Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #2965 > unrolled thread

Gove in a virtual world

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc

Contents

  Gove in a virtual world ChrisF <c.n.l.f@virgin.net> - 2011-12-15 20:47 +0000
    Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 20:53 +0000
      Re: Gove in a virtual world Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 21:06 +0000
        Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-15 22:19 +0000
          Re: Gove in a virtual world Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 07:18 +0000
          Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 09:14 +0100
            Re: Gove in a virtual world charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 09:34 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 10:46 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-17 14:48 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 15:10 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-18 09:20 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-19 11:36 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 07:04 -0800
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 08:46 +0100
          Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-16 11:07 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 13:44 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-16 17:02 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-16 19:20 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 10:17 +0100
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 10:35 +0100
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-17 14:57 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world workstuff@mail.com - 2011-12-16 21:12 +0100
              Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-17 13:04 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 07:50 +0000
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 15:31 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world workstuff@mail.com - 2011-12-18 22:27 +0100
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world Patric Albutat <albutat@gmx.de> - 2011-12-19 01:32 +0100
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-19 12:32 +0000
                    Re: Gove in a virtual world workstuff@mail.com - 2011-12-19 14:22 +0100
                    Re: Gove in a virtual world Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-19 14:00 +0000
                      Re: Gove in a virtual world nervus <nervus@spam.nl> - 2011-12-19 19:59 +0100
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-19 20:13 +0000
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world nervus <nervus@spam.nl> - 2011-12-19 21:35 +0100
                            Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-19 21:05 +0000
                              Re: Gove in a virtual world nervus <nervus@spam.nl> - 2011-12-19 22:10 +0100
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world Bryn Evans <d@a.invalid> - 2011-12-20 16:42 +0000
                      Re: Gove in a virtual world Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-12-20 23:12 +0000
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 08:07 +0100
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 09:33 +0000
                            Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 18:10 +0100
                              Re: Gove in a virtual world Patric Albutat <albutat@gmx.de> - 2011-12-21 20:46 +0100
                                Re: Gove in a virtual world SG nws <nwsgrp@ntlworld.com> - 2011-12-21 21:21 +0000
                            Re: Gove in a virtual world John <newsmcc@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 14:00 +0000
                            Re: Gove in a virtual world Chris <decordova@ukgateway.net> - 2011-12-24 19:46 +0100
                    Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-20 06:26 +0100
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 08:15 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 09:41 +0100
              Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-17 15:21 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 21:24 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-18 08:09 +0100
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-18 10:32 +0000
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world trevj <trevj@cwazy.co.uk> - 2011-12-20 07:45 -0800
                    Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 08:08 +0100
            Re: Gove in a virtual world Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 10:33 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-17 15:46 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-17 15:37 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 08:23 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world "Bruce Goatly" <ss4@goatly.co.uk> - 2011-12-18 10:42 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 15:58 +0000
          Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-17 12:17 +0000
            Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 12:47 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 12:57 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 19:08 +0100
            Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-17 12:51 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-17 15:17 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-17 18:02 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world NedA <news@ned.uk.invalid> - 2011-12-18 10:18 +0000
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 18:25 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-19 11:40 +0000
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-20 23:17 +0000
                Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-20 06:51 +0100
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-12-20 10:07 +0000
                    Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-20 23:20 +0000
                      Re: Gove in a virtual world Brian Jordan <brian.jordan9@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-21 00:43 +0000
                      Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 08:16 +0100
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-21 12:22 +0000
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 17:20 +0000
                            Re: Gove in a virtual world cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-12-22 10:36 +0000
                              Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-23 07:19 +0100
                      Re: Gove in a virtual world cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-12-21 11:00 +0000
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-21 12:25 +0000
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world Brian Jordan <brian.jordan9@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-21 13:23 +0000
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world  <cujimmy@nospam.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 19:50 +0000
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-21 22:13 +0000
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-12-26 10:50 +0000
                  Re: Gove in a virtual world druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-21 11:58 +0000
                    Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 19:11 +0100
                      Re: Gove in a virtual world Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-21 22:18 +0000
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-23 07:38 +0100
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-23 12:31 +0000
                            APOLOGY to Steve Drain Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 05:52 +0100
                              Structures in BASIC Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-24 11:38 +0000
                    Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 18:35 +0000
                      Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-23 07:32 +0100
                        Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-23 09:58 +0000
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world Brian Howlett <news-spamtrap@brianhowlett.me.uk> - 2011-12-23 10:12 +0000
                            Re: Gove in a virtual world Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-23 10:31 +0000
                            Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 05:55 +0100
                          Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 05:56 +0100
            Re: Gove in a virtual world M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 16:17 +0000
              Re: Gove in a virtual world Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-20 07:24 +0100

