Noah and Human Etymology
MIkael Thompson
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> Hoyle, with
> Wickramasinge, went on to claim that life didn't evolve ex nihilo on
> earth but was seeded from elsewhere, but that just moves the ultimate
> question elsewhere, it doesn't answer it.
Hoyle pointed that out himself. He said though that life might have started
someplace much more amenable to its arising. MAT
Mike Wright
Physicists are like engineers. They shouldn't be allowed to discuss biology.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.CoastalFog.net
__________________________________________________
Seldom does any linguist ever agree with any other
linguist about anything. -- Greg Lee
Jim Heckman
Mike Wright <dar...@CoastalFog.net> wrote:
>
> MIkael Thompson wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > > Hoyle, with
> > > Wickramasinge, went on to claim that life didn't evolve ex nihilo
> > > on earth but was seeded from elsewhere, but that just moves the
> > > ultimate question elsewhere, it doesn't answer it.
> >
> > Hoyle pointed that out himself. He said though that life might have
> > started someplace much more amenable to its arising. MAT
>
> Physicists are like engineers. They shouldn't be allowed to discuss
> biology.
Rather that than biologists discussing physics and engineering
--shudder--. :-/
--
~~ Jim Heckman ~~
-- "As I understand it, your actions have ensured that you will never
see Daniel again." -- Larissa, a witch-woman of the Lowlands.
-- "*Everything* is mutable." -- Destruction of the Endless
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard Herring
> In article <394626F1...@CoastalFog.net>,
> Mike Wright <dar...@CoastalFog.net> wrote:
> >
> > MIkael Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoyle, with
> > > > Wickramasinge, went on to claim that life didn't evolve ex nihilo
> > > > on earth but was seeded from elsewhere, but that just moves the
> > > > ultimate question elsewhere, it doesn't answer it.
> > >
> > > Hoyle pointed that out himself. He said though that life might have
> > > started someplace much more amenable to its arising. MAT
> >
> > Physicists are like engineers. They shouldn't be allowed to discuss
> > biology.
> Rather that than biologists discussing physics and engineering
Biologists usually have the humility to know when to stop.
But engineers discussing physics... It's amazing how many new and
improved crank physics theories are proposed by engineers.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
mith...@indiana.edu
Richard Herring wrote:
Not to mention crank linguistic theories and crank mathematics. Among others. MAT
John Chalmers
biology. Read Phage and the Origins of Molecular biology and other
histories of the scinces in the 50's and 60's.
Without the technology developed by physicists and engineers, biology,
mol bio, biochemistry, biotech, etc. could never have developed as fast
as it did.
--John
Polar
wrote:
>In article <8i7336$58s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jim Heckman (jhec...@my-deja.com) wrote:
>> In article <394626F1...@CoastalFog.net>,
>> Mike Wright <dar...@CoastalFog.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > MIkael Thompson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hoyle, with
>> > > > Wickramasinge, went on to claim that life didn't evolve ex nihilo
>> > > > on earth but was seeded from elsewhere, but that just moves the
>> > > > ultimate question elsewhere, it doesn't answer it.
>> > >
>> > > Hoyle pointed that out himself. He said though that life might have
>> > > started someplace much more amenable to its arising. MAT
>> >
>> > Physicists are like engineers. They shouldn't be allowed to discuss
>> > biology.
>
>> Rather that than biologists discussing physics and engineering
>
>Biologists usually have the humility to know when to stop.
Uh...been reading much lately about games with genomes?
Biologists are no different from engineers or physicists in that if it
can be done, it will be attempted, no matter the ethical downside.
[...]
--
Polar
H.M. Hubey
Richard Herring wrote:
>
> Biologists usually have the humility to know when to stop.
Only when it is fashionable.
> But engineers discussing physics... It's amazing how many new and
> improved crank physics theories are proposed by engineers.
It is amazing. I just can't seem to remember any. There was
one, something like "eccentric accelerator" or something
like that but I can't recall if it was an engineer or
a mechanic.
But I am curious about the crank physics theories since
I have never heard any. Is there a list somewhere?
> --
> Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
--
Regards, Mark
/\/\/\/\/\....I love humanity. It's people I can't stand...../\/\/\/\/\
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
hub...@mail.montclair.edu =-=-=-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
Jim Heckman
"H.M. Hubey" <hub...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
>
> Richard Herring wrote:
> >
> > But engineers discussing physics... It's amazing how many new and
> > improved crank physics theories are proposed by engineers.
