Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Outside of the box / Re: The "English Code"
« Last post by Daniel on November 10, 2017, 03:04:18 PM »
Quote
Sorry, I used the word 'forked' like a computer programmer would, based on my old days of studying computer science.  I meant to say, there are 2 different poems in one, a fork in the path, hinged on the letter 'B.'
Makes a little more sense, but still not sure I get it.

Quote
Color
chance-to-reflect-on, order-out-of-chaos, life-lesson-learned-the-hard-way, order-out-of-chaos, realization-slowly-dawned
Colour
chance-to-reflect-on, order-out-of-chaos, life-lesson-learned-the-hard-way, order-out-of-chaos, u-are-caught-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place, realization-slowly-dawned
It just adds a hint of British spice to the translation, that's all.
Nope, I don't believe that. Not at all. There's nothing convincing about that argument. You may as well be reading tea leaves. As you know (because you're doing this a lot) you can try to make sense of anything. You could just as easily argue the opposite, which shows this is nonsense. You're seeing things that aren't there, because you want to see them.

Also, just for your information, your 'translations' are entirely nonsensical and meaningless to me. They don't capture the meaning of "color", nor do I have any other reasonable way to interpret them. It's like assigning colors at random to the letters of the alphabet and telling me English is a rainbow. Sure.

Quote
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be thinking that my theory has some sort of sound change associated with it, which is not correct.
No, the opposite. If your theory can't handle the fact that sounds DO change in languages, then you cannot explain anything. Words simply vary in different languages and over time. That's why we call the relationship arbitrary. "Dog" in English, "Hund" in German, "perro" in Spanish and "cane" in Italian all mean exactly the same thing.
You're left with only two options: 1) your theory doesn't work, or 2) you're describing feelings only, and nothing quantifiable. So it doesn't really mean anything, although like a fortune cookie, it seems to apply when it's really just generic. There's no way to falsify (or prove) feelings, so you make it hard for anyone to argue against you.

Quote
Now everything is just pronounced like regular, standard English.
Which doesn't exist. Pronunciation varies by individual (and over time, and in different dialects, and in different languages). Are you suggesting to me that when I say something it can't mean the same thing as when someone with a slightly different accent than mine says it? That's incoherent.

Try reading Plato's Cratylus. It's poetic (so you'd probably enjoy it), and it's also observations that show the problems in your arguments, from over 2000 years ago.
22
Outside of the box / Re: The "English Code"
« Last post by FlyingRedSportscar on November 10, 2017, 11:24:15 AM »
Quote
Those two sentences juxtaposed had me laughing. Bees, babies and forks. Not sure why that would make sense. I'll leave it at that...

Sorry, I used the word 'forked' like a computer programmer would, based on my old days of studying computer science.  I meant to say, there are 2 different poems in one, a fork in the path, hinged on the letter 'B.'

Quote
OK. Here's one:
First, the alphabet is an inconsistent representation of English pronunciation. Surely there's no meaning difference between "color" (American spelling) and "colour" (British spelling).

Color
chance-to-reflect-on, order-out-of-chaos, life-lesson-learned-the-hard-way, order-out-of-chaos, realization-slowly-dawned

Colour
chance-to-reflect-on, order-out-of-chaos, life-lesson-learned-the-hard-way, order-out-of-chaos, u-are-caught-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place, realization-slowly-dawned

It just adds a hint of British spice to the translation, that's all.  The meaning doesn't really change with the addition of the 'U.'  You'll notice it has reflection as part of the translation too (in case you didn't know, colour is perceived by what wavelengths are absorbed and the remaining wavelengths that get reflected, the colours we see are the wavelengths that get reflected).

