PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars ...

[HenHanna]

so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.

The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Daniels

i thought that this page (for a long time) said that
PTD was among the most respected of the regulars of AUE, where
he is seen as the unofficial moderator.

-------- but i can't find that now.



_____________________________________

........ He was a bit of a
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because of
an inability to admit when he was wrong.

And his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on

so many topics. Eventually a lot of people, including me, stopped
correcting him. <<<


---------- What was he famously WRONG about ?

[HenHanna]

Post by HenHanna
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.

The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Daniels
i thought that this page (for a long time) said that
PTD was among the most respected of the regulars of AUE, where
he is seen as the unofficial moderator.
                                -------- but i can't find that now.
_____________________________________

........  He was a bit of a
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because of
an inability to admit when he was wrong.

  And his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on

so many topics.  Eventually a lot of people, including me, stopped
correcting him. <<<
            ---------- What was he famously  WRONG  about ?

how odd... from TB(ES), this is the only 1 i can see.

from NovaBBS, i can see 3 almost-identical posts (by me).

[HenHanna]

Post by HenHanna
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.

The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Daniels
i thought that this page (for a long time) said that
PTD was among the most respected of the regulars of AUE, where
he is seen as the unofficial moderator.
                                -------- but i can't find that now.
_____________________________________

........  He was a bit of a
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because of
an inability to admit when he was wrong.

  And his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on

so many topics.  Eventually a lot of people, including me, stopped
correcting him. <<<
            ---------- What was he famously  WRONG  about ?

about Chinese chars.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by HenHanna
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.

The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.

PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

He became something of a notorious nuisance, a source of
misinformation about which he was in constant dispute. He was rather a
disruptive influence.

He could contribute useful information on topics he knew something
about, but he became argumentative about things of which he was
altogether ignorant.

The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

[HenHanna]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.

The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great amusement
here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.

PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

Post by Steve Hayes
He became something of a notorious nuisance, a source of
misinformation about which he was in constant dispute. He was rather a
disruptive influence.
He could contribute useful information on topics he knew something
about, but he became argumentative about things of which he was
altogether ignorant.
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)



The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.

I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)

but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].


i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.


_________________

Another thing i remember about him...
a few months after exchanging 100+ messages in this way...
he didn't remember my name (HenHanna) at all.

Was he the same way toward AUE regulars?

[Steve Hayes]

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.

In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 04:10:20 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.

In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

He and I agree on a lot of politics, and he has a very good
memory for details that most people never notice in the news.
Such as, stuff done by Trump.

If he were still here, I would have asked him by now if he remembered
when Trump justified calling certain articles "fake news" because they
"ought to be uninteresting to everybody, not interesting, therefore,
not newsworthy." The NY Times report, which was helped by Mary
Trump and Michael Cohen, uncovered various criminal endeavors
especially from the 20th century; these were 'old news' and beyond
the statute of limitations. The Washington Post report on what his
White House advisors were arguing about some issue was uninteresting
because, in the end, only his OWN opinion would matter, so, no one
should care what anyone else thought.

PTD would probably confirm my memory. Or else I would figure that
whatever I read, it was totally obscure. (Anyone else remember?)

[Antonio Marques]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.

3. He was right (as usual), as in this specific case. That some of the core
vocabulary is the shortest applies to almost any language and as such is
not relevant to the discussion.

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his for
some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'. What almost everyone does
is raise an objection to that course of action, but he consistently chose
to ignore that path, which in a way makes the other feel not acknowledged
as an interlocutor. That caused a huge amount of resentment, but who is to
blame? The answer depends on the degree of good faith on the part of those
trying to 'correct' him.

Then of course he may over the course of years have been wrong about things
he pronounced himself categorically on, but he was always very cautious
with that.

There was stuff about which he said questionable things, but not while
pretending to be some kind of authority.

Maybe he'll get back one of these days. Usenet is just not something that
is effortless to setup. Istr someone got it running for him in the 90s, and
then when that computer broke down there was GG to make it effortless. I'm
sure he could have the expertise to get it running again, but it's probably
not that worthwhile. Not the setup, but the whole being on Usenet thing.
sci.lang has been down to a handful of commenters for a decade now.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Antonio Marques
There was stuff about which he said questionable things, but not while
pretending to be some kind of authority.

I once jotted down something like

ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩

and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".

He totally misunderstood the "half-long" mark as a stress
indicator! Pretty wild for a linguist who's written a whole
book on writing systems.

Just goes to show he's not even on top of his own game!

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Stefan Ram
I once jotted down something like
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".

|>>»law and order« /ˈlσːəndˈσːɹdəɹ/ [ˈlɔˑʚɻən(d)ˈσƍdʌ].
|In the phonetic transcription, indicating two syllables
|before the intrusive r is completely wrong
'-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels on 2018-01-07 15:39:25+00:00 in alt.usage.english,
Subject: Wisconsin accent?

Dude's totally not grokking the [ɔˑʚ] sitch. He's barking up
the wrong tree, thinking there are two syllables supposed to
be before that sneaky R. Newsflash: it's actually a diphthong
deal, with the front end dragging its feet a bit!

Then he's got the cojones to throw shade at Luciano Canepari (see
below). But get this - our boy Peter once dropped this nugget:

|Came out fine on my screen. Yes, of all the variants listed there, that's
|the one that seems most apt. Unfortunately it takes a diacritic and
|another diacritic, where it ought to be a unit symbol like the others.
'-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels on 2014-04-16 04:22:49+00:00 in alt.usage.english,
Subject: Eggcorns and self referential sets

That's exactly Canepari's M.O. - swapping out those fancy-pants
diacritics for plain Jane characters.

Now, circle back and peep that OG quote from the top, but this
time, it's the director's cut. No edits, baby.

|On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 3:03:50 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
|> On 2018-01-07 04:41:06 +0000, Stefan Ram said:
|>
|> > Will Parsons <***@nodomain.invalid> writes:
|> >> Upstate New York? Really? Are you sure they didn't originally come
|> >> from the Midwest?
|> >
|> > Canepari says that the typical New-York accent is
|> > non-rhotic, and "thus" has linking r and is prone to
|> > intrusive r practice. As an example he gives:
|> > »law and order« /ˈlσːəndˈσːɹdəɹ/ [ˈlɔˑʚɻən(d)ˈσƍdʌ].
|>
|> That may have been true once, but, if I remember rightly, the late
|> lamented Larry Traske, who grew up in rural New York, said that it was
|> in the process of disappearing during his childhood: he said that he
|> himself spoke the old way, but his younger brother didn't.
|
|Who?
|
|What does "rural New York" mean? As was discussed just yesterday, New York State comprises three
|very distinct dialect areas: New York City (with Long Island), Hudson Valley, and Midwest.
|There are no "rural" areas with New York City dialect.
|
|Canepari's notation is idiosyncratic, to say the least, but the "phonemic" transcription is anything
|but -- long vowels do not occur in closed syllables. PHONEMICALLY. In the phonetic transcription,
|indicating two syllables before the intrusive r is completely wrong, and the (d) is highly unlikely
|to say the least.
'-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels on 2018-01-07 15:39:25+00:00 in alt.usage.english,
Subject: Wisconsin accent?

[Antonio Marques]

Post by Stefan Ram
I once jotted down something like
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".

(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote above
(they have become mis-encoded somewhere), or the exchange(s?) you quoted
below (I can't tell who said what nor actually what the conversation, if
it's one, is about). It may be due to formatting. Is there any current
alternative to old GG/dejanews?

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Stefan Ram
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".

(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote above

Here's the whole shebang in ASCII:

MODIFIER LETTER VERTICAL LINE - meaning the next syllable is stressed
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - to me that a bunched American r
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL W - that r is rounded! (because it's initial)
LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON - open "u"
MODIFIER LETTER HALF TRIANGULAR COLON - that open "u" is half-lenghtened
LATIN SMALL LETTER U - a [u]
LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED R WITH FISHHOOK - American "t" of "router"
SPACE - I used it to end the syllable, similar to how Wells uses it
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCHWA - meaning some speakers insert a schwa here
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - another bunched American r
COMBINING VERTICAL LINE BELOW - which is syllabic

. The "IPA" used above ain't your nana's brew - it's more
like a souped-up Wells model with some Canepari flair and my
own secret sauce thrown in. But hey, that "half-long" symbol?
That's straight-up textbook IPA, no bells and whistles!

PS: I ran a Python script to spit out the Unicode names from the IPA
string. The script was cooked up by a chatbot after I hit it with a
quick description of what I needed. Took me like a hot second to type
the description, way less time than if I'd written the script myself!

import unicodedata

def print_unicode_names( input_string ):
for char in input_string:
unicode_name = unicodedata.name( char, "Unknown" )
print( unicode_name )

sample_string = "INSERT IPA HERE"
print_unicode_names( sample_string )

[Antonio Marques]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Stefan Ram
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".

(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote above

MODIFIER LETTER VERTICAL LINE - meaning the next syllable is stressed
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - to me that a bunched American r
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL W - that r is rounded! (because it's initial)
LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON - open "u"
MODIFIER LETTER HALF TRIANGULAR COLON - that open "u" is half-lenghtened
LATIN SMALL LETTER U - a [u]
LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED R WITH FISHHOOK - American "t" of "router"
SPACE - I used it to end the syllable, similar to how Wells uses it
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCHWA - meaning some speakers insert a schwa here
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - another bunched American r
COMBINING VERTICAL LINE BELOW - which is syllabic

So you were trying to do a 'fully' precise transcription of _router_ in
(some dialect of) american, is that it? Then the characters weren't
garbled, I simply had no idea of the context (it's very rare that one would
not write that inside [] in sci.lang).

Post by Stefan Ram
. The "IPA" used above ain't your nana's brew - it's more
like a souped-up Wells model with some Canepari flair and my
own secret sauce thrown in. But hey, that "half-long" symbol?
That's straight-up textbook IPA, no bells and whistles!

It's half a long marker, which we usually write : for in here.