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#3078

In message <4ef21306$0$5666$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
          Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 21/12/2011 10:33, Barry Gray wrote:

>> I think this opens up a totally new thread on the true purpose of education,

> To beat you into submission and "teach" you to stop asking questions and
> just accept what you are told, regardless of whether or not it is
> correct, while being reminded that you are stupid and there are others
> who (for whatever reason) are better, but you'll always be inferior due
> to some invented circumstance beyond your control.

This remind me of a story from the Talmud:

Rabbi Jehudah, Rabbi Jose, and Rabbi Simeon were sitting and Jehudah, 
the son of proselytes, sat before them. Rabbi Jehudah opened the 
conversation, saying:

"How beautiful are the works of the Romans. They have established 
markets, they have built bridges, they have opened bathing-houses."

Rabbi Jose said nothing, but Rabbi Simeon said:

"All these things they have instituted for their own sake. Their 
markets are gathering-places for harlots; they have built baths for 
the purpose of indulging themselves in their comforts; they have built 
bridges to collect tolls from those who cross them."

Jehudah, the son of proselytes, went and reported this conversation, 
and it came to the ears of the government. The rulers said: "Jehudah, 
who has praised us shall be promoted; Jose, who said nothing, shall be 
exiled to Sophoris; Simeon, who spoke disparagingly, shall be put to 
death."


-- patric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3080

Patric Albutat wrote:
> Rick Murray wrote:
>> Barry Gray wrote:
>>> I think this opens up a totally new thread on the true purpose of
>>> education,
[snip]

Try this:
from
The Education of Man by Friedrich Froebel
translated by W.N.Hailmann

I  Groundwork of the Whole

1. In all things there lives and reigns an eternal law. To him whose
mind, through disposition and faith, is filled, penetrated, and
quickened with the necessity that this can not possibly be otherwise, as
well as to him whose clear, calm mental vision beholds the inner in the
outer and through the outer, and sees the outer proceeding with logical
necessity from the essence of the inner, this law has been and is
enounced with equal clearness and distinctness in nature (the external),
in the spirit (the internal), and in life which unites the two. This
all-controlling law is necessarily based on an all-pervading, energetic,
living, self-conscious, and hence eternal Unity. This fact, as well as
the Unity itself, is again vividly recognized, either through faith or
through insight, with equal clearness and comprehensiveness; therefore,
a quietly observant human mind, a thoughtful, clear human intellect, has
never failed, and will never fail, to recognize this Unity.

This Unity is God. All things have come from the Divine Unity, from God,
and have their origin in the Divine Unity, in God alone. God is the sole
source of all things. In all things there lives and reigns the Divine
Unity, God. All things live and have their being in and through the
Divine Unity, in and through God. All things are only through the divine
effluence that lives in them. The divine effluence that lives in each
thing is the essence of each thing.

2. It is the destiny and life-work of all things to unfold their
essence, hence their divine being, and, therefore, the Divine Unity
itself - to reveal God in their external and transient being. It is the
special destiny and life-work of man, as an intelligent and rational
being, to become fully, vividly, and clearly conscious of his essence,
of the divine effluence in him, and, therefore, of God; to become fully,
vividly, and clearly conscious of his destiny and life-work; and to
accomplish this, to render it (his essence) active, to reveal it in his
own life with self-determination and freedom.

 Education consists in leading man, as a thinking, intelligent being,
 growing into self-consciousness, to a pure and unsullied, conscious
 and free representation of the inner law of Divine Unity, and in
 teaching him ways and means thereto.

3. The knowledge of that eternal law, the insight into its origin,
into its essence, into the totality, the connection, and intensity of
its effects, the knowledge of life in its totality, constitute science,
the science of life; and, referred by the self-conscious, thinking,
intelligent being to representation and practice through and in himself,
this becomes science of education.