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be thinking that my theory has some sort of sound change associated with it, which is not correct.  That was how the theory first started off, with a sound change to 'a' and 'le/the', however that part of it became entirely obsolete.  It's no longer part of my theory at all.  Now everything is just pronounced like regular, standard English.
23
Computational Linguistics / Cluster Analysis for Questionnaire data
« Last post by rafaelh.souza on November 10, 2017, 02:54:34 AM »
Hello.
My wife is writting her Master's thesis and needs to perform cluster analysis on her data. The data basically is a list of questionnaire responses. There are 7 questions, and each question may be answerd with discrete values from 0 to 4. In other words, there will be one 7D vector per questionnaire participant, and each dimension of the vector may be a natural number between 0 and 4. The distance metric between two vectors is the following:
d(v1, v2) = Sumi in [0, 6][v1(i) == v2(i) ? 0 : 1] -- putting it simply, 1 unit per differing dimension.

I am a computer scientist and I am familiar with clustering methods, but I am not sure what kind of cluster analysis is commonly used in linguistics for this kind of data. What method would you recommend?

Thanks for any comment.
24
Outside of the box / Re: The "English Code"
« Last post by Daniel on November 09, 2017, 02:05:15 PM »
Quote
First off, I'm not a Linguist, just a layman.
Then how could you generally understand language, much less actually solve how it works? I'm not saying you need a Ph.D. to make a contribution. But your lack of qualification/experience is certainly not supporting evidence for your theory to be correct. It might be, despite that, but probably it just means it will be harder to convince you that you are wrong.

Quote
You'll notice that the individual letters form a greater Poem, which actually makes sense.  The greater Poem describes both Bees and Babies, in 'forked' stories
Those two sentences juxtaposed had me laughing. Bees, babies and forks. Not sure why that would make sense. I'll leave it at that...

Quote
A *ton* of public scrutiny would be the means to check which one is correct, I suppose.  Today, with all the technologies at our disposal, a 'brute force' or 'survival of the fittest' approach like this surely is feasible.
It's absurd to think that the best way to deal with a bunch of out there theories is to sort through each of them and see which holds up. Why should people spend their time on your theory in particular? And why aren't you spending all of your time reading about other theories? There are dozens if not hundreds of proposals parallel to yours out there. I've never seen one that isn't deeply flawed.

Quote
My theory will stand serious tests thrown at it and not break down.
OK. Here's one:
First, the alphabet is an inconsistent representation of English pronunciation. Surely there's no meaning difference between "color" (American spelling) and "colour" (British spelling). I flatly reject the premise of your theory based on spelling.
Secondly, sounds change over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change
The alphabet has also changed if you insist on going by spelling.
Are you really claiming that meaning changes with pronunciation? That when two dialects split into different languages and the sound change, they start to mean different things? In my opinion, that is just an incoherent, uninformed argument.
If not, why is modern English today special? And again, why the alphabet?

In the end, I'm hesitant to discuss this with you. But, you posted, so I replied. And my responses are somewhat harsh because we've been through this before. The ideas of this kind of correlation just don't work (and that has been known for at least over 100 years as a fundamental principle in Linguistics, one of the only things we can all seem to agree on, and related arguments can be identified even in the writing of ancient Greek philosophers). You're welcome to look at some of the old threads here where similar proposals were discussed. The best option probably is to not waste our time arguing about something we will probably never agree on.

And, no, you didn't provide any explanation for how your proposal could be falsified. You only stated, basically, that your theory is very good, and that the others are not. That doesn't resemble an academic argument.
25
Outside of the box / Re: The "English Code"
« Last post by FlyingRedSportscar on November 09, 2017, 01:35:38 PM »
First off, I'm not a Linguist, just a layman.

I'll try to argue the second approach you suggested.

My theory is better than other theories like it because the other theories just don't work or will break down after a very short period of scrutiny.  There are just too many variables for them to hold up.  My theory will stand serious tests thrown at it and not break down.

Secondly, my theory has a meaning within a meaning.  You'll notice that the individual letters form a greater Poem, which actually makes sense.  The greater Poem describes both Bees and Babies, in 'forked' stories.  This is just too complicated, in my opinion, while keeping the theory intact, to be purely coincidental.  There's also the idea that, relating to the Bees fork, the letters BEGZ form an additional meaning about how people need to start protecting Bees.