I have no idea how it may have appeared in his screen, or whether he had
reason to believe you were using it correctly. He might have thought you
were intending the secondary stress marker (over here, unless there is an
incredibly strong reason not to, we assume broad transcriptions almost
exclusively). The hypothesis that he didn't know the half length marker is
just not tenable. I can fully imagine how the conversation would
'unproceed' from there.

But hey, one may very well make the case that someone with decades of
knowledge of the IPA would simply not know the half length marker. It's
just that it isn't convincing.

Post by Stefan Ram
PS: I ran a Python script to spit out the Unicode names from the IPA
string. The script was cooked up by a chatbot after I hit it with a
quick description of what I needed. Took me like a hot second to type
the description, way less time than if I'd written the script myself!
import unicodedata
unicode_name = unicodedata.name( char, "Unknown" )
print( unicode_name )
sample_string = "INSERT IPA HERE"
print_unicode_names( sample_string )

Well, well. And I always discount python. Nice.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Antonio Marques
So you were trying to do a 'fully' precise transcription of _router_ in
(some dialect of) american, is that it?

I wanted to give a phonetic description with the same level of
detail as Wells or Canepari. (But I was kind of stuck because
a lot of Canepari's special symbols aren't in Unicode.)
("Full" precision isn't really possible in my opinion.)

Post by Antonio Marques
The hypothesis that he didn't know the half length marker is
just not tenable.

In the meantime, I submitted his 2018 post in full, so now
every reader can figure this out for himself!

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Antonio Marques
It's half a long marker, which we usually write : for in here.

If you use ":" for half-lengthening, like in "oˑ",
what do you actually use for lengthening, like in "oː"?

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Antonio Marques
It's half a long marker, which we usually write : for in here.

If you use ":" for half-lengthening, like in "oˑ",
what do you actually use for lengthening, like in "oː"?

PS: Well, I thought your "which" was referring to "half a long
marker". Now I see it could also refer to "long mark" . . .

[Helmut Richter]

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:10:44
Newsgroups: sci.lang, alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: PTD was the most-respected of the AUE regulars ...

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Stefan Ram
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩
and this guy was like, "I don't think that 'u' is stressed!".

(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote above

MODIFIER LETTER VERTICAL LINE - meaning the next syllable is stressed
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - to me that a bunched American r
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL W - that r is rounded! (because it's initial)
LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON - open "u"
MODIFIER LETTER HALF TRIANGULAR COLON - that open "u" is half-lenghtened
LATIN SMALL LETTER U - a [u]
LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED R WITH FISHHOOK - American "t" of "router"
SPACE - I used it to end the syllable, similar to how Wells uses it
MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCHWA - meaning some speakers insert a schwa here
LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R - another bunched American r
COMBINING VERTICAL LINE BELOW - which is syllabic

So you were trying to do a 'fully' precise transcription of _router_ in
(some dialect of) american, is that it? Then the characters weren't
garbled, I simply had no idea of the context (it's very rare that one would
not write that inside [] in sci.lang).

I am very skeptical about "fully precise" transcriptions. In every
language I know, the range of pronunciations that native speakers produce
and that other native speakers perceive as distinct and free from dialect
is much broader than a fully precise transcription would specify. The only
thing one could describe that way – if at all feasible which I doubt – is
the idiolect of a single person; perhaps also a dialect forced on
newsreaders in a single country where any personal or regional accent is
strictly forbidden for newsreaders.

Post by Stefan Ram
. The "IPA" used above ain't your nana's brew - it's more
like a souped-up Wells model with some Canepari flair and my
own secret sauce thrown in. But hey, that "half-long" symbol?
That's straight-up textbook IPA, no bells and whistles!

It's half a long marker, which we usually write : for in here.

Yes, that its shape; and its meaning is to mark medium length of the vowel.

I think it is seldom used. I have used it for a language where the word
stress is primarily realised by slightly lengthening the vowel in a way
that it gets longer than an unstressed vowel but not so long as it would
in another language where vowel length is phonemic irrespective of stress.

Example:

[safaɾi] : indicates neither stress nor length because both are regular
[saˈfaɾi] : indicates only stress without telling how it is realised
[safaˑɾi] : indicates only length but not syllable structure
[saˈfaˑɾi] : indicates stress and how it is realised

Depends on what the readers already know.

I am not an expert, maybe that IPA usage is wrong.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Helmut Richter
I am very skeptical about "fully precise" transcriptions. In every
language I know, the range of pronunciations that native speakers produce
and that other native speakers perceive as distinct and free from dialect
is much broader than a fully precise transcription would specify.

Related:
"Annals of intervocalic coronal reduction"
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=65139

Mark Liberman has recently been hammering home the point that English
words in fluent speech are frequently not pronounced as you would
think they are.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Helmut Richter
I am very skeptical about "fully precise" transcriptions. In every
language I know, the range of pronunciations that native speakers produce
and that other native speakers perceive as distinct and free from dialect
is much broader than a fully precise transcription would specify.

"Annals of intervocalic coronal reduction"
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=65139
Mark Liberman has recently been hammering home the point that English
words in fluent speech are frequently not pronounced as you would
think they are.

Sure, but that's because pronunciation is primary, and spelling only an
approximation to the way we speak.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Antonio Marques
(Sorry, but I can't make sense either of the characters you wrote above
(they have become mis-encoded somewhere), or the exchange(s?) you quoted
below (I can't tell who said what nor actually what the conversation, if
it's one, is about).

In the meantime, I sent a copy of that exchange that should hopefully
be more traceable for you.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Stefan Ram
ˈɹʷʊˑuɿ ᵊɹ̩

And this [ʊˑu] is what some authors write as [ʊu̯]. Both
notations express that the first part is longer than the
second part, they just differ in whether the author sees the
first part to be longer than a vowel of unmarked length or the
second part to be shorter than a vowel of unmarked length . . .

Now, let's quote Peter again. Peter, please tell us something
about your use of IPA!

|I am not using any sort of IPA; if you would for once in your life
|REMEMBER something you claim to have learned, you would note that I am
|writing phonemes, not a phonetic transcription; and for a phonemic
|transcription I, and most American linguists, use the Smith-Trager
|phonemicization.
'-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels on 2003-07-21 22:25:09+00:00 in alt.usage.english,
Subject: viral words

Thank you, Peter!

Ah! Who knows this Smith-Trager phonemicization? Well, I actually
found a description!

|(Smith-Trager, after Bloomfield)
|
|iy uw
|
|i u
|
|ey ə ow
|
|e o
|
|æ a
|
what I found in the Web.

And this "uw" is what some authors write as [ʊu]! Both
notations express that the first part is more open than the
second part, they just differ in whether the author sees the
first part to be more open than the cardinal [u] or the
second part to be closer than a cardinal [u] . . .

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Stefan Ram
And this "uw" is what some authors write as [ʊu]! Both
notations express that the first part is more open than the
second part, they just differ in whether the author sees the
first part to be more open than the cardinal [u] or the
second part to be closer than a cardinal [u] . . .

But why don't we let Peter explain?

|No, [U] is the not-quite-high rounded back lax one in "book," and [u] is
|the high rounded back tense one in "boon."
|
|/u/ = [U]
|/uw/ = [u]
'-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels on 2003-08-12 03:36:20+00:00 in alt.usage.english,
Subject: viral words

It's kind of trippy how the /phonemic/ spelling "uw" here actually
nails the diphthong better than its supposed /phonetic/ twin "u"!

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.

3. He was right (as usual), as in this specific case. That some of the core
vocabulary is the shortest applies to almost any language and as such is
not relevant to the discussion.

I would say the same as all of that but "as usual". (I just gave a
false
"proof" that most English words are short.)

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his
for some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'.

In a.u.e., where linguistics isn't the topic as often as in sci.lang,
his
posts could have been a textbook of falsehoods, ad hominems,
misleading statements, half-truths, misunderstandings, unstated
assumptions, unhelpful attempts to help, rhetorical questions in
place of arguments, tastes and opinions and controversial ideas
stated as facts, and just about everything else that could provoke
a response. Was he doing it deliberately? I don't know. I just
stopped responding to him except for the occasional post that
was free of that stuff.

There were signs in the last few years he was here that he was
trying to do better--for instance, indirectly acknowledging
(usually by making an excuse) that he had said something
untrue.

Post by Antonio Marques
What almost everyone does
is raise an objection to that course of action, but he consistently chose
to ignore that path, which in a way makes the other feel not
acknowledged
as an interlocutor. That caused a huge amount of resentment, but who is to
blame? The answer depends on the degree of good faith on the part of
those trying to 'correct' him.

As I recall, he did sometimes complain in a.u.e. about being nitpicked
(while doing his own nitpicking).

Post by Antonio Marques
Then of course he may over the course of years have been wrong about things
he pronounced himself categorically on, but he was always very cautious
with that.
There was stuff about which he said questionable things, but not while
pretending to be some kind of authority.

I never saw a difference between his presentation of his knowledge of
writing systems and his presentation of non-linguistic things he thought
he heard about sometime decades ago.

Post by Antonio Marques
Maybe he'll get back one of these days.

..

If he does, I hope people in a.u.e. will avoid correcting him.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.

3. He was right (as usual), as in this specific case. That some of the core
vocabulary is the shortest applies to almost any language and as such is
not relevant to the discussion.

I would say the same as all of that but "as usual". (I just gave a
false
"proof" that most English words are short.)

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his
for some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'.

In a.u.e., where linguistics isn't the topic as often as in sci.lang,
his
posts could have been a textbook of falsehoods, ad hominems,
misleading statements, half-truths, misunderstandings, unstated
assumptions, unhelpful attempts to help, rhetorical questions in
place of arguments, tastes and opinions and controversial ideas
stated as facts, and just about everything else that could provoke
a response. Was he doing it deliberately? I don't know. I just
stopped responding to him except for the occasional post that
was free of that stuff.
There were signs in the last few years he was here that he was
trying to do better--for instance, indirectly acknowledging
(usually by making an excuse) that he had said something
untrue.

Post by Antonio Marques
What almost everyone does
is raise an objection to that course of action, but he consistently chose
to ignore that path, which in a way makes the other feel not
acknowledged
as an interlocutor. That caused a huge amount of resentment, but who is to
blame? The answer depends on the degree of good faith on the part of
those trying to 'correct' him.