-- 
Stewart Goldwater
http://janusg.co.nr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3083

In article <bf01ff4452.barrygray@virginmedia.com>, Barry
Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> Did Greek help him? I think this opens up a totally new
> thread on the true purpose of education...

Its true purpose? I'm not sure about that but I know that a
lot of people confuse education with training and it's
certainly not that.

I've seen it defined as, "What you are left with when
you've forgotten everything you were taught at school."
I've a sneaking suspicion that this particular aphorism
gives as useful a definition as any other.

John

-- 
John
newsmcc@blueyonder.co.uk
j dot mccartney atte blueyonder dot co dot uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3114

In article <bf01ff4452.barrygray@virginmedia.com>, Barry Gray
<barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On the other hand, my cousin's son studied Greek at a maintained
> ....

[Snip]

> went on to get Greats
> (a first class honours degree in classics (Latin and Greek) at
> Balliol College Oxford (generally reckoned to be the most
> prestigious degree in the world.))....

[Snip]

>) Then when he came down from Oxford he
> went into the only job he had ever wanted to do since he was five,
> and more than thirty years later he is still in the same job:

Chuckle and huge grin!!!
> driving a train.

-- 
Chris de Cordova

Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3048

On 19/12/2011 13:32, M Harding wrote:

> which I've found valuable as a stepping-stone to other languages.

[..snip redundant explanation...]

> That, I think, is an analogy of where Latin stands. It worked for me.

I think I speak for all of us when I say "I'm glad Latin worked out for 
you".

However, please be aware that it is no longer a living language, it is 
no longer spoken or written except by a select group of people; and 
additionally, structurally it is sufficiently different to current 
languages to be in a class of itself.
There *may* be elements of Latin which can shed light on some parts of 
modern languages, but to quantify this, as I learn more French, I 
discover that a number of phrases used in English are either straight 
stolen, misappropriated, or badly mangled from what was probably a 
French original. I'll give you one example that is current - the Greek 
bailout, the news people keep talking about a "tranche". It's a French 
word. Pizza and cakes have "tranche"s, it just means a "slice". But 
based upon this sort of thing, would I instruct a Russian to learn 
French to better appreciate the varieties of English? Of course not. 
Just as, when learning French, I would prefer to concentrate on the 
French and not waste time with Latin which, to me, I do not believe that 
the ends would justify the means.


I understand that Latin worked for you.
Please understand that it may not be so for others.


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3015

In article <ac5ba64252.news@mistymornings.net>, <workstuff@mail.com>
wrote:
> In message <5242746733riscos@mdharding.org.uk> M Harding
>           <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> [snip]
> > 
> > The real point about Latin (though having Greek in addition could be
> > a bit OTT - no emoticon!) is that it teaches the /structure/ of
> > languages, including one's own English.
> [snip]
> > 
> So what exactly is the advantage of teaching English speakers Latin
> grammar over teaching English speakers English grammar?

IME (1960s) Latin and French teachers were able to teach Latin and French
grammar. Unfortunately the English teachers were not as good at teaching
English grammar and seemed to be obsessed with vocabulary and spelling
tests. The irony of attending a Grammar School which was poor at teaching
it has never been lost on me.  :-)    Had to learn it from a book later.

-- 
Tim Hill of timil.com . . .
* supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone
* has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@

... "Better three hours too soon than a minute too late" M W of W, Act ii, Sc.2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2988

On 16/12/2011 12:07, M Harding wrote:

> The real point about Latin (though having Greek in addition could be
> a bit OTT - no emoticon!) is that it teaches the /structure/ of
> languages, including one's own English.

*Structure*?

A language that appears to have a more complicated conjugation than 
German, plus English is rather an odd-man-out with its 
subject-verb-object ordering, thus direct one-to-one translation 
possible is not. This reason therefore, English structure it isn't, how 
it helps can possibly? Why Yoda do like I speak? ;-)

Learning Latin will no doubt teach you the structure of a language. But, 
then, so I guess would be learning English if you had anything 
resembling a decent teacher [*].


> you don't write "to who this concerns" but instinctively write "to
> whom this concerns"

Perhaps because we've seen/heard others do it? For whom the bell tolls? 
Famous title - so there mightn't be many who'd write "For who the bell 
tolls".


