, foot and hand, but rather that French and English probably branched from the same language. Note that regarding the numbers 1-3 there are similarities, which can probably even be boiled down to a few morphophonemic rules, but that's not necesarilly indicating that English derived from French, but might as well support the claim that it branched from the same language as French. However, even though the term foot in English is the commonly used term, we see the French influence in eg. biped.
Additionally, if you compared English to Danish, then you'd learn that English has a lot of common words from Danish, like get, give, take, they, both, dirt, egg, seat, sister, skin and sky. All of which were probably incorporated into Old English as a result of the Danish occupation of eastern Britain around 850 AD. (Source: Hudson, Grover: Essential Introductory Linguistics, 2000)
So did English derive from Danish? Not likely, but it was influenced by it. The vocabulary method of determining language roots isn't as simple as you indicate.
Using core vocabularies to determine language roots has been common practice for a long time, but using grammar also is a very welcome addition in diachronic linguistics. Fortunately, you don't have to use one over the other - the two methods can easilly co-exist and be used to supplement each other hopefully resulting in even more accurate determinations of language roots.
Something kinda like VDs? :-p
(And if you don't trust me, think about how many web browsers have a brushed metal GUI like that)
Uhm... Firefox? (http://lillesvin.net.nyud.net:8090/stuff/FirefoxB rushed.png)
Yeah, I know that it's not entirely the same and I know how Safari looks - I just wanted to point out that brushed metal isn't Apple-only.
Is that you, Bill? ;-p
Try "involves the same company"... Did you even read the stories?
Going completely OT here...
Most Epson printers do well with Linux. I bought a cheap Epson Stylus C46 which works just great with CUPS and the Gutenprint drivers. Check out http://linuxprinting.org/ - they have loads of good info and docs.
6. Before last week
Ok, I'll bite...
[...] for some reason they still haven't managed to come up with anything more exciting than Tux Racer.
From the top of my head:
... and there are plenty more.
It's plain BS stating that the indie games are easier to make on Windows... Why? Have you tried? (I haven't!) I hope you can see why your argument seems stupid, if I say "Open ... Source ...". And WTF do you mean by indie games? Games produced by an independent company? Or just not-so-commercial games?
Ok, but this is from The Sydney Inquirer...
You're right about people being refered to by other phrases than "firstname lastname", but any newspaper, in fact any text the least bit trustworthy would mention his entire name at least once. (You (hopefully) wouldn't see an article in NY Times about Bill Gates not mentioning his whole name even though mentioning Microsoft and using Gates to refer to him would be enough for most people to know who it was talking about.)
In other words, if someone writes something about someone else but doesn't refer to that someone else by his/her full name at least once, then I (probably) wouldn't trust it anyway.
Yeah, people trust lawyers way too much. It's like suing is becoming "the easiest way to solve your problems". When I become supreme overlord of earth, I'll have all the lawyers sent to dea-I mean, forced labo-Uhm... Happy Camps, and then force some common sense and decency down everyone's throats - at gunpoint! :-p
(applying the correct Google syntax for searching for the words, rather than as an exact phrase)
... but completely ignoring the fact that Jeremy Malcom is a name, so those two words should at least be grouped as a phrase... So, the correct search string would be: "jeremy malcolm" scientology (google search).
The search above only gives me ~29 results ... most of them just flaming him. (I can arrange it so you can search for "oiawejiawejiajeidididididididididi crackpot nebula post-modernism coffee" and get about 29 results in a few days...)
Anyhow, it'd be a bit too ironic (and disgusting) if the Australian companies had to pay someone to use the word Linux. Doesn't Linus have some sort of world-wide, moral claim to that trademark? I mean, if they actually get through with it, can't he claim ownership and set the name Linux free again? (I know that "common sense", "moral" and "decency" doesn't apply in court, but wtf is wrong with this world!?!)
Hehe, that aside, I sure hope (given that a robots.txt actually WOULD/COULD prevent satelite images from being taken) that besides running a nuclear plant, they would have the technical know-how to compile a decent robots.txt...
Perhaps a satelites.txt mowed in the lawn! :-p
/me gets his tin-foil hat and a lawn-mower out. Now I just need a lawn...
Ok, I'll take the bait...