The only objective metric I can think of to select the correct theory of this type is "whichever one works."  If it always works (not saying my theory is perfect just yet, some of the letters might need some adjustment) then it must be right.  If it works 95% percent of the time, it's still useful I think, because language isn't the same as mathematics.  A *ton* of public scrutiny would be the means to check which one is correct, I suppose.  Today, with all the technologies at our disposal, a 'brute force' or 'survival of the fittest' approach like this surely is feasible.
26
Outside of the box / Re: The "English Code"
« Last post by Daniel on November 09, 2017, 12:10:14 PM »
Before I take any claims about phonosemantics seriously (most claims like this are complete nonsense), I have a simple question for you. If your answer satisfies me, I may consider your theory seriously:

How would you falsify your theory?
In other words, imagine/assume that your theory is wrong. WHY would it be wrong? How would we know? How can we test it?
Your theory can't be right until we know how to hypothetically falsify it.

I've never seen a falsifiable phonosemantic theory, I don't think. Answer that, and your ideas can potentially be taken seriously.

(An alternative would be to explain why your phonosemantic theory is better than the plethora of others floating around the internet. Is there some objective metric we can use to select the correct one? And falsify the others?)
27
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on November 09, 2017, 12:04:16 PM »
I don't know if it's useful to try and discuss the Croatian toponyms here. It just seems to me I am unlikely to get some sane opposition. I have decided to make some web-pages summarizing my ideas, just in case some expert in Croatian toponyms (or at least in Proto-Indo-European) comes here.
http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/toponyms.html
http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/Indo-Austronesian.html
There are a few more toponyms there than I've discussed here. I suggested that Jozinci comes from *yes, that Albona comes from *h2elbh and that Una comes from *unt. I also suggested a few more regular sound correspondences between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Austronesian, though they are probably not statistically significant either.
28
Outside of the box / The "English Code"
« Last post by FlyingRedSportscar on November 09, 2017, 12:02:08 PM »
For nearly ever, people have been trying to decipher the English Code into it's most simple form - that is a=ant, b=belonging, c=choke, and so on.

Well, after many long years of hard work I've finally done it!  Check out my work here: www.flyingredsportscar.net
29
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: Difference between phonological and morphophological rules
« Last post by panini on November 09, 2017, 09:19:22 AM »
When the morpheme n- is added as a prefix to t͡sunu, the result is nsunu. There is also a morpheme -sunu which, when combined with n- produces nsunu as well.
The most important question that the analyst would have for you is, what is your evidence that the output is nsunu and not nt͡sunu? How do you know that affricates don't occur after nasals? The distribution you describe is common, and typically the fact is that fricatives and affricates don't contrast after a nasal, but you don't know exactly which thing it is that comes after a nasal. Perhaps only affricates (not fricatives) appear nasals. Perhaps an acoustic study of NC sequences supports the analysis: anyway, there has to be some argument in support of the conclusion you've offered.

The distinction between is a phonological and  morphophonological process is a rather old-fashioned one, valid only in certain views of linguistic analysis. Even then, there was no requirement that there also be morpheme-internal applications of a given phonological rule. It is nearly a logical necessity that such a rule could only be demonstrated unambiguously by combining morphemes, because non-alternating morpheme-internal sequences are always ambiguous: X derives by rule, or X is present underlyingly. You can sometimes satisfy the 'purely morpheme internal' desideratum and still get unequivocal evidence for the representation if there is syncope or epenthesis, e.g /ans-a/ → [ant͡sa], /ans/ → [anis].

If there are no roots in the language like either [int͡se] or [inse] (a complete gap) that there would be no potential morpheme-internal applications of the neutralization rule. In no theory that I am aware of does that mean that such a neutralization is non-phonological.

Perhaps look at Trubetzkoy's book to understand the basic theory of neutralization, which is what is involved in the situation which you describe.



30
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: Difference between phonological and morphophological rules
« Last post by Daniel on November 09, 2017, 08:44:18 AM »
Well, what evidence is there that /ts/ exists at all? If you have some evidence, and the contrast is neutralized in that environment, then yes, that would make sense.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10