| Re: LUsers [message #381803 is a reply to message #381790] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 04:48   |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:11:16 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> For Chinese to become more widespread they'd first need an alphabet.
> Why do they "need an alphabet"? Their writing system seems to work
> just fine, better than their spoken languages in fact. It's hard for
> a Western adult to learn but Chinese schoolchildren seem to manage it.
Since he said "for Chinese to become more widespread", what is hard for Western
adults to learn _is relevant_.
In fact, though, it is well known that the complexity of the Chinese script is
holding China back. For certain values of "holding China back" that have never
really been relevant to whoever happened to be governing China throughout
history, of course.
Chinese writing isn't quite as hard to learn as many Westerners believe. It
isn't necessary for Chinese schoolchildren to memorize some 3,000 arbitrary
characters in order to be able to read competently.
Basically, there are about 500 or so basic elementary characters in the Chinese
writing system, and a few hundred more ideograms - mother + child = good, sun +
moon = bright, three boxes = cargo.
Once someone who already knows how to speak Chinese has learned those, _reading_
Chinese becomes possible, because the rest of the thousands of Chinese
characters are built from them in a simple way: one basic character giving the
general meaning of the word being written (the radical) and another for another
syllable with the same pronounciation (the phonetic).
However, learning to _write_ Chinese is considerably harder, even for Chinese
people. That's because when you build a character from a radical and a
phonetic... there are multiple choices for the phonetic. Fully literate Chinese
do manage to memorize thousands of characters for this purpose by osmosis
through being well-read... sort of like how English speakers learn to spell
properly.
Basically, therefore, what China loses through having characters instead of
Pinyin as its primary writing system is that peasant farmers, who don't have the
time to spend a lot of time in school or read a lot of books, can't write stuff
in Chinese characters that is "spelled" properly. What they write exposes them
as country bumpkins.
Japan manages because unlike China it's a wealthy country. But Japanese children
use up a lot of school time learning Kanji.
So if China ever set itself a goal of being a Jeffersonian democracy with
widespread participation of its people, Chinese characters _would_ be holding it
back. At the moment, its current government is a bigger obstacle to that goal.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381804 is a reply to message #381786] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 04:50 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 4:11:17 PM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote:
> The Tower of Babel is a curse on mankind. The sooner we put
> this behind us, the better.
Of course, this suggests a premise for a science-fiction story. Half the world
yields to the forces of economics and adopts English as its language. The other
half agrees a world language is needed, but is so besotted by anti-Americanism
that it goes with Esperanto.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381806 is a reply to message #381773] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 05:07 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> If the Chinese don't screw up theirs is going to be the
> dominant economy in the 21st century and some variant of Chinese may
> become the dominant language, so don't be so proud of English.
The People's Republic of China is not a democracy with free elections and a free
press. Thus, China has already "screwed up", terminally. Until that changes, it
will never be anything but an enemy to the rest of the world.
Mind you, with the election of Donald Trump as President, the United States has
come perilously close to screwing up. The people of the United States, and the
rest of the world, are just very lucky that Donald Trump isn't quite as bad as
some of his foes make him out to be.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381809 is a reply to message #381791] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 08:33 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On 10 Mar 2019 19:00:18 -0300, Mike Spencer
> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> When I went to school in NYC we had to pass the State Regents Test.
>>> Same thing as this common core.
>>
>> When I went to school in Massachusetts, we'd occasionally meet kids
>> from NY and talk about our respective schools. The NY kids were
>> envious and we felt sorry for them because our teachers taught the
>> subject matter -- some well, some less so -- but theirs rigidly taught
>> what was required to pass the Regents test. The NYers were acutely
>> aware of the defects this rigidity conferred.
>>
>> I barely passed 1st year Latin, dropped out of 2nd year with a failing
>> grade yet in 60-year retrospect, I benefitted greatly from that
>> exposure. Somewhat similar experience, a few years later, with
>> statistical thermodynamics. And the 2nd language I *did* do well with
>> proved to be an even greater benefit than either.
>
> Was the content of the Regents' Test so different from the actual
> subject matter that teaching the subject properly would result in
> failing the test?