I'll agree with you. Many things that I can't hold in my hand have intrinsic value. Knowlege is one of them. It is simply my position that knowlege has, or rather, ought to have, no monetary value since it takes nearly zero effort to reproduce.
Oh, right... So the 5 years I spend at the university to gain the knowledge about one specific subject doesn't count. Only the time/effort it takes to reproduce it after I've gotten my master.
You are free to fix your car yourself if you want to, so don't bitch about a trained mechanic charging you money for his services.
Likewise, you are free to write your own OS...
Or download a copy of his Free Software Song - if nothing else it'll definitely make them laugh. :-)
Avtomat Kalashnikov (spelling?), I believe...
For those unfamiliar with Mead, it is a honey-wine that dates back something like 6,000 years to either Greece or Cyprus.
Judging from your user ID you were one of the inventors, right? :-p
They could just jump version numbers from 5.1 and directly to 10 (Slackware style) and call it Windows X.
... Oh, wait...
Foo: I just had new windows installed?
Bar: Vista?
Foo: Yeah, how'd you know?
... but I prefer just to use it to keep spam out of my mail and then play chess with my friends... Oh, wait... ;-p
Kinda hard to mod something "overrated" or "underrated" when it's not even "rated". :-p
I wouldn't eat it. Well, being a pragmatist, I would actually. If I were the only chance for a meal I had all week.
I'm not sure if I'd eat you... No, I wouldn't... Not even if you were my only chance for a meal all week. :-p
Somehow I can't really make it seven fewer... I've got the same keyword thingy in firefox, but I only save like 5 keystrokes... (?)
// 15 strokes less (":" is shift-. on Danish keyboards and "/" is shift-7 so 2 strokes for each of them). // 5 strokes less. (".net/" is 6 strokes but there's still a space between "php" and "strings" in the keyword search.)
:)
"http://php.net/strings" <-> "php strings"
"php.net/strings" <-> "php strings"
But yeah, keywords are great, I've got them setup for wikipedia, mysql.com/doc, php.net, discogs, apache... Everything... Thank you Mozilla-people!
What other language has the plural of "tooth" as "teeth", and why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"?
I'm sorry, but apparently you only know one language... Many languages have these irregular plurals - it's pretty common actually... Instead of making plurals by affixing morphemes you simply make a suprasegmental change, such as the change from "tooth" to "teeth"... Nothing unusual about it... Danish has it too: "fod" (foot.SG) "fødder" (foot.PL) (google for the Leipzig Glossing Rules if you don't get the notation).
And if I may just stray back to the topic for a while... First thing you learn as a linguist is NOT to be a grammar/spelling nazi. It's simply not constructive and trying to force something down peoples throats simply slows language development. I've recently written a paper (in pragmatics) on how minimal responses like "lol" and "rofl" slowly make their way into the spoken language... It's not a problem - it's evolution. Same goes for the spelling grammar... (Yeah, I know... Some of you Americans have a big problem with evolutionary theories...) How do you think we got from what the language sounded like 500 years ago and to what it sounds like now? I can tell you one thing, it wasn't grammar and spelling reforms...
I'm sorry, but this question is simply stupid and a lame excuse for grammar and spelling nazis to team up, pat themselves on the back and keep patronizing people who spell bad (or different) or use bad (or different) grammar.
I've said it a thousand times before... It's the language users that form a language - not grammars and dictionaries... Grammars and dictionaries are only intended as guides!
Two perfectly good examples of this are the words "nickname" and "apron".
Was originally spelled/called napron, but since it was impossible to determine where the initial n belonged when uttered ("a napron" vs. "an apron") it eventually became apron.
This was originally spelled ekename but when people used it it was impossible to hear if it was "an ekename" or "a nekename" and thus it eventually became nickname.
Spotted a spelling error or grammatical curiousity in my post? Well, good for you. I don't really care...
I thought that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America only applied to ... well ... Americans... But iirc Freedom of Speech is actually one of the basic human rights, which fortunately applies to all human beings.
Regarding filtering search results on google, then putting -blog in the query often helps a lot. Of course this shouldn't be needed in the first place/ideal world, but unfortunately some people seem to exploit everything to the point where it just becomes an annoyance.