Actually, no. There's not much Norman French in English. The French in English is largely Parisian French and came in rather later, as a result of fashion rather than invasion (although the earlier Norman invasion did provide a path for the fashion to spread to England).
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. While later French did have an impact on English as a result of fashion, Anglo-Normand massively influenced Old English. From Histoire de la Langue: du Latin à l'Ancien Français, Peter A. Machonis, University Press of America, 1990:
Cependant, il faut dire que ces trois siècles de contact linguistique avec le français ont beaucoup influencé le cours de l'histoire de la langue anglaise. L'anglo-normand n'a pas influencé la syntaxe de l'anglais, mais il a beaucoup contribué au lexique de l'anglais à l'époque. Pour cette raison, les vocabulaires de l'anglais et du français se ressemblent encore beaucoup de nos jours.
I assume you read French, but for those who don't, here is a rough translation:
However, it must be said that these three centuries of linguistic contact with French greatly influenced the course of history of the English language. Anglo-Normand did not influence English syntax, but it greatly contributed to the English lexicon at that time. This is why modern English and French vocabulary look similar.
Although Anglo-Norman was falling out of everyday use by the 13th century (Middle English was becoming stronger), it has left an indelible mark on English. Thousands of words, phrases and expressions are derived from it. English would have been a very different language without the influence of Anglo-Norman.
As a specific example, take the word "cattle" (citations are the OED entries on "cattle" and "chattel"):
In legal Anglo-French, the Norman catel was superseded at an early period by the Parisian chatel; this continued to be used in the earlier and wider sense (subject however to legal definition), and has in modern times passed into a certain current use as CHATTEL, so that the phrase just cited is now also since 16th c. 'goods and chattels'. Chatel, pl. chateux, was the form adopted in legal Anglo-French; it appears in vernacular use in the 13th c., and the pl. chateux is occasional as a technical term in ME.; but the actual form adopted in Eng. was the Norman catel, later cattell, cattle.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Middle Ages", but written English certainly did change quite a bit from the 8th century to the 16th century, and most people place the Middle Ages somewhere in there, if not starting before that. Here are some examples of the change:
8th century - Beowulf, which is unreadable for modern English speakers.
1066 - Norman conquest - Old French would have a massive influence on English. Introduction of lots of Latin roots into English.
14th century - Chaucer, somewhat readable for modern English speakers with modernized spellings.
16th century - Shakespeare, more or less readable for modern English speakers without much editing.
Pronunciation of course also changed drastically, and this was reflected in orthography as well.
I also have 4 GB of RAM on XP x64, and I use S3 suspend (Suspend to RAM - i.e., not hibernation) all the time. For me, it is significantly faster both to shut down and come back up, and it has the great advantage of turning off all the fans, etc., on the computer, so that it doesn't make any noise. It works flawlessly probably about 99% of the time.
I agree though, hibernation is often more of a pain than it's worth.
Sorry, $9,250 is ridiculous and doesn't send a message about anything other than the fact that, contrary to the comment of your fellow juror that you do in fact know what's going on in Duluth, you really don't know what the fuck is going on.
Amen to that. I get the feeling that this Hegg, who "said he has never been on the internet," may have been heavily influenced by the RIAA lawyers' description of how big, bad, and evil file-sharers are.
Maybe when my generation starts serving on juries, we won't have this problem anymore - though I wonder what problems we will have.
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven.
It depends on what you are attempting to do when you read. The New Testament of KJV is based on what is called the Textus Receptus, which in scholarly circles is generally understood to be less accurate than modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament (e.g., the Nestle-Aland). The Old Testament of the KJV is based on the Masoretic Hebrew text, as opposed to the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). If you are trying to understand the historical beliefs of the church, or to shape your religious belief in the context of the church, it of course makes sense to rely upon a traditional translation, be it the KJV, or the Vulgate, or for the very early church, the Septuagint.