Nope.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381812 is a reply to message #381726] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 10:26 |
Freddy1X
Messages: 61
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> tracymnelson@gmail.com writes:
>> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 1:41:34 AM UTC-5, Questor wrote:
( cuts )
>>
>> When I was growing up, I used to stop in at Collins Surplus (as in Collins
>> Radio and Avionics). They had pallets full of old HP scopes, and more
>> pallets full of replacement CRTs for said scopes. Especially interesting
>> was the table full of bins containing abandoned prototypes. Their prices
>> weren't cheap, but their selection was amazing (especially considering
>> this was in SE Iowa).
>
> I occasionally stopped into the ISU surplus warehouse and found a few
> goodies (and old westinghouse recording wattmeter, and a gun-shaped
> measurement device identical to a prop used on Star Trek TOS and a few
> other tidbits).
--
American Science and Surplus is still operating 3 stores in the Chicago and
Milwaukee areas. There is also the on-line www.sciplus.com for those who
can't be nearby. A bit of everything, including electronics, my main
interest. I stopped by on my last trip nearby last November.
In Fort Wayne we had Pembletons. They seemed to be there to serve the TV
repair tech market. At some point they must have started taking in the
surplus from local tech manufacturers. Some amazing stuff to be found
there, new unused, retired, one-offs, books and manuals. Sadly they closed
a couple of decades ago. I have no idea about what happened to the
equipment.
There is still Mendlesons in Dayton Ohio. They seem to favor the surplus
and recycled market. Electronics, industrial( BIG motors ), hardware and
fasteners of incredible variety, hardware store products, old vending and
food equipment, display cases and racks from department stores, even
stationary. They have a couple of multi story buildings in the downtown
area. I recommend the ride on their freight elevator also.
Freddy,
AARGH! Too much stuff I can't take home!
No substitutions permitted.
/|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\|
/| I may be demented \|
/| but I'm not crazy! \|
/|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\|
* SPAyM trap: there is no X in my address *
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381813 is a reply to message #381778] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 11:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: tracymnelson
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 1:19:20 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> That may be, but English is widely chosen as a second language by people around
> the world, and that, rather than its total number of speakers, is more relevant to
> how much it connects all humanity.
English is the x86 architecture of languages -- inferior, but widely used and
will probably wind up being a de-facto standard.
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381815 is a reply to message #381571] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 11:42 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
> On 2019-03-11, tracymnelson@gmail.com <tracymnelson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 1:19:20 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> That may be, but English is widely chosen as a second language by people around
>>> the world, and that, rather than its total number of speakers, is more relevant to
>>> how much it connects all humanity.
>>
>> English is the x86 architecture of languages -- inferior, but widely used and
>> will probably wind up being a de-facto standard.
>
> So much wrongness in such a short sentence.
All 4 facts seem right on.
x86 architecture is bizzaro world.
English has more exceptions to spelling, pronunciation, that it's
difficult to remember it all.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381816 is a reply to message #381803] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 11:41 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-03-11, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Basically, therefore, what China loses through having characters instead
> of Pinyin as its primary writing system is that peasant farmers, who don't
> have the time to spend a lot of time in school or read a lot of books,
> can't write stuff in Chinese characters that is "spelled" properly.
> What they write exposes them as country bumpkins.
]<00L, d00d. :-)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381817 is a reply to message #381786] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 11:44 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 4:11:17 PM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote:
> For Chinese to become more widespread they'd first need an alphabet.
I tend to agree with that.
But for English to be accepted as the world language, spelling reform would help.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381820 is a reply to message #381789] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 11:56 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> When I went to school in NYC we had to pass the State Regents Test.
>>> Same thing as this common core.
>>
>> When I went to school in Massachusetts, we'd occasionally meet kids
>> from NY and talk about our respective schools. The NY kids were
>> envious and we felt sorry for them because our teachers taught the
>> subject matter -- some well, some less so -- but theirs rigidly taught
>> what was required to pass the Regents test. The NYers were acutely
>> aware of the defects this rigidity conferred.
>
> That wasn't my experience.
> We got about 4 months of prep work for the Regents.
> Not an all day thing either.
>
> I spent one year at the Bronx High School of Science
> before we moved out of NYC. No defects encountered.
> NYC has a bunch of special schools,
> if you had the talent, there was a place for you.
Probably not now, though. They’re so intent on “inclusion” that talented
kids may be passed over in favor of someone from a group they like better.
Also, I think now the teachers spend more time teaching to the test. It’s
not just regents, but every year or two there are state-mandated tests in
NY.