Amazing and frightening. I often wonder how many of these soi-disant
engineers are currently employed in the real world, and must actually
build things that work beyond the realm of Newtonian Mechanics and
Classical EM.
> It is amazing. I just can't seem to remember any.
Is that why you "rediscover" so many of them yourself? Poor memory? :-/
> But I am curious about the crank physics theories since I have never
> heard any. Is there a list somewhere?
Yes. Try a significant fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the posts
to sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity -- and to a somewhat lesser
extent, sci.physics.particle.
Richard Herring
> On 14 Jun 2000 13:09:32 GMT, r...@gmrc.gecm.com (Richard Herring)
> wrote:
> >In article <8i7336$58s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jim Heckman (jhec...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> >> In article <394626F1...@CoastalFog.net>,
> >> Mike Wright <dar...@CoastalFog.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > MIkael Thompson wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hoyle, with
> >> > > > Wickramasinge, went on to claim that life didn't evolve ex nihilo
> >> > > > on earth but was seeded from elsewhere, but that just moves the
> >> > > > ultimate question elsewhere, it doesn't answer it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Hoyle pointed that out himself. He said though that life might have
> >> > > started someplace much more amenable to its arising. MAT
> >> >
> >> > Physicists are like engineers. They shouldn't be allowed to discuss
> >> > biology.
> >
> >> Rather that than biologists discussing physics and engineering
> >
> >Biologists usually have the humility to know when to stop.
> Uh...been reading much lately about games with genomes?
> Biologists are no different from engineers or physicists in that if it
> can be done, it will be attempted, no matter the ethical downside.
Um. We're not talking about biologists doing biology,
but about people who discuss subjects outside their own area of
competence. Rather like the original reactions to Velikovsky's
weird theories: biologists said he had screwed up the biology,
but the physics sounded plausible; the physicists said the opposite.
--
Richard "physicist discussing linguistics" Herring
Mikael Thompson
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> Jim Heckman wrote:
> >
> > In article <394847C1...@mail.montclair.edu>,
> > "H.M. Hubey" <hub...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Herring wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But engineers discussing physics... It's amazing how many new and
> > > > improved crank physics theories are proposed by engineers.
> ...
> > > It is amazing. I just can't seem to remember any.
Well, no wonder. You're the one who brags about how you create rather than
memorize. They're still crank theories, however creative they might be.
> > Is that why you "rediscover" so many of them yourself? Poor memory? :-/
>
> Hmmm. I take this as a poor attempt at humor, or a poor attempt at
> slander and libel.
No more remarkable than your own work in that vein.
> What physics law did I "rediscover"?
Well, there's that amazing idiocy of yours where you couldn't even tell the
difference between linear differential equations and differential equations
with constant coefficients. There's your idiotic confusions over the basics
of systems theory (can you say "transfer function"?). There's your idiocies
on infinity where you try to revive Zeno's fallacies. There's your
ridiculous misunderstandings of what "frequency modulation" actually means.
You want more? Or are you just going to weasel past these again?
> ...
> So, it is merely ignorance, and very recent.
Whereas yours is longstanding (and irremediable).
> It sounds a lot like posts I read here.
Well, it sounds like all or almost all of the posts you *write* here.
Mikael Thompson
H.M. Hubey
Jim Heckman wrote:
>
> In article <394847C1...@mail.montclair.edu>,
> "H.M. Hubey" <hub...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Richard Herring wrote:
> > >
> > > But engineers discussing physics... It's amazing how many new and
> > > improved crank physics theories are proposed by engineers.
>
> Amazing and frightening. I often wonder how many of these soi-disant
> engineers are currently employed in the real world, and must actually
> build things that work beyond the realm of Newtonian Mechanics and
> Classical EM.
None, probably.
>
> > It is amazing. I just can't seem to remember any.
>
> Is that why you "rediscover" so many of them yourself? Poor memory? :-/
Hmmm. I take this as a poor attempt at humor, or a poor attempt at
slander and libel. What physics law did I "rediscover"?
>
> > But I am curious about the crank physics theories since I have never
> > heard any. Is there a list somewhere?
>
> Yes. Try a significant fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the posts
> to sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity -- and to a somewhat lesser
> extent, sci.physics.particle.
Aha, that.
So, it is merely ignorance, and very recent.