If, however, you're trying to read what was "actually" written, textual criticism, while not really a science, does privilege certain editions over others. The NIV may be more "true" to at least the New Testament text than the KJV, but on the whole, I wouldn't recommend it. The NRSV, especially the Oxford edition, seems to be the consensus for basic readings in Judeo-Christian scriptures in higher education.
I believe it's safe to assume that at least part of this story couldn't have happened here in the U.S. The design of pennies is a work of the Federal Government, and as such is not eligible for copyright. However, see this section from the U.S. Mint website:
Designs of the new quarter-dollar coins issued under the 50 State Quarters Program may be derivative works of designs covered by third-party copyrights licensed to or assigned to the U.S. Mint, or in some cases may be covered by third-party copyrights assigned to the Mint.
From the FAQ ("What kind of hardware does Slashdot run on?"):
Hardware Details
* Type I (web server) * o VA Full On 2x2 o Debian Linux frozen o PIII/600 MHz 512K cache o 1 GB RAM o 9.1GB LVD SCSI with hot swap backplane o Intel EtherExpress Pro (built-in on moboard) o Intel EtherExpress 100 adapter
* Type II (kernel NFS with kernel locking) * o VA Full On 2x2 o Debian Linux frozen o Dual PIII/600 MHz o 2 GB RAM o (2) 9.1GB LVD SCSI with hot swap backplane o Intel EtherExpress Pro (built-in on motherboard) o Intel EtherExpress 100 adapter
* Type III (SQL) * o VA Research 3500 o Red Hat Linux 6.2 (final release + tweaks) o Quad Xeon 550 MHz, 1MB cache o 2 GB RAM o 6 LVD disks, 10000 RPM (1 system disk, 5 disks for RAID5) o Mylex Extreme RAID controller 16 MB cache o Intel EtherExpress Pro (built-in on motherboard) o Intel EtherExpress 100 adapter
It is unfortunate that the teaching system (of which my wife is a part) is stuck in a 19th century methodology of teaching the masses to act in unison. It is as if they're preparing these kids for the rote factory jobs of yesterday instead of the knowledge-critical jobs of today.
Is education (at least higher education) ever really supposed to have been about preparing people for jobs (academic/research jobs excluded), though? One of the complaints I often hear, and sometimes voice, is that much of college today has turned into vocational school. This is very apparent in a lot of CS and business curricula. What ever happened to education for its own sake, or to create informed citizens?
That doesn't make you an engineer, though. I can follow schematics for plenty of things, without understanding how or why they work; so could the laborers in other countries when they used to put electronic goods together by hand.
hell, didnt some tests show that as long as the first and last letter of the word was in the right place, the other letters could be all over the place and not affect readability?
Just to clarify, but the "tests" that so many people like to refer to didn't actually happen in the way that many people think they did. People are referring to a letter that was published in New Scientist making reference to the phenomenon. Some of the claims made in the portion of text that circulated around the Internet are clearly false; see this page for more information (he has some examples of sentences that are "scrambled" according to that rule, but are mostly unreadable).
Sure, you could do that with RFID. But I don't think people (Americans, at least) are going to take very kindly to not having their items bagged. What are you supposed to do when you get to your car?
Also, tallying up the items one by one may be slow, but it also gives the customer a chance to ensure that they are being rung up correctly, and to make sure that discounts are being applied, etc. I wouldn't trust any store, least of all Wal-Mart, to ring up things without making mistakes.
Wal-Mart CIO Ford also insists the company is commited to the technology. "The train has left the station," he says. "Imagine in the future being in a checkout line at Wal-Mart and you're out in 30 seconds. Now that's utopia--and we'll get there."
I'm not quite sure how RFID is supposed to make the checkout person bag my items any faster. Or is that not the slowest part of the whole process? It's not like we're losing a whole lot of time waiting for barcodes to be scanned, unless you're buying pears and they have to key it in manually.
On an unrelated rant, I'm pretty sure the idea with utopia is that you can't get there. And I can think of a lot better utopia than a Wal-Mart checkout line.