As I recall, he did sometimes complain in a.u.e. about being nitpicked
(while doing his own nitpicking).

Post by Antonio Marques
Then of course he may over the course of years have been wrong about things
he pronounced himself categorically on, but he was always very cautious
with that.
There was stuff about which he said questionable things, but not while
pretending to be some kind of authority.

I never saw a difference between his presentation of his knowledge of
writing systems and his presentation of non-linguistic things he thought
he heard about sometime decades ago.

Post by Antonio Marques
Maybe he'll get back one of these days.

..
If he does, I hope people in a.u.e. will avoid correcting him.

One can't help but wonder what PTD does with his days, now. Before
leaving aue, he spent much of his day posting to aue. Losing aue must
be like Trump losing "Truth Social".

[occam]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by jerryfriedman
In a.u.e., where linguistics isn't the topic as often as in sci.lang,
his
posts could have been a textbook of falsehoods, ad hominems,
misleading statements, half-truths, misunderstandings, unstated
assumptions, unhelpful attempts to help, rhetorical questions in
place of arguments, tastes and opinions and controversial ideas
stated as facts, and just about everything else that could provoke
a response. Was he doing it deliberately? I don't know.

Amen to all of that!

Post by Tony Cooper
One can't help but wonder what PTD does with his days, now. Before
leaving aue, he spent much of his day posting to aue. Losing aue must
be like Trump losing "Truth Social".

I have a scenario in my fantasy that he can still *read* all the posts,
but cannot respond to any of them, due to his Usenet incompetence. So,
he gets increasingly frustrated and bangs his head against the desktop.

If the OP who initiated this thread - an airhead and nincompoop in his
own right - really wants to tap into "the most-respected of AUE
regulars" thoughts, he should email PTD directly. (Someone please
provide the clucking Hen with PTDs email.)

[Steve Hayes]

Post by occam
If the OP who initiated this thread - an airhead and nincompoop in his
own right - really wants to tap into "the most-respected of AUE
regulars" thoughts, he should email PTD directly. (Someone please
provide the clucking Hen with PTDs email.)

From an old message I found:

"Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net>

[lar3ryca]

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.

3. He was right (as usual), as in this specific case. That some of the core
vocabulary is the shortest applies to almost any language and as such is
not relevant to the discussion.

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his for
some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'.

When he did things like claiming that he never said something, and the
proof of his having said it was obvious, especially so when what he said
was actually quoted in his posting denying it, there was no
'desperately' involved.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
PTD was a regular in sci.lang via Googlegroups, and suddenly jumped
into aue as a result of something that was crossposted there.

When was that?

I can't remember exactly, but probably about 15-20 years ago.

Post by HenHanna

Post by Steve Hayes
The instance I remember most was when he denied that the town of El
Paso, Illinois, existed, and continued to deny its existence no matter
what evidence was put before him.

(thanks... i'll look that up)
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.
I and another person gave examples
("Wo ai ni",
Wood, Water, sky, river, person, paper, ...
Most basic words and verbs are 1-character)
but that was when PTD became [quintessentially PTD].
i couldn't quite tell
1. if he was convinced of some fact, info, or assertion, or
2. if he was just being like a 5 year old boy.

3. He was right (as usual), as in this specific case. That some of the core
vocabulary is the shortest applies to almost any language and as such is
not relevant to the discussion.

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his for
some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'.

When he did things like claiming that he never said something, and the
proof of his having said it was obvious, especially so when what he said
was actually quoted in his posting denying it, there was no
'desperately' involved.

I think "People jumped in frustrated by PTD's misstatements..." better
described the reaction to PTD's many unqualified statements.

[occam]

Blame Saint Andreas -- it's all his fault. (funny)

<snip>

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by lar3ryca
When he did things like claiming that he never said something, and the
proof of his having said it was obvious, especially so when what he said
was actually quoted in his posting denying it, there was no
'desperately' involved.

I think "People jumped in frustrated by PTD's misstatements..." better
described the reaction to PTD's many unqualified statements.

He reminds me of a certain US Presidential candidate. Alas, pointing
out his inconsistencies only encouraged him to dig himself further in.
Not missed, not by me.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by lar3ryca
When he did things like claiming that he never said something, and the
proof of his having said it was obvious, especially so when what he said
was actually quoted in his posting denying it, there was no
'desperately' involved.

When I read the above, the Pete Seeger song "I Lie" popped immediately
into my head.

Verse 2:

I don't apologize. Not me. Instead,
I say I never said the things I said,
Nor did the things some people saw me do,
When confronted by some things they know are true.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:51:31 -0000 (UTC), Antonio Marques

Post by Antonio Marques

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

People desperately tried to jump on every unqualified statement of his for
some interpretation that would make him 'wrong'. What almost everyone does
is raise an objection to that course of action, but he consistently chose
to ignore that path, which in a way makes the other feel not acknowledged
as an interlocutor. That caused a huge amount of resentment, but who is to
blame? The answer depends on the degree of good faith on the part of those
trying to 'correct' him.

In my experience it was the other way round.

He would pronounce that something someone else had said was wrong,
when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several people
had produced evbidence that it was true.

[Peter Moylan]

[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.

That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.

He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Peter Moylan

[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.


This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

I learned about autism and Aspergers when trying to figure out
what was wrong with a bright fellow who started contributing
and arguing in the statistics groups. He also refused to reread
what was written, to see that he got something wrong, which
happened fairly often. - He was a smart mathematician but he
had no experience with research, which is where the questions
cam from.

Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called people
'stupid' and 'liar'. STUPID meant he didn't understand what was said,
and LIAR meant he thought it was 'obviously' wrong. Oh, a lot of
autistics have trouble (for instance) in learning to 'choose the best
answer' on multiple choice when unsure, because endorsing an
answer that they are not sure of feels too much like lying, which
they avoid (and are very bad at).

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Rich Ulrich
Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called people
'stupid' and 'liar'.

I've never met an autistic person. But I've seen plenty of
self-proclaimed psychologists on Usenet diagnosing everyone
under the sun!

The diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can only be made by
qualified professionals who actually know what they're doing and have
the right training to spot the signs and symptoms. Usually, the whole
process involves clinical observations, interviews, questionnaires,
standardized tests, and a differential diagnosis. So yeah, even a
qualified pro can't just throw out a diagnosis based on Usenet posts!

No, wait, I /did/ have one student in a class once. Either
the admin or he himself told me before the course started,
"Heads up, autistic!" But honestly, I didn't see any of
the behaviors you mentioned in him.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Rich Ulrich
Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called people
'stupid' and 'liar'.

I've never met an autistic person. But I've seen plenty of
self-proclaimed psychologists on Usenet diagnosing everyone
under the sun!

Is that a jab? Yeah, even worse, Fox News has echoed that
Biden is demented.

The Goldwater Rule only 'rules' members of the APA -

"The American Psychiatric Association adopted the Goldwater Rule in
1973 prohibiting members from offering psychological opinions about
individuals whom they had not personally examined. The issue arose
after a magazine published opinions by psychiatrists about
presidential candidate Barry Goldwater."

Psychiatrists in 1973 were also prone to believe that talk-therapy
uncovered "true diagnoses" in ways that overt behavior could not.
The modern trend is to put a lot of weight on behavior. Trump's
narcissism, for instance, EXISTs in his public behavior and a
personal interview has little to add. An interview, I think, would
not be totally useless-- it might reveal more about co-diagnoses
such as sociopathy.

Post by Stefan Ram
The diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can only be made by
qualified professionals who actually know what they're doing and have

Well, the childhood ASDs are dysfunctional and not searching for
Dx on Usenet. Aspies, on the other hand, are sometimes /grateful/
to learn that they are not alone, and that they can learn something
more.

Post by Stefan Ram
the right training to spot the signs and symptoms. Usually, the whole
process involves clinical observations, interviews, questionnaires,
standardized tests, and a differential diagnosis. So yeah, even a
qualified pro can't just throw out a diagnosis based on Usenet posts!

One of the tendencies of Aspies on Usenet is to over-share.
So, we learned a lot that his therapist would. And we have his
behaviors.

So, Bill told us that he was a member of the Three-Nines Society
(compare: Mensa selects out only 98%). He got into grad-school
on the personal recommendation of a senior facutly member
after he bombed the Verbal portion of the GREs.

He retired early from his tenured faculty position because he did
not like anyone in his department, and they treated him badly.
He (apparentlly) did not recognize that they were trying to drive
him out when they loaded him up with grad-students and assigned
him to teach a lab-section of someone else's course.

He changed nyms once or twice in the 3 years he posted, and that
was because he offended in some other group so much that they
protested and he was kicked off his account. Scuba diving?

Post by Stefan Ram
No, wait, I /did/ have one student in a class once. Either
the admin or he himself told me before the course started,
"Heads up, autistic!" But honestly, I didn't see any of
the behaviors you mentioned in him.

The diagnoses given in schools have sometimes been warped by
the funding available for help in various categories. So, autistic
and retarded and ADHD can be arbitrary labels that help to
obtain Special Care.

[occam]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan

[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
behaviour. Have a sift:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Just for starters:

- Escalation of commitment:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>

- Illusory truth effect:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>

- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I learned about autism and Aspergers when trying to figure out
what was wrong with a bright fellow who started contributing
and arguing in the statistics groups. He also refused to reread
what was written, to see that he got something wrong, which
happened fairly often. - He was a smart mathematician but he
had no experience with research, which is where the questions
cam from.
Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called people
'stupid' and 'liar'. STUPID meant he didn't understand what was said,
and LIAR meant he thought it was 'obviously' wrong. Oh, a lot of
autistics have trouble (for instance) in learning to 'choose the best
answer' on multiple choice when unsure, because endorsing an
answer that they are not sure of feels too much like lying, which
they avoid (and are very bad at).

[Hibou]

Post by occam

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan

[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.

Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.

It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:57:29 +0100, Hibou

Post by Hibou

Post by occam

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan

[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.

Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.

Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING. LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin. So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.

Bill (stats-resident Aspie) would justify his (very rare) backing
down by asserting that there are two different 'cases' and he
was thinking of the other (and more important, somehow) one.