> whereas in English we put a "preposition" before a word to mean
> "of . . by . . with . . to . . from . . ", in Latin it changes by
> tacking a letter or two on to the end of the word.

Which means you've surely just shot down your earlier assertion that 
Latin helps a person understand the structure of English? The two aren't 
the same!


> The importance of Latin to me is to understand just how other
> languages work.

Can somebody explain the point of genders? I have a car. It is LA 
voiture (in French; maybe "de curru" in Latin?). Anyway, LA implies 
feminine. The car is feminine. This affects other parts of the sentence, 
for example if it was white, you'd need to use the feminine version of 
white (blanche) instead of the masculine version (blanc).
Apart from filling your brain with trivial crap, what possible reason is 
there to mean it actually really matters WHAT gender an inanimate object 
is, but to then have genders in other words just to match the genderised 
noun?


> grasp how to manipulate those words to make up sentences.

...assuming the language uses the same sort of word order and behaviour. 
Consider the Japanese marker words (wa, wo, no, etc) that have no direct 
translation, but relate something to something else.

Consider:    Momo  no hanabira
              Peach <- flower-part

What it is saying is the flower-part (i.e. "petal") of the peach. Or 
peach petal. Or, in geek terms, "peach.petal".

Let's not forget a complete lack of plurals, plus a myriad of different 
"counter" words depending on the attributes of the object being counted. 
"There are seven socks" would use a different word for the seven than to 
say "there are seven pencils", not to mention "there are seven pieces of 
paper"... The only way you'll get sense out of quirks like that is to 
concentrate on the language of your interest, and stop trying to relate 
it to something *else*.


> The other spin-off is that the ability to understand sentence
> structure is helpful in analysing precise legal wording.

Mmm... Like Doctors with indecipherable handwriting aimed at keeping 
Muggles in the dark, I get the feeling that a lot of legalese is worded 
in that way simply to justify the existence of legal professionals who 
will decode the ancient texts (cast runes, etc). English is a terrible 
language for ambiguity, but I'm sure at the sort of rates solicitors 
charge, documents could be drawn up to be extremely clear and in 
language a ten year old could understand.
Now go read practically *any* software licence, compare.


> Have you ever wondered why the best cryptanalysts seem to be either
> mathematicians or classical scholars?

Their parents could afford a good education?


> Programming>  understanding programs rather than just using them.
> Latin>  understanding other languages (and one's own), rather than
> just using a translation device, whether electronic or a phrase book.

Dude, bloody hell, chalk and cheese.

Let me put it to you like this:

   Programming = Language

   Latin = BCPL


If you understand how programs are written at a logical level, you ought 
to become fairly adept at programming in a variety of ways on a variety 
of platforms in a variety of languages. Strip out all the sexy modern OO 
rubbish and event-listener hooks, what a program is and how it works 
hasn't really changed much since the processor was invented.

If you understand BCPL, well, congratulations, you can be a whizz in a 
dead language.

-->

If you understand how languages are constructed at a logical level, you 
ought to take to a number of different languages. For the common 
languages have verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc and a proscribed order in 
which those words should be arranged to communicate the correct 
information. Strip out all the little peculiarities of a specific 
language, and you'll see they are broadly similar.

If you understand Latin, well, congratulations, you can be a whizz in a 
dead language.


> grammatical details that for the elderly who'd learnt some Latin
> needed no explanation.

No, you probably had a rigid curriculum where you would be caned into 
the afterlife if you weren't capable of parsing a sentence. Kids these 
days probably don't even know what that means.

I would hold the declining state of education to be more responsible 
than whether or not anybody bothered learning Latin. Refer also to my 
footnote.


Best wishes,

Rick.


* - As I went to a special needs school and many of the other kids were 
dyslexic (mine's dyscalculia), we learned "doing words (blue)" and 
"describing words (green)" and... <sigh> I'm an advanced reader, I can 
write coherently (it's just my thoughts that make no sense) but I get 
lost when a French course asks me to conjugate to the subjunctive 
predicate and I'm like "WTF?" so I head over to Wiki and in usual Wiki 
style it over-describes this sort of stuff as a document written by an 
Oxford don telling other Oxford dons how to suck eggs. To me it makes 
little sense. My attention span walks away, and I go do something more 
interesting...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3002

In article <4eec55a4$0$5671$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>,
   Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/12/2011 12:07, M Harding wrote:

> > The real point about Latin (though having Greek in addition could
> > be a bit OTT - no emoticon!) is that it teaches the /structure/
> > of languages, including one's own English.