Re:business and government are run by aliens?
on
GAO Report Slams FCC
·
· Score: 1
"Lobbyist" is just a short way to say "a representative of a group of citizens who all have some common interest and pool their money to hire someone to let elected officials know how they feel (and will vote)."
While that may be the dictionary definition, the reality is nothing like this. First of all, "lobbyists" mean only those representatives with enough cash to make legislators pay attention. When that cash is called "campaign contributions", it's not corruption or bribery; it's perfectly legal. Now, do you really think the representative of that grassroots environmental lobby is going to get as much face time with their senator as the big-oil spokesperson?
Secondly, lobbies only technically represent groups of citizens. To take our favorite/. example, ask yourself what group of citizens the recording and film industry lobbies represent? Is that balanced by a lobby that represents the general public interest in the public domain and sane intellectual property law? Or is the latter a lot harder to fund? The problem is that legislators are beholden unto their campaign contributors, instead of the public interest. We don't need an end to lobbies; we do need more finance reform and elected officials who continually think and represent the public interest in their work, instead of whoever happens to donate the most money to them.
Also, you don't have to do what the herd does to fit in here, you can also post smart, witty, insightful, or intriguing posts. If they are well written, and the arguments presentedtherein are cogent, you will be accepted here, as is the case anywhere that nerds congregate.
What planet do you live on, and how do I get there?
More seriously, it seems to me that "Overrated" has become a synonym for "What you say may be true, but I don't like it (or you), so I am going to mod it down."
I haven't read al-Ghazali, but I have read quite a bit of al-Farabi. He seems to have made a valiant, though ultimately doomed, effort to justify philosophical inquiry in the face of Islam. If you're interested in reading some of his more accessible work, the "Book of Religion" (Kitaab al-Milla) is a good place to start. Very little of the literature from this time period is widely read, yet some of it is fascinating - I have several books in a (as yet unpublished, I believe) series on the origins of cryptology in the medieval Arabic world.
Interestingly, ibn Rushd, known as Averroes in the West, wrote a reply to al-Ghazali's "Incoherence of the Philosophers" entitled "Incoherence of the Incoherence."
And it seems that most phones have very few bluetooth features beyond headsets. Like you can't upload and download photos without some crappy phone tools software if you have a Motorola.
This is a result of vendor lock-in. It seems a lot of cellular companies want to be able to charge you $3 for a ringtone, so they disable Bluetooth file-transfer in case you thought you might do it yourself.
I just bought a new unlocked phone, and besides headset, I can use all the file transfer features, in addition to using it as a modem. My old phone was an S60-based smartphone, and I was actually able to use a portable keyboard with it. I liked it, but it was non-US tri-band (and being held together with a rubber band), so I had to replace it.
Wow. Had you actually read and understood my post, you would have seen that I was referring to your belief that "information is independent of the descriptor."
Secondly, unless you think linguistics is completely devoid of value, or that all languages are identical and have no relation to their culture and society, then yes, the existence of multiple languages does have value, particularly in social sciences. There is no "study" to prove this, because it is a normative claim. Additionally, this isn't about some kind of touchy-feely "diversity" - more languages means more data to work with, which presumably, is "good".
The information is independent of the descriptor, so the "value" of language to objective fact certainly hasn't been established at all.
That may be your belief, but it's certainly not an established fact. It's a metaphysical assumption, and a controversial one at that. Also, good luck trying to communicate that independent information without descriptors. Or should we also question the value of communicating information?
Whether you want to admit it or not, certain disciplines do have a lot to gain not just from the knowledge of, but also the living existence of, multiple languages.
I have yet to hear a single argument that isn't based on some vague "losing diversity" idea, with people assuming that diversity is definitely good in regards to language.
Well, there's the second paragraph of my original post, and the numerous other posts that have pointed out the value of language to history, anthropology, and understandings of cognition in general.