[occam]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:57:29 +0100, Hibou

Post by Hibou

Post by occam

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan

[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.

Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.

Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING.

...unless you are not aware of it being not true. If the 'fact' you are
asserting is wrong, and you are not aware of it, you are NOT lying. You
are just being ignorant.

Post by Rich Ulrich
LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin.

Personal question - are you a Catholic by any chance, Rich? Only
Catholics lose sleep over 'sin'. I don't. I do lose sleep if I
knowingly lie, but I do not consider myself a sinner. Sin is a Catholic
invention, for Catholics, by Catholics.

Post by Rich Ulrich
So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.

[Snidely]

Post by occam

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:57:29 +0100, Hibou

Post by Hibou

Post by occam

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan

[PTD] would pronounce that something someone else had said was
wrong, when it wasn't and continue to insist on it even when several
people had produced evbidence that it was true.

The Australian coat of arms shows a kangaroo and an emu holding a
shield. These two animals have something in common: they cannot walk
backwards. Their anatomy does not allow it.
That was PTD's problem. When caught in an error, he was completely
incapable of backing out. His only option was to dig a deeper hole.
He's the only person I've encountered with such a severe form of this
disability. Some others came close, but they got out of the impasse by
responding with a non sequitur.

Anecdote: The great mathmetician/statistician Karl Pearson was
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1. And
he refused to publish the folks who argued (what he finally
conceded) for 1.
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect>
- Big Ego. As the editor of Biometrika for 35 years, he would certainly
not like to be corrected.

Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.

Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING.

...unless you are not aware of it being not true. If the 'fact' you are
asserting is wrong, and you are not aware of it, you are NOT lying. You
are just being ignorant.

Post by Rich Ulrich
LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin.

Personal question - are you a Catholic by any chance, Rich? Only
Catholics lose sleep over 'sin'. I don't. I do lose sleep if I
knowingly lie, but I do not consider myself a sinner. Sin is a Catholic
invention, for Catholics, by Catholics.

I don't think you are understanding Rich's post. He isn't describing
his feelings, he is describing the clinical issue of Aspergers from the
point of view of the symptomatic individual. Both the issue of the
"sin" and the whether an accidental untruth is a lie is part of what
they experience, according to his research and his prior contact with
an actual symptomatic individual.

Post by occam

Post by Rich Ulrich
So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.

Please read carefully.

/dps

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Snidely
I don't think you are understanding Rich's post. He isn't describing
his feelings, he is describing the clinical issue of Aspergers from the
point of view of the symptomatic individual. Both the issue of the
"sin" and the whether an accidental untruth is a lie is part of what
they experience, according to his research and his prior contact with
an actual symptomatic individual.

Exactly. Thanks.

[Hibou]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Hibou
Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.

Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING. LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin. So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.

In Usenet forums, I don't think deliberate lying is much of a problem,
but people are often mistaken. It's hard to admit that one is in error;
it throws doubt on one's ability. Also, our beliefs are part of who we
are; to let one go is to lose part of oneself.

Post by Rich Ulrich
Bill (stats-resident Aspie) would justify his (very rare) backing
down by asserting that there are two different 'cases' and he
was thinking of the other (and more important, somehow) one.

Well, numerous authors - Overstreet and Carnegie, for instance - have
written of how reluctant people are to change their minds - and not just
autistic people. I expect all salesmen can tell tales about that (Dale
Carnegie was one, of course).

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:16:56 +0100, Hibou

Post by Hibou

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Hibou
Yes, I don't think it's peculiar to Asperger's or autism. People often
adopt positions without exploring them thoroughly, commit themselves,
and then feel obliged to defend that commitment, even when it turns out
they're wrong.
It's not easy to admit one is wrong, but it has its advantages. It
brings discussion to a halt, instead of prolonging it embarrassingly,
and one gains Brownie points for valuing the truth.

Consider this combination: Asserting something that is not true
is LYING. LYING is very bad, like, a bad sin. So one is careful
in what one asserts. And one does not want to admit to the
sin of being wrong. This creates a certain internal conflict,
because there is also the notion that a 'sin' should be something
that was intentional; and the original mis-statement is not
something that one regrets.

In Usenet forums, I don't think deliberate lying is much of a problem,
but people are often mistaken. It's hard to admit that one is in error;
it throws doubt on one's ability. Also, our beliefs are part of who we
are; to let one go is to lose part of oneself.

You are still missing the idea that autistics often 'relate
differently' to the idea of truth vs. falsehood; 'innocent mistake' is
not in their working vocabulary.

I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.

Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation.

Post by Hibou

Post by Rich Ulrich
Bill (stats-resident Aspie) would justify his (very rare) backing
down by asserting that there are two different 'cases' and he
was thinking of the other (and more important, somehow) one.

Well, numerous authors - Overstreet and Carnegie, for instance - have
written of how reluctant people are to change their minds - and not just
autistic people. I expect all salesmen can tell tales about that (Dale
Carnegie was one, of course).

I think I made a break-through, long ago, in taking hostile words
seriously-- when I recognized that I could take the argument one
step further if I ADMITTED the first accusation. So, I started
paying more attention (how true IS it?) and parsing the meaning.

Yesterday, my Face Book feed included a page from Project
2025 -- That is the 900 page outline that the Heritage Foundation
prepared, for implementing Trump's authoritarion revision of
government. It has received enough bad press that Trump tries
to disown it. (In addition to it using his words, his VP choice,
Vance, was fairly intimately involved.)

A section on health care intended to provide a conspiratorial
line about how terrible the CDC and other experts performed. But
it wrote in generalites [CROSS-THREAD ALERT] instead of listing
their (lame) complaints. I read it, thought about it, and commented
that I could AGREE with those generalities -- TRUMP, a central
political figure, interfered with the bureaucracies that would have
performed better without him.

[Hibou]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Hibou
In Usenet forums, I don't think deliberate lying is much of a problem,
but people are often mistaken. It's hard to admit that one is in error;
it throws doubt on one's ability. Also, our beliefs are part of who we
are; to let one go is to lose part of oneself.

You are still missing the idea that autistics often 'relate
differently' to the idea of truth vs. falsehood; 'innocent mistake' is
not in their working vocabulary.

Is it not?

Perhaps there has been some drift in this discussion. I think its
starting point was your message
<news:***@4ax.com> (Sat. 27th at 12:52:19
-0400) in which you described a character who refused to admit error and
called contradictors stupid and liars. You went on to infer that he
therefore had autism.

I think this inference is shaky.

I've been called stupid countless times, especially in Usenet fora, and
met many who have clung to demonstrably false beliefs (dear old
fr.soc.religion in its heyday!) - too many, I think, to infer that they
were all suffering from some syndrome or other. It's just human nature,
innit?

Citation du jour : « Passer pour un idiot aux yeux d'un imbécile est un
délice de fin gourmet » - Simenon (ou Courteline, peut-être, formulée
autrement ; les sources se contredisent).

Post by Rich Ulrich
I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.
Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation. [...]

Goodness me! I am learning a lot. (I have Asperger's myself.)

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:37:32 +0100, Hibou

Post by Hibou

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Hibou
In Usenet forums, I don't think deliberate lying is much of a problem,
but people are often mistaken. It's hard to admit that one is in error;
it throws doubt on one's ability. Also, our beliefs are part of who we
are; to let one go is to lose part of oneself.

You are still missing the idea that autistics often 'relate
differently' to the idea of truth vs. falsehood; 'innocent mistake' is
not in their working vocabulary.

Is it not?
Perhaps there has been some drift in this discussion. I think its
starting point was your message
-0400) in which you described a character who refused to admit error and
called contradictors stupid and liars. You went on to infer that he
therefore had autism.
I think this inference is shaky.

No, my remark about Stupid and Liars was 'additional commentary'
rather than 'inference.' And I gave the interpretation I eventually
came to, of when he used the words Stupid or Liar.

Cut-and-paste (and re-wrap):
Also typical for the autistic spectrum --he frequently called
people 'stupid' and 'liar'. STUPID meant he didn't understand what
was said, and LIAR meant he thought it was 'obviously' wrong.

He never said, Oh, I see how you make that mistake.

Post by Hibou
I've been called stupid countless times, especially in Usenet fora, and
met many who have clung to demonstrably false beliefs (dear old
fr.soc.religion in its heyday!) - too many, I think, to infer that they
were all suffering from some syndrome or other. It's just human nature,
innit?

I will repeat, neurotypicals (NTs) and Aspies overlap a lot. But when
a person shows a bunch of separate, rare traits ... that is what
adds up to a diagnosis. And, How often does a behavior show up?

I counted at one time -- in a month, Bob called 11 different people
Stupid or Liar. Or it might have been about that many for each
word (it's been a long time). Do you excuse that as 'human nature'?

I found myself interacting with him a lot because I had sort of taken
on the task of a monitor in the stats groups, and he was prone to
(even) start out, like, "You must be stupid to ask THAT." This was
from a guy who spent his working life as a college professor who
was not well liked by his students (and there is another story,
there).

Post by Hibou
Citation du jour : « Passer pour un idiot aux yeux d'un imbécile est un
délice de fin gourmet » - Simenon (ou Courteline, peut-être, formulée
autrement ; les sources se contredisent).

Post by Rich Ulrich
I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.
Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation. [...]

Goodness me! I am learning a lot. (I have Asperger's myself.)

You're welcome?

[Hibou]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Hibou
I've been called stupid countless times, especially in Usenet fora, and
met many who have clung to demonstrably false beliefs (dear old
fr.soc.religion in its heyday!) - too many, I think, to infer that they
were all suffering from some syndrome or other. It's just human nature,
innit?

I will repeat, neurotypicals (NTs) and Aspies overlap a lot. But when
a person shows a bunch of separate, rare traits ...

I don't think clinging to debating positions is rare, and dismissing
critics as stupid or liars is one way of doing so. (It reminds me of
dictatorships.)

Post by Rich Ulrich
that is what
adds up to a diagnosis. And, How often does a behavior show up?
I counted at one time -- in a month, Bob called 11 different people
Stupid or Liar. Or it might have been about that many for each
word (it's been a long time). Do you excuse that as 'human nature'?