>
> If I had to go to one of the regular high schools in NYC
> in the 60s, I would have been in fear for my life.
> I can understand why someone would be glad to avoid that.
> The regents wasn't the cause of those problems.
>
>> I barely passed 1st year Latin, dropped out of 2nd year with a failing
>> grade yet in 60-year retrospect, I benefitted greatly from that
>> exposure.
>
> Probably the same benefit as studying word roots would provide.
> After all, English is not 100% derived from Latin.
>
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381821 is a reply to message #381810] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 11:57 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 6:53:25 AM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote:
> Seems like the current "solution" is to type in Pinyin
> (an actual alphabet), and use software to translate to
> Chinese symbols.
> That's a non-solution.
> If you can read and write Pinyin what do you need the symbols for?
Pinyin is indeed the most popular input method for Chinese *among Mandarin
speakers*.
There are other input methods, though.
One other input method is also phonetic; in addition to Pinyin, Mandarin Chinese
can be expressed phonetically by an alphabet the letters of which are derived
from Chinese characters; this is called the "National Alphabet", or bopomofo.
But there are also input methods that work from the characters instead. CangJie
is one of the most popular, but there are several others. And the basic
principle of input method editors - type a few keystrokes to specify a
character, then pick the actual character you want from a short list - was
actually first implemented on a mechanical typewriter without the help of a
computer, the MingKwai of Lin Yutang.
Not all Chinese people even speak Mandarin, but of course the other dialects
like Cantonese can also be expressed using an alphabet, and alphabetic Cantonese
also exists as an input method, at least for the Chinese version of xterm in
Linux.
The reason why people in China need characters when they can read and write in
Pinyin? Well, because the schools insist on them for handing in papers, and
printed books use the characters.
In ancient China, the characters acted as a barrier to the common people
counterfeiting Imperial proclamations. As I noted, choosing the right phonetic
to go with the radical to make a character is a lot like spelling in English. So
the examinations for the Imperial Civil Service set great store on correct
Chinese character writing.
This is why it is so ingrained in East Asian culture to study hard in school.
The People's Republic of China is not particularly interested in making its
peasantry fully literate, able to write as well as read, which is why they made
Chinese writing even _more_ complicated with their 'simplified' characters
(fewer brush strokes to write, but even harder to remember) instead of going to
Pinyin. They're not seeking to make China into a Jeffersonian democracy. That
will have to be achieved through regime change.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381822 is a reply to message #381813] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 12:04 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-6, tracym...@gmail.com wrote:
> English is the x86 architecture of languages -- inferior, but widely used and
> will probably wind up being a de-facto standard.
The English language isn't inferior. The English writing system, with its
inconsistent spelling, is inferior. A language is something people speak, as any
linguist will tell you.
Aside from that correction, though, what you have written is basically true:
English, inconsistent spelling and all, is likely to become the world's _de
facto_ standard language because of its economic and technological dominance.
But I think an English-speaking world is far from certain. Instead, Google
translate might end up being perfected... and then everybody will be able to
talk to one another even though everybody sticks with their own language.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381823 is a reply to message #381788] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 12:06 |
Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1131431430.573949863.149276.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
ber.org:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 09:42:22 -0400
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Humanity would be way better off with a common language to unite us.
>>> Since USAians already speak that common language, learning another
>>
>> USAians speak Mandarin Chinese, who knew.
>>
>>> language makes little sense to me.
>>
>> OK TBF which of English and Mandarin comes out on top depends on
>> who you ask, they're pretty much equal in terms of total number of
>> speakers.
>>
>
> How many scientific papers are published in Mandarin, vs. English? Of
> course, this is not determinative since before around 1700 most
> scientific work was written in Latin, which was then the universal
> language of educated people.
.... in the West. There was a rather large populaton in east Asia, largely
unknown to/ignored by the West. The academic languange in those parts was
Chinese.
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381824 is a reply to message #381810] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 12:32 |
Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote in news:q65lo4$j4s$1@dont-email.me:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Why do they "need an alphabet"? Their writing system seems to work
>> just fine, better than their spoken languages in fact.
>
> An early Chinese keyboard:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_input_methods_for_comp uters#/media
> /File:Large_chinese_keyboard.jpg
>
> I remember seeing an IBM keyboard for Kanji. Similar dimensions.
