Joseph W. Murphy

"alexV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

(snipping)

    > Unbeknown to you there is a problem with the way the Russian language
    > handles objects and how they interact. It is much more ambiguous in all
its
    > expressions as a rule. I am not talking about idioms.

Could you give some examples? I know some Russian so I'll be able to follow
what you say.

Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist

Joseph W. Murphy

"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    > There is a strong relationship between an individual's language and
    > that person's thought processes. Which governs the other is a
    > chicken-and-egg debate.

Padraig, do you think that the Irish think differently for having (generally
speaking, now) abandoned Gaelic for English?
Just curious. I see you're Irish.

I just came back from 10 days there, by the way. It's a beautiful country.
I was most impressed by New Grange. And that brings up another question:
Are there any traces in Gaelic of unexplained etymologies or other features
indicating contacts with pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland?

Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist.

Paul J Kriha

Joseph W. Murphy <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] nk.net...
    > "alexV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > (snipping)
    > > Unbeknown to you there is a problem with the way the Russian language
    > > handles objects and how they interact. It is much more ambiguous in all
    > its
    > > expressions as a rule. I am not talking about idioms.
    > >
    > Could you give some examples? I know some Russian so I'll be able to follow
    > what you say.
    > Joe Murphy
    > Boy Linguist

This'll be interesting!
Now, I am all ears^H^H^H^Heyes.
PJK

Padraig Breathnach

"Joseph W. Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .
    >> There is a strong relationship between an individual's language and
    >> that person's thought processes. Which governs the other is a
    >> chicken-and-egg debate.
    >Padraig, do you think that the Irish think differently for having (generally
    >speaking, now) abandoned Gaelic for English?
That's a big question.

First, the collapse of Gaelic has been happening over many centuries,
so any consequent changes on Irish society have different degrees of
impact depending on how long an area has been primarily
English-speaking. And, of course, factors other than language change
are important. That said, I see cultural differences between the east
coast area around Dublin (dominantly English-speaking for centuries)
and the west coast (where Gaelic dominated until the 19th century, and
still survives in pockets). I think language is a significant
component in those differences.

Second, the form of English spoken in Ireland differs from Standard
English. The most important element of that difference is the
carrying-over of Gaelic syntax into Hiberno-English. Such usages are
sometimes (usually inaccurately) parodied in representations of the
stage Irishman. But you can find people using expressions like "I'm
after being" or "It's tired I am" which are modelled very closely on
Gaelic. Anybody who wants a good introduction to this phenomenon
should read the plays of John Millington Synge, who represents very
well how things were about a century ago (I believe he represents it
well, but I am not contemporary with the works).

Universal education and mass media are pushing Irish people quite
rapidly towards Standard English.

Now the answer to your question: yes, it looks to me as if those Irish
people who are furthest removed from Gaelic language mode operate
differently from those who are closer to it. Because other factors,
such as economic development, also come into play, it is difficult to
speculate on the degree to which language mode explains such
differences (not to mention that it is difficult to describe and
measure the differences in the first place).

    >Just curious. I see you're Irish.
[By chance, Herself (a Hiberno-English term) came into the room as I
was typing this, and we conversed briefly in Gaelic. I think I could
feel my mental mode change, but that might be a fancy because of what
I am writing here. Or it might be reflective of our relationship.
Factoring things out in language matters is very difficult.]

    >I just came back from 10 days there, by the way. It's a beautiful country.
    >I was most impressed by New Grange.
This brings us back on-topic for rec.travel.europe, from which I have
been imported into sci.lang by crossposting. Newgrange (one word) is a
bit special.

    >And that brings up another question:
    >Are there any traces in Gaelic of unexplained etymologies or other features
    >indicating contacts with pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland?
Virtually none, possibly none at all. I think I have heard mention of
some place-names that are thought to be pre-Celtic, but I don't
remember what they are, or how many (except that they are very few).
Gaelic lacks a good etymological dictionary, but I think that I am on
good ground in saying that scholars do not believe that Irish Gaelic
has any features from the language of pre-Celtic inhabitants.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

nitram

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:56:12 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >First, the collapse of Gaelic has been happening over many centuries,

Something to do with drinking too much Guinness? :-)
--
Martin

alexV

"Joseph W. Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] nk.net...
    > "alexV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > (snipping)
    > > Unbeknown to you there is a problem with the way the Russian language
    > > handles objects and how they interact. It is much more ambiguous in all
    > its
    > > expressions as a rule. I am not talking about idioms.
    > >
    > Could you give some examples? I know some Russian so I'll be able to
follow
    > what you say.
    > Joe Murphy
    > Boy Linguist

It would mainly concern scientific discourse. The gap is wide and palpable.
On the ground level when very familiar things are discussed between close
acquaintances no ambiguities arise. In more specific areas, however, where
quick and sharp definitions are a must it becomes painfully clear that the
Russian language is pitifully deficient.