I don't excuse it at all.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I found myself interacting with him a lot because I had sort of taken
on the task of a monitor in the stats groups,

A self-appointed moderator?

Post by Rich Ulrich
and he was prone to
(even) start out, like, "You must be stupid to ask THAT." This was
from a guy who spent his working life as a college professor who
was not well liked by his students (and there is another story,
there).

He appears to have been a big influence in your life.

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Hibou

Post by Rich Ulrich
I don't know how much of their problem is created or influenced
by the aftermath of their own social ineptness -- a feature
have not been discussing. The Usenet autism group once posted
a note by a woman who said that her child's kindergarten teacher
praised the daughter for her 'maturity' since she never joined in
when kids were bullying or hassling. The teacher did not
recognize that the daughter was not mature, she simply did not
UNDERSTAND why the bullying was taking place; she did not
join in automatically, because she did not fit in.
Aspies are not insulted by the same things neurotypicals
consider insulting, so they make social mistakes. They get called
Stupid or Liar when they claim they did not UNDERSTAND that
someone would (or would not) be offended by something.
" - Okay, you insulted my shirt. My mama picked it out, not me.
Why should I be offended?" Or the Aspie might insult a shirt,
while imagining they were offering a trivial observation. [...]

Goodness me! I am learning a lot. (I have Asperger's myself.)

You're welcome?

Do please continue. I'm eager to learn more.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:57:21 +0200, occam <***@nowhere.nix> wrote:


< snip, belligerence in argument, refusal to admit error >

me >>

Post by occam

Post by Rich Ulrich
This is frequent a characteristic of Aspergers Syndrome (which
is a diagnosis no longer in the book; too bad).

Whoa! I'm no expert on Aspergers, but that is a big leap. There are
half a dozen cognitive biases that could equally explain Pearson's

I certainly did not mean to imply that anything was solely a
trait of Aspbergers. How much we 'neurotypicals' can understand
a trait depends party on having some tendency to the same
thing. Psych and med students notoriously fret about having
every new disease they get details on, obsessing on hints of
some sign.

Aspies have made a home industry of spotting among famous
scientists, throughout history, single traits that are higher
in Aspies (or autisitics). Some folks argue from these examples
that 'different' is not 'inferior'.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Rich Ulrich
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1.

|It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right.
Kathryn Schulz "On being wrong" (TED Talk) (2011-03)

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Rich Ulrich
also the first editor of Biometrika (for 35 years). He described
what we know as the Pearson chisquared test -- but for a few
years, he insisted that it had 3 degrees of freedom, not 1.

|It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right.
Kathryn Schulz "On being wrong" (TED Talk) (2011-03)

Math and physics whizzes can often roll with the punches on stuff
like this. I've seen seasoned full math profs get called out by
a freshmen during a lecture for flubbing a requirement. Without
missing a beat, they'd be like, "You nailed it! I goofed up there.
I should have demanded that the function is continuous." If anything,
that just made me think the prof was even more badass!

[Christian Weisgerber]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.

It's not wrong just because PTD said it. Over on Language Log, the
eminent sinologist Victor Mair also keeps pointing out that the
Chinese thinking that a Chinese character/syllable equals a word
is just not true and that most of the Chinese lexicon is made from
a combinations of two morphemes and rendered in two characters.

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I
guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic?
Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total
ignorance there?

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:29:10 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I
guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic?
Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total
ignorance there?

Something to do with linguistics, which was relevant on sci.lang,
about which few on aue dared to contradict him. Even if he was wrong
about something, most of us wouldn't know.

But when it came to English usage, or several other topics, heis
knowledge was lessa accurate.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.

It's not wrong just because PTD said it. Over on Language Log, the
eminent sinologist Victor Mair also keeps pointing out that the
Chinese thinking that a Chinese character/syllable equals a word
is just not true and that most of the Chinese lexicon is made from
a combinations of two morphemes and rendered in two characters.

Mair contributed a chapter to Daniels and Bright, so he was probably
the source for PTD's knowledge of that.

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I
guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic?

He's also written a book on writing systems.

https://www.amazon.com/Exploration-Writing-Peter-T-Daniels/

As you probably noticed, his guest post on Language Log on writing
systems was well received.

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total
ignorance there?

He knows a lot more than I do about all of the Semitic languages
except Hebrew, but on the other hand he wrote

'Hebrew does not have subordinating conjunctions. It uses parataxis, not
hypotaxis. KJV tried to translate literally, word by word, so "and" was
used
wherever wa-(and allomorphs) appeared.'

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/MZ7qGDVppiU/m/4h_E2sqqBAAJ

The subject was the King James Bible, but it was still misleading
not to say that modern Hebrew has several subordinating conjunctions
and uses them often. (Note how effectively that could lead to an
argument. "That doesn't apply at all to modern Hebrew." "The
subject is obviously Biblical Hebrew." "But...")

More to the point, the statement is not true even of Biblical Hebrew.
It has /fewer/ subordinating conjunctions than modern European
languages and uses hypotaxis /less/, but it does use hypotaxis. For
instance

'asher or she- 'that, which, what': "I am that I am"

ki 'that, because, when': "And God blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified
it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.' (The "which" there is 'asher again.)

k- 'like, as': "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth
my soul
after thee, O God."

l-ma`an 'so that': "Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may
live."

The statement that the KJV used "and" whenever "wa-" appeared is
very close to true, I believe. However "Therefore" in "Therefore
choose life" is u-, an allomorph of wa-, as PTD put it. (I just noticed
that.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.

It's not wrong just because PTD said it. Over on Language Log, the
eminent sinologist Victor Mair also keeps pointing out that the
Chinese thinking that a Chinese character/syllable equals a word
is just not true and that most of the Chinese lexicon is made from
a combinations of two morphemes and rendered in two characters.

Mair contributed a chapter to Daniels and Bright, so he was probably
the source for PTD's knowledge of that.

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I
guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic?

He's also written a book on writing systems.
https://www.amazon.com/Exploration-Writing-Peter-T-Daniels/
As you probably noticed, his guest post on Language Log on writing
systems was well received.

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total
ignorance there?

He knows a lot more than I do about all of the Semitic languages
'Hebrew does not have subordinating conjunctions. It uses parataxis, not
hypotaxis. KJV tried to translate literally, word by word, so "and" was
used
wherever wa-(and allomorphs) appeared.'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/MZ7qGDVppiU/m/4h_E2sqqBAAJ
The subject was the King James Bible, but it was still misleading
not to say that modern Hebrew has several subordinating conjunctions
and uses them often.

He was talking about Biblical Hebrew. Now you start about Modern
Hebrew. Not the same grammar.

Initial waw in Biblical Hebrew was indeed mistranslated as "and" in
English and "en" in Dutch etc., because in reality it was an aspect
and tense reversing prefix or some such:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vav-consecutive

Post by jerryfriedman
(Note how effectively that could lead to an
argument. "That doesn't apply at all to modern Hebrew." "The
subject is obviously Biblical Hebrew." "But...")

There you have it.

Post by jerryfriedman
More to the point, the statement is not true even of Biblical Hebrew.
It has /fewer/ subordinating conjunctions than modern European
languages and uses hypotaxis /less/, but it does use hypotaxis. For
instance
'asher or she- 'that, which, what': "I am that I am"
ki 'that, because, when': "And God blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified
it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.' (The "which" there is 'asher again.)

This is far beyond me, so I have no take on it.

Post by jerryfriedman
k- 'like, as': "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth
my soul
after thee, O God."
l-ma`an 'so that': "Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may
live."
The statement that the KJV used "and" whenever "wa-" appeared is
very close to true, I believe. However "Therefore" in "Therefore
choose life" is u-, an allomorph of wa-, as PTD put it. (I just noticed
that.)

So he did (and does) have knowledge of Hebrew grammar after all.

BTW, isn´t it quite impolite to gossip about someone who himself
cannot be present to comment if he so chose?

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by HenHanna
The instance I remember most was when he (PTD) opined that Most
Chinese words consisted of 2 Chinese characters.

It's not wrong just because PTD said it. Over on Language Log, the
eminent sinologist Victor Mair also keeps pointing out that the
Chinese thinking that a Chinese character/syllable equals a word
is just not true and that most of the Chinese lexicon is made from
a combinations of two morphemes and rendered in two characters.

Mair contributed a chapter to Daniels and Bright, so he was probably
the source for PTD's knowledge of that.

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Steve Hayes
In his own field he had some useful information, but outside his field
he could be very dogmatic about things that he simply got wrong.

But what _is_ PTD's area of actual expertise? Writing systems, I
guess, supported by the fact that he co-edited a book on the topic?

He's also written a book on writing systems.
https://www.amazon.com/Exploration-Writing-Peter-T-Daniels/
As you probably noticed, his guest post on Language Log on writing
systems was well received.

Post by Christian Weisgerber
Semitic languages, maybe--or am I already misled by my own total
ignorance there?

He knows a lot more than I do about all of the Semitic languages
'Hebrew does not have subordinating conjunctions. It uses parataxis, not
hypotaxis. KJV tried to translate literally, word by word, so "and" was
used
wherever wa-(and allomorphs) appeared.'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/MZ7qGDVppiU/m/4h_E2sqqBAAJ
The subject was the King James Bible, but it was still misleading
not to say that modern Hebrew has several subordinating conjunctions
and uses them often.

He was talking about Biblical Hebrew. Now you start about Modern
Hebrew. Not the same grammar.
Initial waw in Biblical Hebrew was indeed mistranslated as "and" in
English and "en" in Dutch etc., because in reality it was an aspect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vav-consecutive

I don't think it's a mistranslation in most situations, because as
the Wikipedia article, it has the conjunctive meaning in addition
to changing the tense or aspect. You could make a case that
it is a mistranslation at the beginning of a narrative.

Actually the 1611 King James translators agreed in at least one
place. A literal translation of Joshua 1:1 would begin "And it was
after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh," but the KJV
had "Nowe after the death of Moses the seruant of the Lord".

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by jerryfriedman
(Note how effectively that could lead to an
argument. "That doesn't apply at all to modern Hebrew." "The
subject is obviously Biblical Hebrew." "But...")