> Typing the characters directly is a bad joke.
>
> Seems like the current "solution" is to type in Pinyin
> (an actual alphabet), and use software to translate to
> Chinese symbols.
> That's a non-solution.
> If you can read and write Pinyin what do you need the symbols for?
Ha! Mandarin Chinese is _loaded_ with homophones (words that sound the
same). Even taking into account proper tone indicators (of which there are
5 in Mandarin), the the same Pinyin spelling can account for half a dozen or
more words with very different meanings, but having different characters.
The characters are more precise.
> As I said, they need an alphabet.
I have heard that Mao thought so too, hence Pinyin. However he was
convinced otherwise for the reason given above and also because of the
diversity of dialects* which still share the same written characters.
For this reason, Chinese television is all sub-titled with characters.
Subtitling in Pinyin would be useless.
* The definition of "dialect" is open for debate. However, it is said that
calling Cantonese a dielect of Mandarin is like saying Portugese is a
dialect of Italian.
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381825 is a reply to message #381770] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 12:49 |
Roger Blake
Messages: 167
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-03-10, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Humanity would be way better off with a common language to unite us.
> Since USAians already speak that common language, learning another
> language makes little sense to me.
English is the only true human language. Everyone thinks in English
and translates those English thoughts into whatever spurious babble
they've been taught is their "language." This is why if you yell at
foreigners in English long enough they *will* ultimately understand
you - it's just a matter of penetrating that filter.
--
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)
NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381826 is a reply to message #381820] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 13:45 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:
>> I spent one year at the Bronx High School of Science
>> before we moved out of NYC. No defects encountered.
>> NYC has a bunch of special schools,
>> if you had the talent, there was a place for you.
>
> Probably not now, though. They’re so intent on “inclusion” that talented
> kids may be passed over in favor of someone from a group they like better.
> Also, I think now the teachers spend more time teaching to the test. It’s
> not just regents, but every year or two there are state-mandated tests in
> NY.
>
Is this your opinion? Or have you actually investigated this by talking with
active teachers or pupils?
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381828 is a reply to message #381785] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 15:11 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 6:00:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
> I barely passed 1st year Latin, dropped out of 2nd year with a failing
> grade yet in 60-year retrospect, I benefitted greatly from that
> exposure. Somewhat similar experience, a few years later, with
> statistical thermodynamics. And the 2nd language I *did* do well with
> proved to be an even greater benefit than either.
I often thought as assembler language as being the "Latin"
of computer languages, and often wondered if all compsci
should have to take it.
Actually, in college we took an artificial assembler,
a rather simple language developed by the instructor
with relatively few instructions (e.g. read, write, add,
load, save, etc.) Nothing fancy.
In the old days, of course, all programmers had to learn
assembler because the machines of that era either didn't
run a higher language or ran it very slowly. Indeed,
early S/360 sites often used assembler, not COBOL.
Later, a knowledge of assembler (or more accurately,
the principles of operation for S/360), was important
for efficiency and to aid in debugging. Knowing what
a ZAP was and how to read the operands was necessary,
at least until ABEND-AID packages became common.
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381829 is a reply to message #381778] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 15:15 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 1:19:20 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:00:06 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> which of English and Mandarin comes out on top depends on
>> who you ask, they're pretty much equal in terms of total number of speakers.
>
> That may be, but English is widely chosen as a second language by people around
> the world, and that, rather than its total number of speakers, is more relevant to
> how much it connects all humanity.
I have no crystal ball, but _IF_ present trends continue, the
U.S. will lose its world leadership and another country will fill
the void. Americans would be well to study the experience of
Great Britain. A hundred years ago they ran the world and had
the resources to do so, but WW I hurt them badly and WW II finished
them. (Compare the value of the British Pound then and now.)
Sadly, IMHO, the US is decaying from internal causes. IMHO,
some causes are:
.. Fractional extremist politics
.. Excessive litigation
.. Massive drug abuse
.. Excessive corporate greed.
.. Abandonment of rust belt workforce and communities.
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381831 is a reply to message #381824] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 15:43 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 10:33:00 AM UTC-6, Alfred Falk wrote:
> Ha! Mandarin Chinese is _loaded_ with homophones (words that sound the
> same). Even taking into account proper tone indicators (of which there are
> 5 in Mandarin), the the same Pinyin spelling can account for half a dozen or
> more words with very different meanings, but having different characters.