I'm really surprised at the general attitude in this discussion. I wonder how many people would say the same negative things if they actually knew multiple languages.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. While later French did have an impact on English as a result of fashion, Anglo-Normand massively influenced Old English. From Histoire de la Langue: du Latin à l'Ancien Français, Peter A. Machonis, University Press of America, 1990:
I assume you read French, but for those who don't, here is a rough translation:
Also, from Wikipedia's article on Anglo-Normand:
As a specific example, take the word "cattle" (citations are the OED entries on "cattle" and "chattel"):
The Wikipedia link you want is this one.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Middle Ages", but written English certainly did change quite a bit from the 8th century to the 16th century, and most people place the Middle Ages somewhere in there, if not starting before that. Here are some examples of the change:
8th century - Beowulf, which is unreadable for modern English speakers.
1066 - Norman conquest - Old French would have a massive influence on English. Introduction of lots of Latin roots into English.
14th century - Chaucer, somewhat readable for modern English speakers with modernized spellings.
16th century - Shakespeare, more or less readable for modern English speakers without much editing.
Pronunciation of course also changed drastically, and this was reflected in orthography as well.
I also have 4 GB of RAM on XP x64, and I use S3 suspend (Suspend to RAM - i.e., not hibernation) all the time. For me, it is significantly faster both to shut down and come back up, and it has the great advantage of turning off all the fans, etc., on the computer, so that it doesn't make any noise. It works flawlessly probably about 99% of the time.
I agree though, hibernation is often more of a pain than it's worth.
Amen to that. I get the feeling that this Hegg, who "said he has never been on the internet," may have been heavily influenced by the RIAA lawyers' description of how big, bad, and evil file-sharers are.
Maybe when my generation starts serving on juries, we won't have this problem anymore - though I wonder what problems we will have.
It depends on what you are attempting to do when you read. The New Testament of KJV is based on what is called the Textus Receptus, which in scholarly circles is generally understood to be less accurate than modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament (e.g., the Nestle-Aland). The Old Testament of the KJV is based on the Masoretic Hebrew text, as opposed to the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). If you are trying to understand the historical beliefs of the church, or to shape your religious belief in the context of the church, it of course makes sense to rely upon a traditional translation, be it the KJV, or the Vulgate, or for the very early church, the Septuagint.
If, however, you're trying to read what was "actually" written, textual criticism, while not really a science, does privilege certain editions over others. The NIV may be more "true" to at least the New Testament text than the KJV, but on the whole, I wouldn't recommend it. The NRSV, especially the Oxford edition, seems to be the consensus for basic readings in Judeo-Christian scriptures in higher education.
I believe it's safe to assume that at least part of this story couldn't have happened here in the U.S. The design of pennies is a work of the Federal Government, and as such is not eligible for copyright. However, see this section from the U.S. Mint website:
You bet.
Oh wait, what's that I see down at the bottom...
Is education (at least higher education) ever really supposed to have been about preparing people for jobs (academic/research jobs excluded), though? One of the complaints I often hear, and sometimes voice, is that much of college today has turned into vocational school. This is very apparent in a lot of CS and business curricula. What ever happened to education for its own sake, or to create informed citizens?
That doesn't make you an engineer, though. I can follow schematics for plenty of things, without understanding how or why they work; so could the laborers in other countries when they used to put electronic goods together by hand.
Just to clarify, but the "tests" that so many people like to refer to didn't actually happen in the way that many people think they did. People are referring to a letter that was published in New Scientist making reference to the phenomenon. Some of the claims made in the portion of text that circulated around the Internet are clearly false; see this page for more information (he has some examples of sentences that are "scrambled" according to that rule, but are mostly unreadable).
Sure, you could do that with RFID. But I don't think people (Americans, at least) are going to take very kindly to not having their items bagged. What are you supposed to do when you get to your car?
Also, tallying up the items one by one may be slow, but it also gives the customer a chance to ensure that they are being rung up correctly, and to make sure that discounts are being applied, etc. I wouldn't trust any store, least of all Wal-Mart, to ring up things without making mistakes.