It sounds a lot like posts I read here.
PS. No, I do not read those newsgroups.
H.M. Hubey
Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
>
> > Jim Heckman wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <394847C1...@mail.montclair.edu>,
> > > "H.M. Hubey" <hub...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Herring wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > But engineers discussing physics... It's amazing how many new and
> > > > > improved crank physics theories are proposed by engineers.
> > ...
> > > > It is amazing. I just can't seem to remember any.
>
> Well, no wonder. You're the one who brags about how you create rather than
> memorize. They're still crank theories, however creative they might be.
>
> > > Is that why you "rediscover" so many of them yourself? Poor memory? :-/
> >
> > Hmmm. I take this as a poor attempt at humor, or a poor attempt at
> > slander and libel.
>
> No more remarkable than your own work in that vein.
>
> > What physics law did I "rediscover"?
>
> Well, there's that amazing idiocy of yours where you couldn't even tell the
> difference between linear differential equations and differential equations
> with constant coefficients. There's your idiotic confusions over the basics
You are still a moron.
I'd have to be half asleep to do that.
> of systems theory (can you say "transfer function"?). There's your idiocies
Moron^2.
> on infinity where you try to revive Zeno's fallacies. There's your
> ridiculous misunderstandings of what "frequency modulation" actually means.
> You want more? Or are you just going to weasel past these again?
Moron^3.
Don't you ever learn?
WEre you one of those students with learning disabilities when you
were young?
There is one thing that really makes me feel bad responding to this
nonsense. I am torn between deciding whether the readership actually
is even more ignorant than you and might believe your garbage and
the feeling that responding to your posts is like kicking the shit
out of a mentally-retarded 6 year old.
I write nonemotionally; but you are still the same.
I ignore you, but you are still the same.
I write in a manner that befits your posts, you are still the same.
I admit that I am slowly becoming a prisoner. I am becoming a prisoner
in the same way that having to deal with people who do not obey the
laws in the real makes others prisoners. It makes the mental prisoners.
For example, having to live in a ghetto where cops don't care about
what happens condemns all those who are born into that environent to
live by the rules of the criminals, those that have the guns and the
drugs. That is why they are prisoners of those who set the rules where
the societal rules do not apply.
It is always that way in the real world too. That is why in the real world
they invented jail. That is why jails were invented.
If only there was a way to put you in Internet jail.
> > ...
> > So, it is merely ignorance, and very recent.
>
> Whereas yours is longstanding (and irremediable).
>
> > It sounds a lot like posts I read here.
>
> Well, it sounds like all or almost all of the posts you *write* here.
>
> Mikael Thompson
--
Mikael Thompson
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> Mikael Thompson wrote:
> >
> > "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Heckman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <394847C1...@mail.montclair.edu>,
> > > > "H.M. Hubey" <hub...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Herring wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But engineers discussing physics... It's amazing how many new and
> > > > > > improved crank physics theories are proposed by engineers.
> > > ...
> > > > > It is amazing. I just can't seem to remember any.
> >
> > Well, no wonder. You're the one who brags about how you create rather than
> > memorize. They're still crank theories, however creative they might be.
> >
> > > > Is that why you "rediscover" so many of them yourself? Poor memory? :-/
> > >
> > > Hmmm. I take this as a poor attempt at humor, or a poor attempt at
> > > slander and libel.
> >
> > No more remarkable than your own work in that vein.
> >
> > > What physics law did I "rediscover"?
> >
> > Well, there's that amazing idiocy of yours where you couldn't even tell the
> > difference between linear differential equations and differential equations
> > with constant coefficients. There's your idiotic confusions over the basics
>
> You are still a moron.
If you really insist on my reposting these idiocies of yours, I will when
Deja.com comes bnack up. However, it obviously won't do any good. You're too
dishonest to admit when you're wrong.
> I'd have to be half asleep to do that.
Then you shouldn't post on Usenet when you're half-asleep. (Actually, I suspect
from your postings you wait until right befor eyou nod off to spew your stuff.)
> > of systems theory (can you say "transfer function"?). There's your idiocies
>
> Moron^2.
Ditto. You're either self-deluded or you have a lot of gall to think no one will
remember.
> > on infinity where you try to revive Zeno's fallacies. There's your
> > ridiculous misunderstandings of what "frequency modulation" actually means.
> > You want more? Or are you just going to weasel past these again?