There you have it.

Yes, classic PTD. With one word ("Biblical") he could have avoided
misleading anyone or starting an argument. But the main point is
below.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by jerryfriedman
More to the point, the statement is not true even of Biblical Hebrew.
It has /fewer/ subordinating conjunctions than modern European
languages and uses hypotaxis /less/, but it does use hypotaxis. For
instance
'asher or she- 'that, which, what': "I am that I am"
ki 'that, because, when': "And God blessed the seventh day, and
sanctified
it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.' (The "which" there is 'asher again.)

This is far beyond me, so I have no take on it.

It's quite simple. Biblical Hebrew had subordinating conjunctions
and subordinate clauses, contrary to PTD's flat statement.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by jerryfriedman
k- 'like, as': "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth
my soul after thee, O God."
l-ma`an 'so that': "Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may
live."
The statement that the KJV used "and" whenever "wa-" appeared is
very close to true, I believe. However "Therefore" in "Therefore
choose life" is u-, an allomorph of wa-, as PTD put it. (I just noticed
that.)

So he did (and does) have knowledge of Hebrew grammar after all.

Some knowledge. "A little learning is a dangerous thing."

I'm by no means an expert on Hebrew, much less Biblical Hebrew,
but I'm capable of recognizing obvious facts and I have some idea
of the limits of my knowledge.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
BTW, isn´t it quite impolite to gossip about someone who himself
cannot be present to comment if he so chose?

I would have disagreed with him about this and other things at the
time if he had handled disagreement in a decent way and had
shown that he could learn from correction.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by jerryfriedman
I would have disagreed with him about this and other things at the
time if he had handled disagreement in a decent way and had
shown that he could learn from correction.

I had my disputes with him too, e.g. about whether the vocal chords
(cords?) are comparable to guitar and piano strings, and whether
cavities in the throat and mouth function as acoustic filters, that
favour or weaken overtones.

He had clearly no knowledge in this field, and some blatantly wrong
ideas, but he refused to learn anything from me, because I am largely
selftaught, even in this. Well, not quite, I studied electronics, and
filters are a part of that. And my first encounters with a programming
language (Algol) was also about this. Because it interested me,
already in 1975 or so.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Ruud Harmsen
So he did (and does) have knowledge of Hebrew grammar after all.

Some knowledge. "A little learning is a dangerous thing."
I'm by no means an expert on Hebrew, much less Biblical Hebrew,
but I'm capable of recognizing obvious facts and I have some idea
of the limits of my knowledge.

Aye, and that is the main difference between you (and most of the rest
of us) and PTD.

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2024-07-23, Steve Hayes <***@telkomsa.net> wrote:

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Steve Hayes
He could contribute useful information on topics he knew something
about, but he became argumentative about things of which he was
altogether ignorant.

Same on sci.lang, really.

[bertietaylor]

Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product
English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.

Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by bertietaylor
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product
English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I
myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.

The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)

And yes, of course my fingers do type separate letters while I compose
this message, but my brain thinks in English words and expressions
while I do it. Via a built-up routine, by lots of practice every day,
something in my brain or spine translates those thoughts into finger
movements on the keyboards, in cooperation with my eyes. I don't
consciously know how that works, but it does.

When I try to control it consciously, it is disrupted!

Conclusion: the easiest spelling, no matter how weird or irregular, is
always the one you are used to. Simplification always only makes
things harder.

[Silvano]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Conclusion: the easiest spelling, no matter how weird or irregular, is
always the one you are used to. Simplification always only makes
things harder.

For people who master the existing spelling system. Not necessarily for
people who learn the new spelling from scratch (e. g. children after a
spelling reform).

Fup to AUE because I don't read the other groups. I tried sci.lang
recently, but these days it's just a small subset of AUE. Is AEU worthwhile?

[Aidan Kehoe]

[...] In my study of Irish I am struggling badly with spelling. That is
because Irish spelling has so many silent letters. (That is why I never
heard my grandfather say anything.) Some consonants are silent because of
lenition or eclipsis. Some vowels are silent because of the rule "slender
with slender, broad with broad" that inserts extra silent vowels to match
the adjacent consonants. The end result is that the spoken word is a lot
shorter than the written word.
But, of course, familiarity matters. I can recognise the word "bhfuil",
whose pronunciation is non-intuitive, because I've seen it so often. I
am almost at the point where "mo mhathair" has an obvious spelling. So
maybe I'll get there eventually.
[Positive: I can now say "Tá penna m'aintín ar bhuró m'uncail", so maybe
I'm making progress.]

Penna isn’t a word; did you mean peann? Next step; render « La plume de ma
tante est près de la chaise de ma tante. »

Having gone back to Irish after twenty years recently the spelling is fine,
there is rhyme and reason to it. You’ll get there I’m sure.

[Peter Moylan]

[Positive: I can now say "Tá penna m'aintín ar bhuró m'uncail", so
maybe I'm making progress.]

Penna isn’t a word; did you mean peann? Next step; render « La plume
de ma tante est près de la chaise de ma tante. »

Thanks for the correction. I'll try to memorise peann. I'm putting aside
your other challenge for a few months, but I did use Google Translate to
discover that "pres de" -> "in aice le", literally "in nearness with".

Recent discovery: I've noticed that Irish can use the preposition "ag"
(=at) to produce something that is close to the English present
continuous. "He is at walking."

On the wall above my desk is a table with the conjugations of five
common prepositions. I'm getting close to where I can add a couple more.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Having gone back to Irish after twenty years recently the spelling is fine,
there is rhyme and reason to it. You’ll get there I’m sure.

Right.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I
myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.

I tend to agree there.

I've tried to learn Russian (visited there nearly 30 years ago). When
looking at a text, the words I know I can recognise immediately. Words
I don't know, I have to spell out letter by letter. And words that end
in -ego I pronounce as -yevo without even thinking about it, which
gives problems with Bulgarian and Serbian, because they don't
pronounce it like that.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)
And yes, of course my fingers do type separate letters while I compose
this message, but my brain thinks in English words and expressions
while I do it. Via a built-up routine, by lots of practice every day,
something in my brain or spine translates those thoughts into finger
movements on the keyboards, in cooperation with my eyes. I don't
consciously know how that works, but it does.
When I try to control it consciously, it is disrupted!
Conclusion: the easiest spelling, no matter how weird or irregular, is
always the one you are used to. Simplification always only makes
things harder.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I
myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.

I tend to agree there.
I've tried to learn Russian (visited there nearly 30 years ago). When
looking at a text, the words I know I can recognise immediately. Words
I don't know, I have to spell out letter by letter. And words that end
in -ego I pronounce as -yevo without even thinking about it, which
gives problems with Bulgarian and Serbian, because they don't
pronounce it like that.

Right. And then Cyrillic and Greek have quite a few letters in common
with Latin script, which makes it easier. My Russian vocabulary is
very thin, maybe 20 or 30 words, yet I recognize quite a lot in
Cyrillic text. Much more difficult with the Arabic or Hebrew script.

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ruud Harmsen
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,

Word pictures, says my fat Van Dale translaton dictionary.

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ruud Harmsen
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)

[...]

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Ruud Harmsen
And then Cyrillic and Greek have quite a few letters in
common with Latin script, which makes it easier. My
Russian vocabulary is very thin, maybe 20 or 30 words, yet
I recognize quite a lot in Cyrillic text. Much more
difficult with the Arabic or Hebrew script.

The car plate numbers in Russia use the common subset of
Cyrillic and Latin alphabets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Russia

In fast, quite a few words may be written in that subset,
which was exploited, among other things, in the names of the
FidoNet echoes in zone 7.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Steve Hayes
I've tried to learn Russian (visited there nearly 30 years ago). When
looking at a text, the words I know I can recognise immediately. Words
I don't know, I have to spell out letter by letter. And words that end
in -ego I pronounce as -yevo without even thinking about it, which
gives problems with Bulgarian and Serbian, because they don't
pronounce it like that.

Right. And then Cyrillic and Greek have quite a few letters in common
with Latin script, which makes it easier. My Russian vocabulary is
very thin, maybe 20 or 30 words, yet I recognize quite a lot in
Cyrillic text. Much more difficult with the Arabic or Hebrew script.

No doubt.

I find much the same with North Sotho, which I've been exposed to for
more than 20 years, though because it is mostly written in a Latin
alphabet I don't have to spell out the unfamilar words letter by
letter, but rather syllable by syllable.

So I recognise Russian "yako" and the North Sotho "gobane", which mean
"for" or "because" in English as whole words, but very often I have to
puzzle out the following word.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ruud Harmsen
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,

Word pictures, says my fat Van Dale translaton dictionary.

Yes, and, as Peter Moylan notes, it is a kind of pattern recognition
usually referred to in English as "Gestalt".

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product
English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I
myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)

I found my typing got better when I got in the habit, on making a mistake, of
deleting the entire word and starting it again, rather than the single
mis-typed letter. That is partial support for your idea. I haven’t seen this
approach suggested anywhere else, so it may not work for other people

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Aidan Kehoe
I found my typing got better when I got in the habit, on making a mistake, of
deleting the entire word and starting it again, rather than the single
mis-typed letter. That is partial support for your idea. I haven’t seen this
approach suggested anywhere else, so it may not work for other people

There was this study that found "the brain" actually reads each
letter separately. I think when we first learn to read, we do it
consciously, and then later it becomes more of a subconscious thing,
which might make it seem like we're seeing words "as a whole."

|Here we show that in identifying familiar English words, even
|the five most common three-letter words, observers have the
|handicap predicted by recognition by parts: a word is
|unreadable unless its letters are separately identifiable.
|Efficiency is inversely proportional to word length,
|independent of how many possible words (5, 26 or thousands)
|the test word is drawn from. Human performance never exceeds
|that attainable by strictly letter- or feature-based models.
|Thus, everything seen is a pattern of features. Despite our
|virtuosity at recognizing patterns and our expertise from
|reading a billion letters, we never learn to see a word as a
|feature; our efficiency is limited by the bottleneck of
|having to rigorously and independently detect simple
|features.
"The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition"
Denis G. Pelli, Bart Farell & Deborah C. Moore
Letters to Nature
Received 30 December 2002; Accepted 21 February 2003
Nature 423, 752-756 (12 June 2003) | doi:10.1038/nature01516;

[bertietaylor]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product
English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

I think so too. I read and write standard English much more easily
than to write it in IPA. Also the more or less phonological spelling I
myself devised in the 1970s, is very difficult to use even for me,
although it was designed with the express purpose of being easier.
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,

And there is the problem. In a phonetic system one learns the language
well long before it is 6.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,

Yes but there are two different schemes. One set of pronunciation and
spelling based on rules and the other without.
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
just like in the case of Chinese characters. (OK, there is debate
whether words in Chinese are often 2 or 3 characters, or just one
(learnt from PTD!), but that doesn't change the principle.)
And yes, of course my fingers do type separate letters while I compose
this message, but my brain thinks in English words and expressions
while I do it. Via a built-up routine, by lots of practice every day,
something in my brain or spine translates those thoughts into finger
movements on the keyboards, in cooperation with my eyes.