> The characters are more precise.
It's a little more complicated than that.
While today Mandarin Chinese tends to be written in the _baihua_ form, which is
basically a transcription of speech, traditionally Chinese was written in
Classical style, or _wen yan_. What you have written basically applies to the
wen yan form of written Chinese...
Grossly oversimplifying, wen yan is sort of the Chinese answer to Speedwriting.
Many Chinese words are two syllables long. Because there are different ways to
write a syllable with the same sound in Chinese, and these usually include an
indication of meaning... when the meaning of the whole word is combined with the
sound of the first syllable in a single character, there's no need to write the
character *for the second syllable of the word*.
So Chinese doesn't really have loads of homophones - but it does have loads of
words that start with the same first syllable. If one mistakes wen yan for the
spoken Chinese language, then one would think these were all homophones.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381832 is a reply to message #381571] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 16:18 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> writes:
> On 11 Mar 2019 15:22:51 GMT, Huge wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-03-11, tracymnelson@gmail.com <tracymnelson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 1:19:20 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> That may be, but English is widely chosen as a second language by people around
>>>> the world, and that, rather than its total number of speakers, is more relevant to
>>>> how much it connects all humanity.
>>>
>>> English is the x86 architecture of languages -- inferior, but widely used and
>>> will probably wind up being a de-facto standard.
>>
>> So much wrongness in such a short sentence.
>
> Care to elaborate?
I believe Huge is a resident of the United Kingdom, to whom their dialect
of the english language is considered superior, not inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381836 is a reply to message #381571] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 17:24 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:16:05 +0000, Huge wrote:
> On 2019-03-11, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2019 15:22:51 GMT, Huge wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2019-03-11, tracymnelson@gmail.com <tracymnelson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 1:19:20 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> > That may be, but English is widely chosen as a second language by
>>>> > people around the world, and that, rather than its total number of
>>>> > speakers, is more relevant to how much it connects all humanity.
>>>>
>>>> English is the x86 architecture of languages -- inferior, but widely
>>>> used and will probably wind up being a de-facto standard.
>>>
>>> So much wrongness in such a short sentence.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
> "wind up being a de-facto standard"? It *is* a de-facto standard.
Just a pity that USAians don't adhere to it.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381841 is a reply to message #381834] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 18:25 |
Bill Findlay
Messages: 286
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11 Mar 2019, Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer wrote
(in article <q66jcu$lg0$1@dont-email.me>):
> On 11/03/2019 19:11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> In the old days, of course, all programmers had to learn
>> assembler because the machines of that era either didn't
>> run a higher language or ran it very slowly.
>
> On the ICL 1900 series, most work was done in PLAN, the
> assembly language.
What evidence do you have for this assertion?
--
Bill Findlay
(PLAN programmer since 1966)
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381842 is a reply to message #381803] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:17 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 01:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:11:16 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> For Chinese to become more widespread they'd first need an alphabet.
>
>> Why do they "need an alphabet"? Their writing system seems to work
>> just fine, better than their spoken languages in fact. It's hard for
>> a Western adult to learn but Chinese schoolchildren seem to manage it.
>
> Since he said "for Chinese to become more widespread", what is hard for Western
> adults to learn _is relevant_.
>
> In fact, though, it is well known that the complexity of the Chinese script is
> holding China back. For certain values of "holding China back" that have never
> really been relevant to whoever happened to be governing China throughout
> history, of course.
>
> Chinese writing isn't quite as hard to learn as many Westerners believe. It
> isn't necessary for Chinese schoolchildren to memorize some 3,000 arbitrary
> characters in order to be able to read competently.
>
> Basically, there are about 500 or so basic elementary characters in the Chinese
> writing system, and a few hundred more ideograms - mother + child = good, sun +
> moon = bright, three boxes = cargo.
>
> Once someone who already knows how to speak Chinese has learned those, _reading_
> Chinese becomes possible, because the rest of the thousands of Chinese
> characters are built from them in a simple way: one basic character giving the
> general meaning of the word being written (the radical) and another for another
> syllable with the same pronounciation (the phonetic).