>
> Moron^3.
Umm, you were the one who gave the equation for *AM* transmission when Ypark
asked you to explain FM. Or was that too traumatic for you to remember?
> Don't you ever learn?
Don't accuse me of your failings, dear boy.
> WEre you one of those students with learning disabilities when you
> were young?
Poor Hubey, you never could discuss the real issues.
> There is one thing that really makes me feel bad responding to this
> nonsense.
Bullshit. You eat it up. You only started posing as the delicate voice of
fastidious reason when I kicked your ass on transfer functions. (And as for your
claim of writing non-emotionally, just remember that "kicking your ass" is *your*
hallowed terminology. I'm merely echoing you to point out yet again your
weaselly hypocrisy.)
> I am torn between deciding whether the readership actually
> is even more ignorant than you and might believe your garbage and
> the feeling that responding to your posts is like kicking the shit
> out of a mentally-retarded 6 year old.
Writing non-emotionally, huh? [Snicker chortle.]
> I write nonemotionally; but you are still the same.
... [Self-pitying posturing snipped.]
> It is always that way in the real world too. That is why in the real world
> they invented jail. That is why jails were invented.
> If only there was a way to put you in Internet jail.
Uh-huh, as usual you can't handle *real* rational debate. I doubt you could
handle a real debate over real issues without falling into the screaming meeemies
(as opposed to, say, forcing your opinions down the throats of those students
unfortunate enough to have you as a teacher). I doubt either of us will ever
agree with the other on many issues, but unlike you I don't start spouting
fascist slogans when I run up against opposition. "Internet jail"? It's not an
unemotional paragon of reason who wants to quash debate, you little fascist.
Stop spouting your shit about writing non-emotionally--you're only fooling
yourself.
Mikael Thompson
H.M. Hubey
Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
>
> > Mikael Thompson wrote:
> > > Well, there's that amazing idiocy of yours where you couldn't even tell the
> > > difference between linear differential equations and differential equations
> > > with constant coefficients. There's your idiotic confusions over the basics
> >
> > You are still a moron.
>
> If you really insist on my reposting these idiocies of yours, I will when
> Deja.com comes bnack up. However, it obviously won't do any good. You're too
> dishonest to admit when you're wrong.
Show me where I confused linear DE and DEs with constant coefficients.
A sophomore engineering student knows the difference. That means you
don't. That's rational. RAtional thinking says that I knew that way back
when I was a sophomore and you still don't (despite having spent the
last N months trying memorize some catch phrases to make yourself look
respectable in the eyes of the similarly-minded morons.)
>
> > I'd have to be half asleep to do that.
>
> Then you shouldn't post on Usenet when you're half-asleep. (Actually, I suspect
> from your postings you wait until right befor eyou nod off to spew your stuff.)
Let me correct it. I would have to be functioning at 0.1 % mental capacity to
make that confusion.
The likely outcome of yet another useless attempt by you will be that it is
you who is confused reading what I wrote.
....
Show me where I made the alleged confusion.
H.M. Hubey
Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> Bullshit. You eat it up. You only started posing as the delicate voice of
> fastidious reason when I kicked your ass on transfer functions. (And as for your
> claim of writing non-emotionally, just remember that "kicking your ass" is *your*
> hallowed terminology. I'm merely echoing you to point out yet again your
> weaselly hypocrisy.)
Why don't you post it again, and I will repost it to the signal processing
and speech processing newsgroup again. I guess the last time did not
work for you.
I never understood why you have such an obsession with wanting to
slander people.
BTW, it is a nice trick for you to get free lessons on sci.lang by
brining up things which you did not understand the last time. It is
not everyone who is lucky enough to get me as a teacher :-) But if
you really want to learn you have to do your part.
>
> Uh-huh, as usual you can't handle *real* rational debate. I doubt you could
> handle a real debate over real issues without falling into the screaming meeemies
> (as opposed to, say, forcing your opinions down the throats of those students
> unfortunate enough to have you as a teacher). I doubt either of us will ever
> agree with the other on many issues, but unlike you I don't start spouting
> fascist slogans when I run up against opposition. "Internet jail"? It's not an
> unemotional paragon of reason who wants to quash debate, you little fascist.
> Stop spouting your shit about writing non-emotionally--you're only fooling
> yourself.
No doubt you think science is about opinions. It is not.