Right. To learn English badly is easy but to totally master it takes a
lot of effort. You really have to work hard at it unless you love it for
its madness. In which case it grows upon you. It also helps when the
medium of instruction is English.

I don't

Post by Ruud Harmsen
consciously know how that works, but it does.

Indeed.
Point with Shaw was, that English speaking was not uniform and so he
thought that an extended alphabet would help education for the masses. A
socialist approach. Elites like Daniels naturally resented it. The
snobbery necessary for exploitative feudal/capitalist growth would
vanish if social inequalities caused by language were abolished.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
When I try to control it consciously, it is disrupted!
Conclusion: the easiest spelling, no matter how weird or irregular, is
always the one you are used to. Simplification always only makes
things harder.

Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read
two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by bertietaylor

Post by Ruud Harmsen
The reason is that after the first learning stage of 6 years olds,

And there is the problem. In a phonetic system one learns the language
well long before it is 6.

True. At about three years, grammar knowledge is in fact complete, and
there is a large vocabulary. Phonetics then still need improvement,
but at 4 or 5 is perfect too. This is based on closely watching the
development of my 3 granddaughters, now aged 3, 5 and almost 7.

Whether the spelling is phonemic or not makes no difference for that.
Children cannot learn to write earlier than at six, because "de fijne
motoriek" isn't sufficiently developed.

(Still so many terms I don't know in English, even at age 69. Shame on
me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_skill
motoriek - motor skill
grove motoriek - gross motor skills
fijne motoriek - fine motor skills
)

Post by bertietaylor

Post by Ruud Harmsen
people do not read and type in separate letters, but in word images,

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by bertietaylor
Yes but there are two different schemes. One set of pronunciation and
spelling based on rules and the other without.

English spelling does have a lot of rules too:
https://www.zompist.com/spell.html, © 2000 by Mark Rosenfelder.

So has Irish spelling.

And I seem to remember having read that Chinese characters are quite
systematic too, which is why they can be looked up in dictionaries
using the number of stroke and some other methods.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by bertietaylor
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.

I don't really understand much of what you write here. But I do know
that Fernando Pessoa in his "A hora do Diabo" posited that God is
reality and the Devil is dream. God is Creation, the Devil is
Creativity.

https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/hrddb-ia.htm

Post by bertietaylor
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read
two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.

I don't get it. What was it?

[bertietaylor]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.

I don't really understand much of what you write here. But I do know
that Fernando Pessoa in his "A hora do Diabo" posited that God is
reality and the Devil is dream. God is Creation, the Devil is
Creativity.
https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/hrddb-ia.htm

Post by bertietaylor
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read
two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.

I don't get it. What was it?

Toothpaste

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by bertietaylor

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.

I don't really understand much of what you write here. But I do know
that Fernando Pessoa in his "A hora do Diabo" posited that God is
reality and the Devil is dream. God is Creation, the Devil is
Creativity.
https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/hrddb-ia.htm

Post by bertietaylor
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read
two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.

I don't get it. What was it?

Toothpaste

Ah, yes, of course.

Like today I saw the English worst driest. In Dutch it also exists,
with a different structure (one syllable), meaning and sound.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who
read two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.

I don't get it. What was it?

There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My uncles
used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My uncles
used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.

I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.

[Phil]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.

Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to misle
people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A poster
here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.

I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Phil

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.

Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to misle
people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A poster
here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.

Some years ago, aue featured various offerings of misling spellings,
and we also reported cases of mishy-phenation. The cow-orker was
a favorite example of the latter. I offered an example I ran into in
the wild, mans-laughter.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Phil

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My
uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I still
tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as if
it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.

Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to misle
people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A poster
here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.

Some years ago, aue featured various offerings of misling spellings,
and we also reported cases of mishy-phenation. The cow-orker was
a favorite example of the latter. I offered an example I ran into in
the wild, mans-laughter.

The first one I ran into in the wild was the-rapist.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Phil
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which I'm
prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.

Nice one. There are more of 'm like that.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Phil

Post by Peter Moylan

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale.
My uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I
still tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as
if it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.

Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to
misle people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A
poster here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which
I'm prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.

I won't comment on the Dutch examples, because I'm not sure what rhymes
with what. But in English, at least, anyone who invents a new word needs
to have a good feel for the spelling rules, which among other things
indicate how to pronounce the word.

Some people will claim that English has no consistent spelling rules,
but it does. (With, admittedly, some exceptions.) When faced with an
unknown word, most English speakers will agree on how to pronounce it.
The basic rule is "if it looks similar to a known word, then it probably
has a similar pronunciation".

It was a mistake to coin a word ending in -pic. We don't have many such
words, but for all the ones I can think of there is a simple
pronunciation rule: the stress falls on the penultimate syllable.

Some years ago there was an attempt in AUE to introduce a new word:
ellefescent. (Named for a regular known as LFS.) That coining was done
by people with a feel for the language. The pronunciation was obvious,
and the spelling didn't misle anyone.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Phil

Post by Peter Moylan

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale.
My uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I
still tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as
if it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.

Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to
misle people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A
poster here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which
I'm prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.

I won't comment on the Dutch examples, because I'm not sure what rhymes
with what. But in English, at least, anyone who invents a new word needs
to have a good feel for the spelling rules, which among other things
indicate how to pronounce the word.
Some people will claim that English has no consistent spelling rules,
but it does. (With, admittedly, some exceptions.) When faced with an
unknown word, most English speakers will agree on how to pronounce it.
The basic rule is "if it looks similar to a known word, then it probably
has a similar pronunciation".

Hm. You should hear my students on "calorimeter". Maybe they
think it's more similar to "millimeter" than to "perimeter". I admit
that a colleague of mine, not a native speaker of English, gets
some of the blame.

Post by Peter Moylan
It was a mistake to coin a word ending in -pic. We don't have many such
words, but for all the ones I can think of there is a simple
pronunciation rule: the stress falls on the penultimate syllable.

..

Actually, I suspect few people are even tempted to mispronounce
"biopic", and probably all of them are unusually intelligent. For
others, the pattern you refer to has no chance to defeat the
etymology.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Steve Hayes]

Post by jerryfriedman
Hm. You should hear my students on "calorimeter". Maybe they
think it's more similar to "millimeter" than to "perimeter". I admit
that a colleague of mine, not a native speaker of English, gets
some of the blame.

And then there are the air crash investigation movies where they talk
about "al-timmitters" rhyming with "transmitters" rather than
"alti-meters" rhyming with "centimetres".

[Peter Moylan]

Hm. You should hear my students on "calorimeter". Maybe they think
it's more similar to "millimeter" than to "perimeter". I admit that
a colleague of mine, not a native speaker of English, gets some of
the blame.

We can draw a distinction between "meter" meaning "a device for
measuring something", and "metre" (with either spelling) meaning "a unit
of length". You can distinguish between the two classes by seeing where
the stress goes.

In the first group we have barOmeter, thermOmeter, calorImeter,
accelerOmeter, and so on, all with stress on the third-last syllable.

In the second we have nAnometre, mIllimetre, cEntimeter, and so on, all
with first-syllable stress.

The example that breaks the pattern is that many (not all) people say
kilOmeter, which should be a device for measuring kils.

[Hibou]

Post by Peter Moylan

Hm.  You should hear my students on "calorimeter".  Maybe they think
it's more similar to "millimeter" than to "perimeter".  I admit that
a colleague of mine, not a native speaker of English, gets some of
the blame.

We can draw a distinction between "meter" meaning "a device for
measuring something", and "metre" (with either spelling) meaning "a unit
of length". You can distinguish between the two classes by seeing where
the stress goes.
In the first group we have barOmeter, thermOmeter, calorImeter,
accelerOmeter, and so on, all with stress on the third-last syllable.

Gosh, that's right. OxImeter, barOmeter, pedOmeter, taxImeter....

Post by Peter Moylan
In the second we have nAnometre, mIllimetre, cEntimeter, and so on, all
with first-syllable stress.
The example that breaks the pattern is that many (not all) people say
kilOmeter, which should be a device for measuring kils.

Cf. milOmeter. I suppose the equivalent would be a kilometremeter.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Phil

Post by Peter Moylan

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:08:29 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan
There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale.
My uncles used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

So did I when I first saw it.
I've discovered that "biopic" is pronounced "BI-o-pic", but I
still tend to pronounce it as "bi-Opic".

So do I. So, I imagine, do many people, because the word looks as
if it's supposed tp rhyme with myopic.

Yes, I'm one of those many. I also firmly believe it's possible to
misle people, having encountered 'misled' in print at a tender age. A
poster here a while back also brought us 'skipants'.
I have the same confusion, in my head, with Dutch 'tegelijk', which
I'm prone to think rhymes with 'degelijk'.

I won't comment on the Dutch examples, because I'm not sure what rhymes
with what. But in English, at least, anyone who invents a new word needs
to have a good feel for the spelling rules, which among other things
indicate how to pronounce the word.
Some people will claim that English has no consistent spelling rules,
but it does. (With, admittedly, some exceptions.) When faced with an
unknown word, most English speakers will agree on how to pronounce it.
The basic rule is "if it looks similar to a known word, then it probably
has a similar pronunciation".
It was a mistake to coin a word ending in -pic. We don't have many such
words, but for all the ones I can think of there is a simple
pronunciation rule: the stress falls on the penultimate syllable.