>
> However, learning to _write_ Chinese is considerably harder, even for Chinese
> people. That's because when you build a character from a radical and a
> phonetic... there are multiple choices for the phonetic. Fully literate Chinese
> do manage to memorize thousands of characters for this purpose by osmosis
> through being well-read... sort of like how English speakers learn to spell
> properly.
>
> Basically, therefore, what China loses through having characters instead of
> Pinyin as its primary writing system is that peasant farmers, who don't have the
> time to spend a lot of time in school or read a lot of books, can't write stuff
> in Chinese characters that is "spelled" properly. What they write exposes them
> as country bumpkins.
>
> Japan manages because unlike China it's a wealthy country. But Japanese children
> use up a lot of school time learning Kanji.
Uh, don't looke now, Quadi, but China's economy is about twice the
size of Japan's.
> So if China ever set itself a goal of being a Jeffersonian democracy with
> widespread participation of its people, Chinese characters _would_ be holding it
> back. At the moment, its current government is a bigger obstacle to that goal.
And if it doesn't _care_ about being Jeffersonian democracy, then
what?
Hint--several of my co-workers were educated by Communists. They all
speak, read, and write multiple languages fluently.
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381843 is a reply to message #381571] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:23 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:44:47 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
<ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 18:11:16 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> If the Chinese don't screw up theirs is going to be the
>>> dominant economy in the 21st century and some variant of Chinese may
>>> become the dominant language, so don't be so proud of English.
>>
>> For Chinese to become more widespread they'd first need an alphabet.
>> I understand they do use an alphabet in some cases.
>> I wish the Chinese all the success they deserve but my crystal ball
>> says the future is English.
>>
>> I suspect that if you count all the people that can get by with English,
>> they vastly outnumber the Chinese. Last I checked, there are more
>> people in India than China. Google says 125 million English speakers in
>> India.
>
> But that's their second language. Do many schools still teach English
> after the independence from Britain? It wood be stupid not to, as English
> is still the language for business and economy. That is one advantage
> India has over China. Another is the average age of their
> population. India has far more young people than China.
Given the number of people in India who make their living running
computer systems in the US, it seems likely that they see this as
being of significant economic benefit to the country.
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381844 is a reply to message #381806] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:07:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> If the Chinese don't screw up theirs is going to be the
>> dominant economy in the 21st century and some variant of Chinese may
>> become the dominant language, so don't be so proud of English.
>
> The People's Republic of China is not a democracy with free elections and a free
> press. Thus, China has already "screwed up", terminally. Until that changes, it
> will never be anything but an enemy to the rest of the world.
If they have "screwed up" howcome they have gone from economically
insignificant to the second largest economy on the planet in less than
30 years?
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381845 is a reply to message #381841] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:29 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:25:59 +0000, Bill Findlay wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2019, Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer wrote (in
> article <q66jcu$lg0$1@dont-email.me>):
>
>> On 11/03/2019 19:11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> In the old days, of course, all programmers had to learn assembler
>>> because the machines of that era either didn't run a higher language
>>> or ran it very slowly.
>>
>> On the ICL 1900 series, most work was done in PLAN, the assembly
>> language.
>
> What evidence do you have for this assertion?
None. But Gareth likes to make out that assembly language is the One True
Way, and also peddles the myth that he was very good at it.
My experience (of a number of 1900 systems) is that lots of languages
were used. Some were common (e.g. FORTRAN) and some were niche (e.g.
ALGOL-68).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381846 is a reply to message #381828] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:29 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:11:50 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 6:00:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> I barely passed 1st year Latin, dropped out of 2nd year with a failing
>> grade yet in 60-year retrospect, I benefitted greatly from that
>> exposure. Somewhat similar experience, a few years later, with
>> statistical thermodynamics. And the 2nd language I *did* do well with
>> proved to be an even greater benefit than either.
>
> I often thought as assembler language as being the "Latin"
> of computer languages, and often wondered if all compsci
> should have to take it.
>
> Actually, in college we took an artificial assembler,
> a rather simple language developed by the instructor
> with relatively few instructions (e.g. read, write, add,
> load, save, etc.) Nothing fancy.
>
> In the old days, of course, all programmers had to learn
> assembler because the machines of that era either didn't
> run a higher language or ran it very slowly. Indeed,
> early S/360 sites often used assembler, not COBOL.