> > whereas in English we put a "preposition" before a word to mean
> > "of . . by . . with . . to . . from . . ", in Latin it changes by
> > tacking a letter or two on to the end of the word.

> Which means you've surely just shot down your earlier assertion
> that Latin helps a person understand the structure of English? The
> two aren't the same!

Yes they're different, but in learning a more complex one you're
forced to re-examine your own language.

> > The importance of Latin to me is to understand just how other
> > languages work.

> Can somebody explain the point of genders? 

Not me!

[ . . . ]

> > Have you ever wondered why the best cryptanalysts seem to be
> > either mathematicians or classical scholars?

> Their parents could afford a good education?

No, Rick, 50 years ago a good education didn't depend on whether your
parents could afford it. The education system then was a tremendous
force for social change. Hands up, all those elderly people like me
who did not come from well-off backgrounds yet had a good free
education?

> > Programming>  understanding programs rather than just using them.
> > Latin>  understanding other languages (and one's own), rather
> > than just using a translation device, whether electronic or a
> > phrase book.

> Dude, bloody hell, chalk and cheese.

> Let me put it to you like this:

>    Programming = Language

>    Latin = BCPL


> If you understand how programs are written at a logical level, you
> ought to become fairly adept at programming in a variety of ways
> on a variety of platforms in a variety of languages. 

Don't know the context of BCPL, but your paragraph after that, Rick,
is what I'm getting at: Latin is (one of the) ways in which you get
to understand the logic of language. So please don't dismiss it as
irrelevant, because it's been proved to work, even if you've not
encountered it yourself. 

Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding   riscos@mdharding.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3009

In message <4eec55a4$0$5671$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
 on 17 Dec 2011 Rick Murray  wrote:

> Can somebody explain the point of genders? I have a car. It is LA  voiture
> (in French; maybe "de curru" in Latin?). Anyway, LA implies feminine. The
> car is feminine. This affects other parts of the sentence, for example if
> it was white, you'd need to use the feminine version of white (blanche)
> instead of the masculine version (blanc). Apart from filling your brain
> with trivial crap, what possible reason is there to mean it actually really
> matters WHAT gender an inanimate object is, but to then have genders in
> other words just to match the genderised noun?

I'm afraid all this inflection stuff is just to do with what "sounds right". 
Different genders of nouns are not really to do with sex -- think more
"genre", a grouping or category.

A good blog posting on this:

http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/gender-and-sex

Native speakers have trouble with it too.  I guess you get an ear for it if
you live with a language, but for a second language most of us have to do it
the hard way.

Welsh has a horrible feature (mutation) where the beginnings of words change
their consonants according to what comes before.  But again, it's to do with
what "sounds right" -- how the language flows.  If the Welsh had done their
orthography like the English, the words would look the same written down, and
you just wouldn't know how you were meant to say them.  Instead it's easy to
know how to pronounce them, but because they keep changing their beginnings
it's harder to know what they are or to find them in a dictionary!

-- 
Matthew Phillips
Durham

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3011

On 17/12/2011 22:24, Matthew Phillips wrote:

> Different genders of nouns are not really to do with sex -- think more
> "genre", a grouping or category.

Sorry, I never equated genders and sex. I used the words "masculine" and 
"feminine" as this is the way it is explained in French. It could 
equally have been "blue words" and "yellow words". :-)


> Native speakers have trouble with it too.

The biggest problem, it seems, with French, is if you ask a group of 
reasonably well educated people a question on a minor point of the 
language, it can lead to a half hour discussion ending in an argument, 
with Johnny Foreigner (that'd be me, in this case) standing there bouche 
ouverte having lost the gist of what was going on way back, thinking 
"but I only asked 'why are so many words in a plural sentence given in 
plural form when it's only the "thing" that you have more than one of; 
how can a colour be plural?').