I suppose whoever coined "biopic" was thinking of "biopsy" rather than
"myopic". But I've also seen, in writing, people using "optics" in
peculiar ways that suggest that they are not talking about lens
construction.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who
read two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.

I don't get it. What was it?

There used to be a low-calorie Australian beer called Dietale. My uncles
used to pronounce it as if it were an Italian word.

Yes, that was my first thought too. OK, diet-ale, of course.

[bertietaylor]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
The character of opportunism is thus inbuilt in the language.
One can be straight sometimes and crooked at other times.
It is this schizophrenia which is inculcated in the very young as
standard practice. Which makes the first language English speaker
unique. Gods and Devils co-exist in their heads.

I don't really understand much of what you write here. But I do know
that Fernando Pessoa in his "A hora do Diabo" posited that God is
reality and the Devil is dream. God is Creation, the Devil is
Creativity.

The Devil is God's #2 as per Jews.
In Arindam's Vedic polytheistic world Gods or Devas relate to principles
and Devils or Asuras relate to passion.
Arindam's book "The Son of Hiranyaksh " deals with devas and asuras.
In the English language context - rules relating to order godly style
and lack of rules ungodly style - it makes possible for noble and
ignoble activity to flourish without conflict. So the Devil Bush could
go around invading people pretending to do good thus continuing the
colonial styles well-known.

Post by Ruud Harmsen
https://rudhar.com/writings/Pessoa/HoraDiab/hrddb-ia.htm

Post by bertietaylor
Not if you are taught properly as a child.
A teacher had for her pupil a refugee from the middle east who read
two-oth-pass-tay and she puzzled what was that.

I don't get it. What was it?

[bertietaylor]

Post by bertietaylor
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said that the
biggest drawback to teaching English was the absence of more letters in
the alphabet. It should be expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product
English speakers would talk better and be better understood. In short,
make English more phonetic.
Daniels deeply resented that. He said that things were fine as they are.

Arindan's experience was nothing in this field as compared to his wife,
a teacher of the English language. Who also taught their children
English. The elder child learnt Hindi first, in India. With its far
larger alphabet and phonetic scheme that makes learning the language
easy and standardised even with incompetent teachers and near zero
teaching aids. English was learnt later as much phonetically as
possible. Then there had to be the effort of knowing what word is
pronounced how and that was some effort. She has been a primary school
teacher in Australia for decades and her experience of teaching English
to little ones in two continents is unrivalled. Shaw noted that those
who learn English as a foreign language often speak better than the
natives. Not just some educated Indians; the Afghan migrants to
Australua also speak English beautifully. Their languages too have a
phonetic basis.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Post by bertietaylor
Arindan's experience was nothing in this field as compared to his wife,
a teacher of the English language. Who also taught their children
English. The elder child learnt Hindi first, in India. With its far
larger alphabet and phonetic scheme that makes learning the language
easy and standardised even with incompetent teachers and near zero
teaching aids.

But it has very complicated ligatures, I think I read? And sometimes a
next character visually appears to the right, not the left, of the
previous character. That is the case in the Javanese script I have
been looking into for some time, anyway, which is a remote member of
the same Brahmian family of scripts.

Post by bertietaylor
English was learnt later as much phonetically as
possible. Then there had to be the effort of knowing what word is
pronounced how and that was some effort. She has been a primary school
teacher in Australia for decades and her experience of teaching English
to little ones in two continents is unrivalled. Shaw noted that those
who learn English as a foreign language often speak better than the
natives. Not just some educated Indians; the Afghan migrants to
Australua also speak English beautifully. Their languages too have a
phonetic basis.

[bertietaylor]

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
Arindan's experience was nothing in this field as compared to his wife,
a teacher of the English language. Who also taught their children
English. The elder child learnt Hindi first, in India. With its far
larger alphabet and phonetic scheme that makes learning the language
easy and standardised even with incompetent teachers and near zero
teaching aids.

But it has very complicated ligatures, I think I read? And sometimes a
next character visually appears to the right, not the left, of the
previous character.

Only time they are apparently read from the left is with consonant-vowel
integration which transforms the sound for a particular syllable. Not
difficult. With such phonetics Arindam taught his Aussie granddaughter
to write her name in Bengali after just one lesson. In practice no one
speaks exactly as is written, but will make sense if so done.



That is the case in the Javanese script I have

Post by Ruud Harmsen
been looking into for some time, anyway, which is a remote member of
the same Brahmian family of scripts.

I suppose so. To return to your question, take the consonant c
equivalent in Bengali. To make it ca as in Caste a line (matra
representing the vowel or swar)is drawn after c. The kid knows that any
such line after the consonant (vyanjan) transforms the sound
accordingly. Like ma is m equivalent vyanjan followed by the line or
matra representing the swar. Now there are quite a few vowels and while
they can be represented as they are as in English they are also
represented by matras when used with consonants.

Now sometimes these matras precede the consonants so this might give you
the impression you have.

Post by Ruud Harmsen

Post by bertietaylor
English was learnt later as much phonetically as
possible. Then there had to be the effort of knowing what word is
pronounced how and that was some effort. She has been a primary school
teacher in Australia for decades and her experience of teaching English
to little ones in two continents is unrivalled. Shaw noted that those
who learn English as a foreign language often speak better than the
natives. Not just some educated Indians; the Afghan migrants to
Australua also speak English beautifully. Their languages too have a
phonetic basis.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by bertietaylor
Many moons ago he had a tussle with Arindam. Arindam said
that the biggest drawback to teaching English was the
absence of more letters in the alphabet. It should be
expanded as Shaw suggested. As a by product English
speakers would talk better and be better understood. In
short, make English more phonetic.

I think Shavian alphabet is a great idea for a simple
and efficient hand-writing system, where each letter is
written in a single stroke:

Loading Image...

Its main purpose is to optimise handwriting without
complicating it to the level of stenography. It has no use
other than as an efficient yet simple longhand.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 01:06:10 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev
I think Shavian alphabet is a great idea for a simple
and efficient hand-writing system, where each letter is
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Junior_and_Senior_Quikscript_example_01.png
Its main purpose is to optimise handwriting without
complicating it to the level of stenography. It has no use
other than as an efficient yet simple longhand.

I used it for keeping my diary/journal, when I still kept it in hard
copy. I started doing that partly to learn the alphabet, and partly
because it was simpler and saved space.

The disadvantage is, that, because it is phonetic, people with
different accents spell words differently.

Example:

In the north of England

sugar and
butter have the same first vowel

whereas in the south of England the first vowels are different, and so
in the Shavian alphabed they would be spelt differently.

Yes, I know Shaw specified that the accent of His Late Majesty King
George V should be the norm, but how many people have access to
recordings of his speech, and would all schools using English as a
medium of instruction force all pupils to speak like that?

[Janet]

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, I know Shaw specified that the accent of His Late Majesty King
George V should be the norm, but how many people have access to
recordings of his speech,

Shaw merely cited the king as an example, to illustrate
the accent, diction and pronunciation common to the
English ruling, upper and educated classes of the day.
Which everyone in Britain (and its colonies) would know
very well, without ever needing to have heard the king.

Phonetics, accent and social class in Britain was the
basis of Shaw's play Pygmalion (and many more recent TV
sitcoms).

Post by Steve Hayes
and would all schools using English as a
medium of instruction force all pupils to speak like that?

In Britain, well within my lifetime, class accent
mattered so much that in the 1950's many schools actively
discouraged regional accents and promoted RP. In my
childhood in north England, school teachers constantly
corrected local accents. Out of school, many parents of my
generation were paying for their child's private
"elocution " lessons.

Janet

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Janet

[...] and would all schools using English as a medium of instruction force
all pupils to speak like that?

In Britain, well within my lifetime, class accent
mattered so much that in the 1950's many schools actively
discouraged regional accents and promoted RP. In my
childhood in north England, school teachers constantly
corrected local accents. Out of school, many parents of my
generation were paying for their child's private
"elocution " lessons.

Jeremy Clarkson has much more of a nothern accent in his TV work today than he
did in the 1980s, he clearly felt it was something to be suppressed then and
not now.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Jeremy Clarkson has much more of a nothern accent in his TV work today than he
did in the 1980s, he clearly felt it was something to be suppressed then and
not now.

We were watching "Who wants to be a Millionnaire" last night, and I
couldn't place his accent at all.

I was a student at Durham in the 1960s, and so became familiar with
northern accents (some of my fellow students were from Lanashire and
Yorkshire, so I heard those as well). Jeremy Clarkson doesn't sound
particularly northern to me.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Janet

Post by Steve Hayes
and would all schools using English as a
medium of instruction force all pupils to speak like that?

In Britain, well within my lifetime, class accent
mattered so much that in the 1950's many schools actively
discouraged regional accents and promoted RP. In my
childhood in north England, school teachers constantly
corrected local accents. Out of school, many parents of my
generation were paying for their child's private
"elocution " lessons.

And it was probably like that in Shaw's day, too.

But the Shavian alphabet would certainly make it easier to render
different accents in writing.

[bertietaylor]

Post by HenHanna
so it seems PTD wasn't a big fish (Trump) elsewhere.

The BIG FISH comment reminds me of a Master's thesis, I forget where,
that analysed roles of people in newsgroups. It caused great

amusement

here (AUE) because it so badly miscategorised the roles of the
regulars. In
particular, it concluded that PTD was the most-respected of the AUE
regulars, because of the many responses to him. It's true that he did
start the most arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._Daniels
i thought that this page (for a long time) said that
PTD was among the most respected of the regulars of AUE, where
he is seen as the unofficial moderator.
-------- but i can't find that now.
_____________________________________

........ He was a bit of a
misfit in AUE because he got into so many disputes, usually because

of

an inability to admit when he was wrong.

And his astonishing ability to be wrong or misleading so often on

so many topics. Eventually a lot of people, including me, stopped
correcting him. <<<
---------- What was he famously WRONG about ?

So much lament about the great PTD and nary a word for skippy.