> Later, a knowledge of assembler (or more accurately,
> the principles of operation for S/360), was important
> for efficiency and to aid in debugging. Knowing what
> a ZAP was and how to read the operands was necessary,
> at least until ABEND-AID packages became common.
Personally I agree that every "computer scientist" should have some
exposure to assembler. They tend to forget that underneath their
hifalutin' theories there's still a cpu banging bits.
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381847 is a reply to message #381822] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:44 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-6, tracym...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> English is the x86 architecture of languages -- inferior, but widely used and
>> will probably wind up being a de-facto standard.
>
> The English language isn't inferior. The English writing system, with its
> inconsistent spelling, is inferior. A language is something people speak, as any
> linguist will tell you.
>
> Aside from that correction, though, what you have written is basically true:
> English, inconsistent spelling and all, is likely to become the world's _de
> facto_ standard language because of its economic and technological dominance.
>
> But I think an English-speaking world is far from certain. Instead, Google
> translate might end up being perfected... and then everybody will be able to
> talk to one another even though everybody sticks with their own language.
IME, Google translate is about 80% accurate, but that’s about as useful as
OCR being 90% accurate. It still needs a person to go over it. Completely
accurate machine translation requires AI orders of magnitude better than
currently exist, due to ambiguities in every human language.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381848 is a reply to message #381826] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:44 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:
>
>>> I spent one year at the Bronx High School of Science
>>> before we moved out of NYC. No defects encountered.
>>> NYC has a bunch of special schools,
>>> if you had the talent, there was a place for you.
>>
>> Probably not now, though. They’re so intent on “inclusion” that talented
>> kids may be passed over in favor of someone from a group they like better.
>> Also, I think now the teachers spend more time teaching to the test. It’s
>> not just regents, but every year or two there are state-mandated tests in
>> NY.
>>
>
> Is this your opinion? Or have you actually investigated this by talking with
> active teachers or pupils?
>
I’ve spoken to people who know. The good teachers hate the tests, but the
scores are important for the schools, the teachers, and the students.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381849 is a reply to message #381846] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:45 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:29:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> Personally I agree that every "computer scientist" should have some
> exposure to assembler. They tend to forget that underneath their
> hifalutin' theories there's still a cpu banging bits.
I completely agree. And had to argue such on a number of occasions. Our
students did PDP-11, 6800, 68000 and then it stopped. Now they are doing
AVR (or they were).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381850 is a reply to message #381845] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 19:46 |
Bill Findlay
Messages: 286
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11 Mar 2019, Bob Eager wrote
(in article <geo99uF8mbhU7@mid.individual.net>):
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:25:59 +0000, Bill Findlay wrote:
>
>> On 11 Mar 2019, Gareth's was W7 now W10 Downstairs Computer wrote (in
>> article <q66jcu$lg0$1@dont-email.me>):
>>
>>> On 11/03/2019 19:11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> In the old days, of course, all programmers had to learn assembler
>>>> because the machines of that era either didn't run a higher language
>>>> or ran it very slowly.
>>>
>>> On the ICL 1900 series, most work was done in PLAN, the assembly
>>> language.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for this assertion?
>
> None. But Gareth likes to make out that assembly language is the One True
> Way, and also peddles the myth that he was very good at it.
>
> My experience (of a number of 1900 systems) is that lots of languages
> were used. Some were common (e.g. FORTRAN) and some were niche (e.g.
> ALGOL-68).
Indeed, I am aware of: ALGOL 60, ALGOL 68R, BASIC, COBOL,
CORAL 66,EMA, FORTRAN, GIN, NICOL, PASCAL and PLASYD.
I dare say there were others.
Most system software was written in GIN or PLASYD, not PLAN.
--
Bill Findlay
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381851 is a reply to message #381817] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 20:02 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-03-11, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 4:11:17 PM UTC-6, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> For Chinese to become more widespread they'd first need an alphabet.
>
> I tend to agree with that.
>
> But for English to be accepted as the world language, spelling reform
> would help.
Here's a copy of the famous first draft from 1946:
http://rajeun.net/index4.html
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381853 is a reply to message #381846] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 21:15 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-03-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I agree that every "computer scientist" should have some
> exposure to assembler. They tend to forget that underneath their
> hifalutin' theories there's still a cpu banging bits.
I did a CompSci term project in assembly language, for the simple
reason that I hated having some snooty compiler slapping my wrist.