The other extreme is "because that's how we do it" (translation: I don't 
know) or the phrase the French seem to love, "c'est normale!".

But beware, I think "c'est normale!" is a faux ami, for when things are 
broken at work, when stuff doesn't go how it should, when the sky falls 
in and demons from mythology unleash biblical fury upon the planet, 
there will be a stressed French girl who will pipe up "c'est normale!".


> If the Welsh had done their orthography like the English, the words
> would look the same written down, and you just wouldn't know how you
> were meant to say them.

Sounds like every Irish girl whose name I've tried to pronounce. 
Seriously, Neve and Fiona and Shivaun are spelled *how*?!? There was 
also a girl with a name like Amarinth [it wasn't, but it sounded like 
that] which I swear was some thirty characters long.


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3022

In article
<4eed91bd$0$5694$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick
Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > If the Welsh had done their orthography like the
> > English, the words would look the same written down,
> > and you just wouldn't know how you were meant to say
> > them.

> Sounds like every Irish girl whose name I've tried to
> pronounce. Seriously, Neve and Fiona and Shivaun are
> spelled *how*?!? There was also a girl with a name like
> Amarinth [it wasn't, but it sounded like that] which I
> swear was some thirty characters long.

Gaelic, whether Scots or Irish, is also characterised by
changes to the sound at the start of words (not surprising
as they are all celtic languages).

Gaelic's advantage, for the user of dictionaries, is that
the sound change is indicated by a letter 'h' after the
consonant whose sound is changes. Do not think of the 'h' as
a letter - it is not. Rather it is the equivalent of the
diacritics used in eastern Europe. It is known in grammar as
'aspiration', which seems a pretty poor use of the word to
me.

So, while 'b' is pronounced much as an English 'b', 'bh' is
pronounced as an english 'v', which is a quite logical
change. This explains the pronunciation of Siobhan etc.

Aspiration is also used to make adjectives agree with
feminine nouns.

So, Beinn Mór (big mountain), but Cír Mhór (highest mountain
in Arran).

You see exactly the same sound change in Welsh: Mynydd Mawr
(big mountain), but Fforest Fawr (big forest). Welsh 'f' is
again pronounced as an english 'v' - the English 'f' sound
is represented in Welsh by the letter 'ff'.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3054

On 18 déc, 08:09, Rick Murray <heyrickmail-use...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> The biggest problem, it seems, with French, is if you ask a group of
> reasonably well educated people a question on a minor point of the
> language, it can lead to a half hour discussion ending in an argument,
> [snip]

Isn't that the case with most discussions involving the French? It's
not a bad thing (except the argument) although such distractions can
certainly be unhelpful to language learners.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3063

On 20/12/2011 16:45, trevj wrote:

> Isn't that the case with most discussions involving the French?

...could explain the EU. ;-)


<ducks>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2991

In message <5242746733riscos@mdharding.org.uk>
 on 16 Dec 2011 M Harding  wrote:

> We scarcely notice that English has a few inflected plural words: rather
> than adding an "s" to form the plural, we say "children", "men", "women" -
> not childs, mans, womans.

These are not inflections: they're irregular plurals.  (I thought you'd
been taught grammar!)

> Have you ever wondered why the best cryptanalysts seem to be either
> mathematicians or classical scholars? I think it's because they've both
> become intellectually aware of the /structure/ of communication.

Actually, I think nowadays you'll find it's more generally linguists and
mathematicians.  In the days of Bletchley Park all university-educated people
had Latin, but it wasn't the Latin that helped particularly, but the
language.  And the mathematicians are not useful because of awareness of the
structure of communication but because cracking ciphers depends on a good
understanding of algorithms, group theory, and so on.  (Plus mathematicians
are generally all round useful people to have about in almost any endeavour!)

Learning Latin grammar does not really help much with English grammar, as
someone else has noted.  Latin does not have the vast numbers of tenses we
have in English, or things like phrasal verbs.  Unfortunately in the past
(18th, 19th century particularly) knowledge of Latin was used to try to force
artificial rules on English to "improve" it, such as the business of split
infinitives.  It's worth reading what Fowler had to say on this.  It was a
form of linguistic snobbery which disliked the deviation and variety that is
inherent in any living language.