It is highly unlikely that I will ever agree on any issue with you when
the truth is diametrically opposed to what you write. This part you
got right. Congrats!
> Mikael Thompson
Mikael Thompson
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> Mikael Thompson wrote:
> >
> > "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> >
> > > Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> > > > Well, there's that amazing idiocy of yours where you couldn't even tell the
> > > > difference between linear differential equations and differential equations
> > > > with constant coefficients. There's your idiotic confusions over the basics
> > >
> > > You are still a moron.
> >
> > If you really insist on my reposting these idiocies of yours, I will when
> > Deja.com comes bnack up. However, it obviously won't do any good. You're too
> > dishonest to admit when you're wrong.
>
> Show me where I confused linear DE and DEs with constant coefficients.
> A sophomore engineering student knows the difference. That means you
> don't.
More Hubeyan fallacies. You need to study basic logic as well. No surprise there.
> That's rational. RAtional thinking says that I knew that way back
> when I was a sophomore and you still don't (despite having spent the
> last N months trying memorize some catch phrases to make yourself look
> respectable in the eyes of the similarly-minded morons.)
Since you insist, here you are, from the thread on formants and transfer functions
("Vowels vs. Consonants," 2/28/00, sci.lang):
[H.M. Hubey]:
> No. That is not what I am doing. Formants are peaks of resonances.
And the resonances are the same regardless of the source spectrum, as you yourself
admit.
> In other
> uses they are analogical/extrapolative.
In another posting [dated 2/26/00], Hubey implied that it is metaphorical or
extrapolative to talk of transfer functions for vowels in transition. Here is the
passage in question:
"First, the models that are in use (meaning the math that is used) are linear and
time-invariant because it is easy to do so and they give reasonable results. This
does not mean that the vocal tract really is a time invariant linear filter...Thus
the parameters of its mathematical model change or would have to change (in time) so
that vowels and consonants can be produced. So it is not time-invariant and it is
not linear."
Hubey pulled a fast one there. It is true that the vocal tract is not a *time
invariant* linear filter. It does not follow that it is nonlinear--it was my mistake
not to read Hubey's response closely enough to catch this mistake. (The claim of
nonlinearity followed the point about time variance by a few paragraphs.) Of course
it is linear; none of the pressure gradients involved are enough to render the system
nonadiabatic. And because it is linear (time invariance doesn't matter here), the
resonance peaks are the same regardless of voicing. Because of the system being
linear, the input can be decomposed into its spectrum and each frequency treated
independent of the others. There is still a transfer function; it is simply
time-dependent. And therefore Hubey's argument is still false.
******************************************************
The point of the discussion was that the resonant peaks of the vocal tract (vowel
formants) are the same regardless of the input function (i.e., voicing or
whispering); they are determined by the boundary conditions (the configuration of the
vocal tract). The system itself is linear, for basic physical reasons.
Non-linearity doesn't follow from time-variance.
> > > I'd have to be half asleep to do that.
> >
> > Then you shouldn't post on Usenet when you're half-asleep. (Actually, I suspect
> > from your postings you wait until right befor eyou nod off to spew your stuff.)
>
> Let me correct it. I would have to be functioning at 0.1 % mental capacity to
> make that confusion.
No, you were probably functioning at full mental capacity. You should go back and
study your basic differential equations; you might not make so many boners.
Mikael Thompson
mith...@indiana.edu
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> Mikael Thompson wrote:
> >
> > "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> >
> > > Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> > > > Well, there's that amazing idiocy of yours where you couldn't even tell the
> > > > difference between linear differential equations and differential equations
> > > > with constant coefficients. There's your idiotic confusions over the basics
> > >
> > > You are still a moron.
> >
> > If you really insist on my reposting these idiocies of yours, I will when
> > Deja.com comes bnack up. However, it obviously won't do any good. You're too
> > dishonest to admit when you're wrong.
>
> Show me where I confused linear DE and DEs with constant coefficients.
I take that back. You confused linear and time-invariant systems, which is almost as
gross an error. See the other posting.
Mikael Thompson
mith...@indiana.edu
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> No doubt you think science is about opinions.
You've used this fallacy before; the fact that you keep spouting it shows you're either
irremediably dishonest or unable to think systematically. As I've said before, if I
thought science was "about opinions," why would I bother trying to disprove your
arguments? Why would I go to such lengths to point out the fallacies in your
reasoning? I'd just call them opinions and be done with them.
> It is not.