I want to take a sidetrack. To my great surprise I have heard a similar
complaint from a native Thai speaker. The person in question was born over
there, lived in the USA for about 15 years. The family is very West oriented
and quite educated. I presume that person knew what they were talking about.
I think their complaint first was expressed in reference to
business/scientific discourse but it seems they also mentioned the simple
daily life but I am not sure. The feeling was very strong indeed.

I am tempted to ask some Thai speakers what their opinion would be but many
people perhaps have never given it a thought. Like in this thread there is
so much mindless cliché sloganizing: "all languages are beautiful," "they
serve their respective communities" and all that shit. People simply do not
take pain to think clearly.

I will have to take time to think of more convincing examples in Russian.

Joseph W. Murphy

"alexV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > > > Unbeknown to you there is a problem with the way the Russian language
    > > > handles objects and how they interact. It is much more ambiguous in
all
    > > >its expressions as a rule. I am not talking about idioms.
    > >

And Joe Murphy responded:

    > > Could you give some examples? I know some Russian so I'll be able to
    > >follow what you say.
    > >

And alexV wrote:

    > It would mainly concern scientific discourse. The gap is wide and
palpable.
    > On the ground level when very familiar things are discussed between close
    > acquaintances no ambiguities arise. In more specific areas, however, where
    > quick and sharp definitions are a must it becomes painfully clear that the
    > Russian language is pitifully deficient.

Well, in various areas of science (where I would imagine quick and sharp
definitions are important), Russian-speakers are certainly not without their
achievements. I was looking at a list of Nobel prize winners in the last
century and the Russians (or, better, Soviets) have certainly managed to do
good work in some very esoteric and arcane areas of science, their language
notwithstanding. :

See:
http://www.ucgf.ca/English/Newslette...ssiannobel.htm

Mendeleev, Lomonosov, Euler (I think he was Russian, wasn't he?) also come
to mind. Their space program has certainly rivaled ours in many respects.
I guess I don't buy into the idea that Russian, whatever its real or
imagined deficiencies, has hindered the ability of its speakers to think or
communicate clearly and successfully in the scientific arena.

    > I want to take a sidetrack. To my great surprise I have heard a similar
    > complaint from a native Thai speaker. The person in question was born over
    > there, lived in the USA for about 15 years. The family is very West
oriented
    > and quite educated. I presume that person knew what they were talking
about.
    > I think their complaint first was expressed in reference to
    > business/scientific discourse but it seems they also mentioned the simple
    > daily life but I am not sure. The feeling was very strong indeed.
    > I am tempted to ask some Thai speakers what their opinion would be but
many
    > people perhaps have never given it a thought. Like in this thread there is
    > so much mindless cliché sloganizing: "all languages are beautiful," "they
    > serve their respective communities" and all that shit. People simply do
not
    > take pain to think clearly.

Well, I don't know much of anything about Thai, but I've certainly heard
that the Asian rim is doing booming business. I can't think that there is
anything intrinsically deficient about Thai that would prevent its speakers
from doing just as well as the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the
Malaysians, and others. The Chinese have a space program, nuclear weapons,
acupuncture, and currently are keeping the U.S. government in business
through their loans. The Japanese are just as capable.

My thinking is that languages tend to adapt to accomodate whatever it is
their speakers need or want to do with them. If Thai presently happens to
lack a scientific or business vocabulary, it will come if the Thais want to
involve themselves more deeply in scientific or commercial matters.

Maybe some of the slogans you mentioned sound trite. But there's certainly
some truth in them. In one of my stupider moments here I once mentioned
that I thought I would have difficulty discussing Sartre's philosophy in
Quechuan (implying thereby that Quechuan wasn't much of a language for
philosophical thought). Mark Rosenfelder then pointed out to me that I
would also have a great deal of difficulty discussing the distinguishing
features of some forty varieties of Andean potatoes with a Peruvian Indian
in English.


    > I will have to take time to think of more convincing examples in Russian.

OK, let me know.


Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist

Joseph W. Murphy

"Jacques Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Joseph W. Murphy wrote:
    > > Euler (I think he was Russian, wasn't he?)
    > Jean-Albert and Charles were Russian, born in St Petersburg.
    > Their father Léonard was Swiss.

Merci beaucoup!

Jacques Guy

Joseph W. Murphy wrote:

    > Euler (I think he was Russian, wasn't he?)

Jean-Albert and Charles were Russian, born in St Petersburg.

Their father Léonard was Swiss.

Miguel Cruz

Joseph W. Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Well, I don't know much of anything about Thai, but I've certainly heard
    > that the Asian rim is doing booming business. I can't think that there is
    > anything intrinsically deficient about Thai that would prevent its speakers
    > from doing just as well as the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the
    > Malaysians, and others.

The Malaysians (and Singaporeans) are doing that business in English. Malay
is quite a vague language, with systematic ambiguities that make difficult
to be precise about scientific and technical matters... on the other hand
they make for very interesting turns of phrase. I find it very hard to see
all languages as being equally useful for all purposes.

I regularly hear complains about the Chinese language from native Chinese
speakers.