When I moved to Scotland, I noticed that many educated people came out with
strange (to my ears) expressions which sounded ungrammatical, such as "the
tap in the kitchen needs fixed".  I would have expected "needs to be fixed"
or "needs fixing", but "needs fixed" is perfectly acceptable in Scottish
grammar.

I don't object to anyone learning Latin, as there is no doubt that its
influence is widespread in Western European languages, but there are plenty
of other ways to learn about language, and some are more appealing to school
pupils who might not "see the point" about Latin.  Learning another inflected
language, like German or Russian, would be just as useful.

-- 
Matthew Phillips
Durham

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3003

In article <372cf54252.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>,
   Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <5242746733riscos@mdharding.org.uk>
>  on 16 Dec 2011 M Harding  wrote:

> > We scarcely notice that English has a few inflected plural words:
> > rather than adding an "s" to form the plural, we say "children",
> > "men", "women" - not childs, mans, womans.

> These are not inflections: they're irregular plurals.  (I thought
> you'd been taught grammar!)

They're regular plurals, but from a different language source
(Germanic, Old English). There's a phrase which I haven't heard
recently, "in olden days", where the same -en plural ending's used.

> > Have you ever wondered why the best cryptanalysts seem to be
> > either mathematicians or classical scholars? I think it's because
> > they've both become intellectually aware of the /structure/ of
> > communication.

> Actually, I think nowadays you'll find it's more generally
> linguists and mathematicians.  In the days of Bletchley Park all
> university-educated people had Latin, but it wasn't the Latin that
> helped particularly, but the language.  [ . . . ]

True. I'd assumed it was the mathematicians who predominated, though.

[ . . .]
>  Unfortunately in the past (18th, 19th century particularly)
> knowledge of Latin was used to try to force artificial rules on
> English to "improve" it, such as the business of split infinitives.
>  It's worth reading what Fowler had to say on this.  It was a form
> of linguistic snobbery which disliked the deviation and variety
> that is inherent in any living language.

David Crystal's "The Stories of English" backs that up. But having
experienced the process of moving to Russian via Latin/Greek, I look
back with appreciation on the felicitous heritage of Latin as a fairly
easy stepping-stone.

[ . . . ]

> I don't object to anyone learning Latin, as there is no doubt that
> its influence is widespread in Western European languages, but
> there are plenty of other ways to learn about language, and some
> are more appealing to school pupils who might not "see the point"
> about Latin.  Learning another inflected language, like German or
> Russian, would be just as useful.

I suppose that, in my youth, I wasn't being offered the option of
anything as being "appealing"! You either liked language(s) as I did
or lumped it: either way you buckled to with it. 8-)

Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding   riscos@mdharding.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3001

In article <5242746733riscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
<riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> The real point about Latin (though having Greek in
> addition could be a bit OTT - no emoticon!) is that it
> teaches the /structure/ of languages, including one's own
> English. Forgive me, those whom I'm teaching to suck
> eggs, because many others haven't an inkling.

At the age of 16 I took O-level exams in Latin, French and
German, following 4 yers of the first two, and two years of
the last. I got my two best marks in French and Latin, which
is presumably why I went on to study Sciences.
:-)

I could read some French (say Georges Simenon) and some
German (though I cannot remember any German author from that
time), but I could never read Julius Ceasar. Much more
tellingly, no one ever seemed to expect that we should be
able to! Studying a Latin text was always treated in exactly
the same way as solving a crossword clue (possibly due to
the head of the Department being Ximenes in the Observer.
His real name was also used by Colin Dexter for the name of
one of Morse's mentors)?

Equally, I could always imagine (at least in principle) me
chatting up someone in a bar in French or German, but not in
Latin. I have always had the feeling that written Latin was
not a spoken language - after all, in Latin we never learnt
the absolute basics of any language:- yes, no, please, thank
you, hallo and goodbye. Let alone the next set:- two glasses
of beer / red wine / white wine, bread / cheese / ham. And
what did the Romans drink in the way of hot drinks (given
the absence of tea, coffee and chocolate)?

> The English language is scarcely "inflected" at all. E.g.
> you don't write "to who this concerns" but instinctively
> write "to whom this concerns"

I do, you do, but I rather doubt that most of he, she or it
does.