I'm not quite sure how RFID is supposed to make the checkout person bag my items any faster. Or is that not the slowest part of the whole process? It's not like we're losing a whole lot of time waiting for barcodes to be scanned, unless you're buying pears and they have to key it in manually.
On an unrelated rant, I'm pretty sure the idea with utopia is that you can't get there. And I can think of a lot better utopia than a Wal-Mart checkout line.
While that may be the dictionary definition, the reality is nothing like this. First of all, "lobbyists" mean only those representatives with enough cash to make legislators pay attention. When that cash is called "campaign contributions", it's not corruption or bribery; it's perfectly legal. Now, do you really think the representative of that grassroots environmental lobby is going to get as much face time with their senator as the big-oil spokesperson?
Secondly, lobbies only technically represent groups of citizens. To take our favorite /. example, ask yourself what group of citizens the recording and film industry lobbies represent? Is that balanced by a lobby that represents the general public interest in the public domain and sane intellectual property law? Or is the latter a lot harder to fund? The problem is that legislators are beholden unto their campaign contributors, instead of the public interest. We don't need an end to lobbies; we do need more finance reform and elected officials who continually think and represent the public interest in their work, instead of whoever happens to donate the most money to them.
For quantum computing, I suggest "Revolving Source". You never know if it's open or closed!
I think you mean the Book of Moroni. It's the Latin plural for moron, and incidentally, exists.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist; and yes, I know that "moron" is Greek.)
I was going to post the meaning, but I can't seem to remember it... My mind's like a blank slate!
What planet do you live on, and how do I get there?
More seriously, it seems to me that "Overrated" has become a synonym for "What you say may be true, but I don't like it (or you), so I am going to mod it down."
I haven't read al-Ghazali, but I have read quite a bit of al-Farabi. He seems to have made a valiant, though ultimately doomed, effort to justify philosophical inquiry in the face of Islam. If you're interested in reading some of his more accessible work, the "Book of Religion" (Kitaab al-Milla) is a good place to start. Very little of the literature from this time period is widely read, yet some of it is fascinating - I have several books in a (as yet unpublished, I believe) series on the origins of cryptology in the medieval Arabic world.
Interestingly, ibn Rushd, known as Averroes in the West, wrote a reply to al-Ghazali's "Incoherence of the Philosophers" entitled "Incoherence of the Incoherence."
This is a result of vendor lock-in. It seems a lot of cellular companies want to be able to charge you $3 for a ringtone, so they disable Bluetooth file-transfer in case you thought you might do it yourself.
I just bought a new unlocked phone, and besides headset, I can use all the file transfer features, in addition to using it as a modem. My old phone was an S60-based smartphone, and I was actually able to use a portable keyboard with it. I liked it, but it was non-US tri-band (and being held together with a rubber band), so I had to replace it.
Wow. Had you actually read and understood my post, you would have seen that I was referring to your belief that "information is independent of the descriptor."
Secondly, unless you think linguistics is completely devoid of value, or that all languages are identical and have no relation to their culture and society, then yes, the existence of multiple languages does have value, particularly in social sciences. There is no "study" to prove this, because it is a normative claim. Additionally, this isn't about some kind of touchy-feely "diversity" - more languages means more data to work with, which presumably, is "good".
That may be your belief, but it's certainly not an established fact. It's a metaphysical assumption, and a controversial one at that. Also, good luck trying to communicate that independent information without descriptors. Or should we also question the value of communicating information?
Whether you want to admit it or not, certain disciplines do have a lot to gain not just from the knowledge of, but also the living existence of, multiple languages.
The only appropriate response to your post is this.
Well, there's the second paragraph of my original post, and the numerous other posts that have pointed out the value of language to history, anthropology, and understandings of cognition in general.
I'm really surprised at the general attitude in this discussion. I wonder how many people would say the same negative things if they actually knew multiple languages.