Korea is barreling headlong into a teach-everyone-English effort.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Miguel Cruz

Xenia <[email protected]> wrote:
    > There's some basic information for you. Russian has six (not to
    > mention Vocative, Genitive II and Prepositional II) cases, English has
    > only two. Russian has three genders, English has one. Verbs conjugate
    > according to person, number, tense, voice and mood. Verbs have two
    > aspects: Imperfective and Perfective. Participles exist in 4 forms:
    > Present Active, Past Active, Present Passive and Past Passive. There
    > are short participles corresponding to two Passive forms of regular
    > participles that like short adjectives do not decline. There are
    > adverbial participles that do not decline and exist in Present and
    > Past forms. Word order is free, moreover, by changing the word order
    > any word in a sentence can be emphasized. Russian shares most of these
    > characteristics with other Slavic languages.
    > If you think that Slavic languages are "not particularly grammatically
    > advanced", try to learn at least one of them before making any
    > sweeping statements concerning its grammar.

I don't see how having three genders is an indication of advanced
grammatical development; rather, quite the opposite: a burdensome vestige
that slows down learning and complicates use.

A grammar is not advanced merely because it sports byzantine complexity. It
is advanced because it has shed pointless artifice and now only requires
features that provide a positive trade-off against the costs of their use.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Radovan Garabik

In sci.lang Xenia <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    >> As languages develop, they generally become more complex. A language that
    >> has not evolved some of the attributes of a more complex grammar is,
    >> therefore, usually considered to be less advanced linguistically.
    >
    > On the contrary, it's clear that ancient languages (Latin, Greek,
    > Sanskrit, Old English) were MUCH MORE grammatically complex than their
    > modern descendants.
    >
    > For example, Old Russian had 7 cases, Modern Russian dropped the
    > Vocative.

... and developped a new vocative form for personal names and family
relations ...

    > Similarly, Modern Russian lacks the dual number which was
    > present in the Old Russian.

... but uses different declination for numbers 2,3,4 and different
for 5 and above, and differes between adjectives and nouns ...

    >
    >> Most commonly, languages develop through contact with other languages and
    >
    > More commonly, it's the centuries of foreign domination that lead to
    > loss of inflections and development of simplified, or analytical
    > syntax. I would disagree that analytical syntax represents some
    > "advanced" stage of language development. So degradation of more
    > complex Indo-European grammar led to emergence of modern English and
    > Bulgarian.


... and pre-modern French, with modern French turning into an
agglutinative language ...

You can find counterexamples everywhere.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
    | Radovan GarabÃ*k http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ |
    | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

Xenia

"Joseph W. Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] hlink.net>...
    > > On the ground level when very familiar things are discussed between close
    > > acquaintances no ambiguities arise. In more specific areas, however, where
    > > quick and sharp definitions are a must it becomes painfully clear that the
    > > Russian language is pitifully deficient.
    >
    > Well, in various areas of science (where I would imagine quick and sharp
    > definitions are important), Russian-speakers are certainly not without their
    > achievements. I was looking at a list of Nobel prize winners in the last
    > century and the Russians (or, better, Soviets) have certainly managed to do
    > good work in some very esoteric and arcane areas of science, their language
    > notwithstanding.

Yankee-financed Nobel prizes are not indications of any technological
achievements whatsoever. To win the prize, you should be nominated.
The Soviet government didn't recognize the value for that prize and
didn't nominate a single Soviet citizen until Khruschev's thaw.

Only a moron would seriously connect the level of science with the
language people speak. The UK and most other English-speaking
countries haven't as yet launched a man into space, a thing Russia
managed half a century ago. And the American space industry is
currently centred around a Russian-designed space station.

When you turn on the radio, you should be grateful to Alexander Popov
who invented it. When you turn your TV set or PC monitor, you should
be grateful to Vladimir Zvorykin who invented television. And when you
use CD disks, you should recall that the technology was not possible
without the work of Zhores Alferov. I could could go on and on.

Xenia Strizh

Xenia

Radovan Garabik <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > In sci.lang Xenia <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > >> As languages develop, they generally become more complex. A language that
    > >> has not evolved some of the attributes of a more complex grammar is,
    > >> therefore, usually considered to be less advanced linguistically.
    > >
    > > On the contrary, it's clear that ancient languages (Latin, Greek,
    > > Sanskrit, Old English) were MUCH MORE grammatically complex than their
    > > modern descendants.
    > >
    > > For example, Old Russian had 7 cases, Modern Russian dropped the
    > > Vocative.
    >
    > ... and developped a new vocative form for personal names and family
    > relations ...

Examples are always helpful.

    > > Similarly, Modern Russian lacks the dual number which was
    > > present in the Old Russian.
    >
    > ... but uses different declination for numbers 2,3,4 and different
    > for 5 and above, and differes between adjectives and nouns ...

Examples, please.

Pieter Z.

"Xenia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om
    > When you turn on the radio, you should be grateful to Alexander Popov
    > who invented it.

I thought it was Tesla who was so neglected for it.

Cheers,

Pieter