I agree with you. That is why I say you're wrong.
> It is highly unlikely that I will ever agree on any issue with you when
> the truth is diametrically opposed to what you write.
This statement is correct only because you would disagree with anything I said
regardless of its truth value, because you're too emotionally committed to your
illusion of infallibility to admit your errors. (And of course you're too shoddy a
writer to have said what you meant to have said in the preceding.)
Mikael Thompson
H.M. Hubey
Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
>
> Since you insist, here you are, from the thread on formants and transfer functions
> ("Vowels vs. Consonants," 2/28/00, sci.lang):
Ok. Assuming that you have not massaged these, let me take a look.
> [H.M. Hubey]:
>
> > No. That is not what I am doing. Formants are peaks of resonances.
That is true. Formants as used in books refer to peaks of resonances
however they are not what are called "resonance" in books on vibration
theory. One is from linguists the other from engineers. Let me guess;
you have not been able to put all the pieces together and are still
struggling but you decide to be semi-clever and get me to explain it.
Ok. A professor is always willing to profess :-)
The basic guide to the model is the DHO or the HO. It can also be
derived from the wave equation by an integral transform over space.
In that form it is often called the Helmholtz equation. The 1-D
version is the HO (without the damping). The "resonance" in this
equation is where if you plot H(w) vs w (natural frequency) the
H(w) tends toward infinity (in the HO). That is because there is
term in (w-w0) in the denominator and when w=w0, H(w) becomes
infinite. That is the "resonance".
>
> And the resonances are the same regardless of the source spectrum, as you yourself
> admit.
Well, let us now ponder this semi-statement. Are you referring to some "plot"
of something vs something_else? Yes, that must be it. What are you thinking
of? Aha, it must be H(w) or H(s) (as often done in books) vs w or s. If the
Fourier transform is taken, we have H(w) and if Laplace it is H(s). Yes, that
is true. Both H(w) and H(s) are the same regardless of the source spectrum.
Why? Because neither H(w) nor H(s) are a function of the source. They are
a function only of the parameters of the system (i.e. the rhs of the DE
where the "source" is usually put on the left). IOW, the equation looks
like this
L(t)x(t)=f(t)
The L(t) is the [linear] DE operator, and f(t) is the forcing or source.
The H(w) or H(s) is the Fourier or Laplace transform of the L(t) and
it has nothing to do with f(t).
Got any more questions?
> > In other
> > uses they are analogical/extrapolative.
>
> In another posting [dated 2/26/00], Hubey implied that it is metaphorical or
> extrapolative to talk of transfer functions for vowels in transition. Here is the
> passage in question:
>
> "First, the models that are in use (meaning the math that is used) are linear and
> time-invariant because it is easy to do so and they give reasonable results. This
> does not mean that the vocal tract really is a time invariant linear filter...Thus
> the parameters of its mathematical model change or would have to change (in time) so
> that vowels and consonants can be produced. So it is not time-invariant and it is
> not linear."
That is true. Linear means that L(t) is linear. Time-invariant means that the
coefficients/parameters in L(t) are constant.
Obviously, this does not mean that vocal tract is a time-invariant linear filter.
The discussions of speech etc in books in linguistics (of the type someone like
you might read) take the HO or the DHO as a basis of discussion from which
they extrapolate into high heaven.
The vocal tract is in all likelihood a non-linear and definitely a non-time-invariant
filter.
> Hubey pulled a fast one there. It is true that the vocal tract is not a *time
> invariant* linear filter. It does not follow that it is nonlinear--it was my mistake
> not to read Hubey's response closely enough to catch this mistake. (The claim of
> nonlinearity followed the point about time variance by a few paragraphs.) Of course
> it is linear; none of the pressure gradients involved are enough to render the system
> nonadiabatic. And because it is linear (time invariance doesn't matter here), the
> resonance peaks are the same regardless of voicing. Because of the system being
> linear, the input can be decomposed into its spectrum and each frequency treated
> independent of the others. There is still a transfer function; it is simply
> time-dependent. And therefore Hubey's argument is still false.
Your basic mistake is in not knowing the limits of your limited knowledge and
not having sufficient common sense to realize it.
>
> ******************************************************
>
> The point of the discussion was that the resonant peaks of the vocal tract (vowel
> formants) are the same regardless of the input function (i.e., voicing or
> whispering);
You are confusing the actual measured "resonant peaks" of the vocal tract with
the integral transform of the differential equation that describes the vocal
tract. But that is not all. Since the vocal tract is not a linear, time-invariant
filter, what you measure is something else all together.