> - in other words, for those who haven't encountered this
> concept of inflection, the word (usually its ending)
> changes according to context. Another example is "he/she"
> compared with "him/her". We scarcely notice that English
> has a few inflected plural words: rather than adding an
> "s" to form the plural, we say "children", "men", "women"
> - not childs, mans, womans.

These are not inflections, but non standard plurals,
immediately understandable to those who speak German, while
the standard plural ending -s (presumably) came from Norman
French. Neither have anything to do with Latin.

And we do have a possessive / genetive ending / inflection
in English

> Latin, however, is a highly inflected language: it has
> quite different endings in both singular and plural for
> each word.

If you want to expose langauge learners to complex case
endings, why use Latin which has only six (one of which is
irrelevant for most nouns) rather than Finnish which has
many more?

Or maybe we should all be learning Malay; no grammatical
gender, no case inflections, no plurals, no conjugations of
verbs, no tenses. And apparently the sounds are all simple
to make too.

> And so, whereas in English we put a "preposition" before
> a word to mean "of . . by . . with . . to . . from . . ",
> in Latin it changes by tacking a letter or two on to the
> end of the word.

I seem to remember plenty of prepositions in Latin, and
having to learn which case they took as well.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3016

In article <5242746733riscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
<riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
[s]
> The English language is scarcely "inflected" at all. E.g. you don't
> write "to who this concerns" but instinctively write "to whom this
> concerns" - in other words, for those who haven't encountered this
> concept of inflection, the word (usually its ending) changes according
> to context.

In the case of who and whom, the latter should be used when it is the
object of a sentence. E.g. "Whom to follow" & "Whom you think is the
weakest link". That Twitter and the BBC have these wrong can perhaps be
forgiven for the former -- taking the US 'enmaglement' of English into
account -- but the latter should know better!

If you want to be successful of those time-wasting newspaper crosswords
(the hard ones) a knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek is said to be
handy. They have more relevance to the structure and etymology of words
than the structure of sentences. Then there are words which are the
bastard child of both: 'television' for example.

That you "need" (or, indeed, "needed") Latin to then study something else
such as medicine is nothing to do with the fact that it's Latin. It just
proves you are able to learn something.  

However, no learning of ancient or modern languages prepares you for
computer languages - even ARM BBC BASIC - whose interpreters or compilers
are far more strict than any human teacher.

-- 
Tim Hill of timil.com . . .
* supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone
* has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@

... "Honest plain words best pierce the ear of grief" Love's L L, Act v, Sc.2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3023

Tim Hill wrote:

> In the case of who and whom, the latter should be used when it is the
> object of a sentence. E.g. "Whom to follow" & "Whom you think is the
> weakest link". That Twitter and the BBC have these wrong can perhaps be
> forgiven for the former -- taking the US 'enmaglement' of English into
> account -- but the latter should know better!

ITYF that the second example is incorrect - 'whom' should be 'who', as it's 
the subject of 'is the weakest link'; the 'you think' doesn't change this.

-- 
Bruce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3026

In article <FsjHq.182570$WC5.141691@newsfe09.ams2>,
   Bruce Goatly <ss4@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
> Tim Hill wrote:

> > In the case of who and whom, the latter should be used when it is
> > the object of a sentence. E.g. "Whom to follow" & "Whom you think
> > is the weakest link". That Twitter and the BBC have these wrong
> > can perhaps be forgiven for the former -- taking the US
> > 'enmaglement' of English into account -- but the latter should
> > know better!

> ITYF that the second example is incorrect - 'whom' should be 'who',
> as it's the subject of 'is the weakest link'; the 'you think'
> doesn't change this.

The construction's much clearer in Latin.  8-)  

Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding   riscos@mdharding.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2992

On 15/12/2011 22:19, Alan Calder wrote:
> On the matter of Ancient and extinct in the wild languages, I believe that
> they are of great historical and cultural interest and should be given the
> same status as other ancient or non-European languages such as Sanskrit,
> Anglo-Saxon, Classical Arabic, Icelandic, Mandarin, Kazakh, Japanese, Old
> East Slavic, Russian, Amharic and the like.

Arhurm! The only ancient languages we should be speaking around here is 
BBC BASIC and 6502 assembler.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc

csiph-web