Every so often during the review, my prof would pause and, with a
pained expression, say, "_Why_ did you use assembly language?"
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381854 is a reply to message #381829] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 21:15 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-03-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> I have no crystal ball, but _IF_ present trends continue, the
> U.S. will lose its world leadership and another country will fill
> the void. Americans would be well to study the experience of
> Great Britain. A hundred years ago they ran the world and had
> the resources to do so, but WW I hurt them badly and WW II finished
> them. (Compare the value of the British Pound then and now.)
WWII also put the U.S. on top, taking over from Britain.
It's probably why the U.S. has been psychologically and
economically addicted to war ever since.
> Sadly, IMHO, the US is decaying from internal causes. IMHO,
> some causes are:
> . Fractional extremist politics
> . Excessive litigation
> . Massive drug abuse
> . Excessive corporate greed.
> . Abandonment of rust belt workforce and communities.
Yup.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381855 is a reply to message #381847] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 21:15 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2019-03-11, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:18:32 AM UTC-6, tracym...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> English is the x86 architecture of languages -- inferior, but widely used
>>> and will probably wind up being a de-facto standard.
>>
>> The English language isn't inferior. The English writing system, with its
>> inconsistent spelling, is inferior. A language is something people speak,
>> as any linguist will tell you.
>>
>> Aside from that correction, though, what you have written is basically true:
>> English, inconsistent spelling and all, is likely to become the world's _de
>> facto_ standard language because of its economic and technological dominance.
>>
>> But I think an English-speaking world is far from certain. Instead, Google
>> translate might end up being perfected... and then everybody will be able to
>> talk to one another even though everybody sticks with their own language.
>
> IME, Google translate is about 80% accurate, but that’s about as useful as
> OCR being 90% accurate. It still needs a person to go over it. Completely
> accurate machine translation requires AI orders of magnitude better than
> currently exist, due to ambiguities in every human language.
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381856 is a reply to message #381842] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 22:26 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 5:17:42 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 01:48:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Japan manages because unlike China it's a wealthy country. But Japanese children
>> use up a lot of school time learning Kanji.
> Uh, don't looke now, Quadi, but China's economy is about twice the
> size of Japan's.
How does that contradict China being poor and Japan being rich? Isn't China's population _more_ than twice the size of Japan's?
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381857 is a reply to message #381843] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 22:36 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 5:23:42 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:44:47 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
> <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> But that's their second language. Do many schools still teach English
>> after the independence from Britain? It wood be stupid not to, as English
>> is still the language for business and economy. That is one advantage
>> India has over China. Another is the average age of their
>> population. India has far more young people than China.
> Given the number of people in India who make their living running
> computer systems in the US, it seems likely that they see this as
> being of significant economic benefit to the country.
There are other issues at play here.
India has about a dozen or so languages that are the native spoken languages of
its people.
However, it only has _two_ official languages, Hindi and English.
Hindi is derived from Hindustani; it's descended from Sanskrit, and it's similar
to Punjabi and Gujarati, for example, so it's not too hard to learn for speakers
of those languages. It looks sort of like Esperanto does to an English speaker.
On the other hand, Tamil and Malayalam are completely different from Hindi. To
speakers of those languages, Hindi might as well be Finnish. Learning Hindi
would be a lot of work for the people whose native languages are those. So they
generally prefer to learn English, because if they have to learn a totally
foreign language, it may as well be a useful one.
Every now and then, some nationalistic politician proposes to eliminate English
as an official language in India, in order to "unify" the country, and this
leads to language riots in the south of India among the speakers of the
Dravidian languages like Tamil and Malayalam.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: LUsers [message #381858 is a reply to message #381844] |
Mon, 11 March 2019 22:38 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 5:27:35 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 02:07:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 10:35:53 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> If the Chinese don't screw up theirs is going to be the
>>> dominant economy in the 21st century and some variant of Chinese may
>>> become the dominant language, so don't be so proud of English.
>> The People's Republic of China is not a democracy with free elections and a free
>> press. Thus, China has already "screwed up", terminally. Until that changes, it
>> will never be anything but an enemy to the rest of the world.
> If they have "screwed up" howcome they have gone from economically
> insignificant to the second largest economy on the planet in less than
> 30 years?
They are doing well economically. But their political mistake bars them from
ever peacefully achieving true world pre-eminence.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