Here is something that might help. The vocal tract can be modeled (and was modeled
in the old days as an RLC (electrical circuit)). This equation is isomorphic to
the DHO. But, and a zillion buts.............. what the vocal tract should
be modeled as.................. is an RLC circuit where the R, and the C,
and L are NOT constant. And to make it worse, it is not even linear so it is
not even an RLC circuit! So only analogy can be used unless you are ready to
solve nonlinear DEs. Since nobody is doing it, it must be because it is
fucking hard thing to do!
Let's take it in different levels of approximation.
1) Linear time-invariant HO or DHO::: we did this already.
2) Linear non-time-invariant DHO. This is an extrapolation and analogy.
This means that the coefficients are not constant. They vary in time.
Unless you have temporal functions for the coefficients you cannot
solve the equations. period.
3) Same as 2 except that you are given the coefficients as functions of
time for some particular utterance (not forever, not for a sentence, not
even for a word but let's say for a syllable). You may or may not be able to
solve the DEs. So the discussion of the power spectrum etc can only be
analogical or extrapolatory.
4) Nonlinear:: you will not be able to solve the DEs at all, in all
likelihood.
Notice that your statements are misdirected. You are fundamentally
confused. You do not comprehend what is being discussed. Rational
people know when to change to cope with reality.
Notice I am not insulting you. Either pay attention and try to understand
or drop out and give up or go take some courses in differential equations,
vibration theory and wave mechanics, and signal processing or go into
a PHD pgm where these things are done and finally feel relief at having
mastered the real thing. But don't continue your stupid shit.
What I write is plain fact. It's time to grow up. You are no longer
an undergrad. It's time to join the real world.
>they are determined by the boundary conditions (the configuration of the
> vocal tract). The system itself is linear, for basic physical reasons.
> Non-linearity doesn't follow from time-variance.
>
> > > > I'd have to be half asleep to do that.
> > >
> > > Then you shouldn't post on Usenet when you're half-asleep. (Actually, I suspect
> > > from your postings you wait until right befor eyou nod off to spew your stuff.)
> >
> > Let me correct it. I would have to be functioning at 0.1 % mental capacity to
> > make that confusion.
>
> No, you were probably functioning at full mental capacity. You should go back and
> study your basic differential equations; you might not make so many boners.
>
> Mikael Thompson
--
Padraic Brown
Well, I see things are as lively as ever! Would you two mind
reading the original post in the thread and comment on it?
It may be too much to ask, but I'd like both your opinions.
Of the article, not each other's mental state or level of
intelligence.
Thanks,
Padraic.
Mikael Thompson
Second, I posted this by Deja.com, but I think it was not formatted readably (lines in my
postings through Deja.com sometimes spill over badly), and might not have gotten sent
either. I've also cut out a bit of extranea from the beginning.
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> > [H.M. Hubey]:
> >
> > > No. That is not what I am doing. Formants are peaks of resonances.
>
> That is true. Formants as used in books refer to peaks of resonances
> however they are not what are called "resonance" in books on vibration
> theory. One is from linguists the other from engineers....
>
> > And the resonances are the same regardless of the source spectrum, as you yourself
> > admit.
>
> Well, let us now ponder this semi-statement. Are you referring to some "plot"
> of something vs something_else?
No, not fundamentally. It's very simple and factually perfectly accurate. You take the
speech signal, find the resonance frequencies and bandwidths of the peaks, use those to
determine the positions of the poles, and abstract them from the signal. Do so until you
have as close an approximation to the spectrum produced by the vocal folds as you desire.
You find that the poles are at the same positions regardless of this spectrum. It's been
done for decades; vowels are specified by the poles--that is, by the transfer function of
the vocal tract for a given vowel.
[Egg-sucking lessons for geriatrics snipped.]
> > The point of the discussion was that the resonant peaks of the vocal tract (vowel
> > formants) are the same regardless of the input function (i.e., voicing or
> > whispering);
>
> You are confusing the actual measured "resonant peaks" of the vocal tract with
> the integral transform of the differential equation that describes the vocal
> tract.
No, I am not, as pointed out above.
> ...The vocal tract can be modeled (and was modeled
> in the old days as an RLC (electrical circuit)). This equation is isomorphic to
> the DHO. But, and a zillion buts.............. what the vocal tract should
> be modeled as.................. is an RLC circuit where the R, and the C,
> and L are NOT constant. And to make it worse, it is not even linear so it is
> not even an RLC circuit! So only analogy can be used unless you are ready to
> solve nonlinear DEs. Since nobody is doing it, it must be because it is
> fucking hard thing to do!
Or because it is not necessary.
> Let's take it in different levels of approximation.
>
> 1) Linear time-invariant HO or DHO::: we did this already.
> 2) Linear non-time-invariant DHO. This is an extrapolation and analogy.
> This means that the coefficients are not constant. They vary in time.
> Unless you have temporal functions for the coefficients you cannot
> solve the equations. period.
> 3) Same as 2 except that you are given the coefficients as functions of
> time for some particular utterance (not forever, not for a sentence, not
> even for a word but let's say for a syllable). You may or may not be able to
> solve the DEs. So the discussion of the power spectrum etc can only be
> analogical or extrapolatory.
No, it works quite well. It's very simple. Model the articulators as critically damped
harmonic oscillators. A given vowel phoneme is realized as a set of impulses to the
different articulators, ordered by relative phase angle. Track the position of the
articulators over time and use the formants for each position (determined by whatever
method you want) and some input function to generate the spectrum of the vowels over
time. It's been done.
> ...Notice that your statements are misdirected. You are fundamentally
> confused. You do not comprehend what is being discussed. Rational
> people know when to change to cope with reality.
Your nice little lecture above does not change the fact that the formants for vowels are
the same regardless of voicing, etc. That means you can find a transfer function for any
vowel, with poles as a function of time if you want to include diphthongs, etc., and any
nonlinearities are negligible. This follows quite simply from the fact that it's an
adiabatic system. Trying to solve for the poles explicitly as a function of the positions
of the articulators is quite difficult, but you shouldn't confuse that problem with the
nature of the system itself. There are other ways of doing it, as I pointed out above,
that suffice for modeling and understanding speech, and which work precisely because it's
a linear system.
Mikael Thompson
Mikael Thompson
Padraic Brown wrote:
> It may be too much to ask, but I'd like both your opinions.
If I had thought it worth commenting on at the time, I would have done
so. MAT
H.M. Hubey
Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> First of all, thank you for responding reasonably. You should do so more often.
Well, OK now. This started because you accused me of confusing linear DEs with
constant coefficients. I don't see anything below in which you try to demonstrate
that it was so.
What is it exactly now that you want me to respond to?
>
> Second, I posted this by Deja.com, but I think it was not formatted readably (lines in my
> postings through Deja.com sometimes spill over badly), and might not have gotten sent
> either. I've also cut out a bit of extranea from the beginning.
>
> "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
>
> > > [H.M. Hubey]:
> > >
> > > > No. That is not what I am doing. Formants are peaks of resonances.
> >
> > That is true. Formants as used in books refer to peaks of resonances
> > however they are not what are called "resonance" in books on vibration
> > theory. One is from linguists the other from engineers....
> >
> > > And the resonances are the same regardless of the source spectrum, as you yourself
> > > admit.
> >
> > Well, let us now ponder this semi-statement. Are you referring to some "plot"
> > of something vs something_else?
>
> No, not fundamentally. It's very simple and factually perfectly accurate. You take the
> speech signal, find the resonance frequencies and bandwidths of the peaks, use those to
> determine the positions of the poles, and abstract them from the signal. Do so until you
> have as close an approximation to the spectrum produced by the vocal folds as you desire.
> You find that the poles are at the same positions regardless of this spectrum. It's been
> done for decades; vowels are specified by the poles--that is, by the transfer function of
> the vocal tract for a given vowel.
>
> [Egg-sucking lessons for geriatrics snipped.]
>
> > > The point of the discussion was that the resonant peaks of the vocal tract (vowel
> > > formants) are the same regardless of the input function (i.e., voicing or
> > > whispering);
> >
> > You are confusing the actual measured "resonant peaks" of the vocal tract with
> > the integral transform of the differential equation that describes the vocal
> > tract.
>
> No, I am not, as pointed out above.
>
> > ...The vocal tract can be modeled (and was modeled
> > in the old days as an RLC (electrical circuit)). This equation is isomorphic to
> > the DHO. But, and a zillion buts.............. what the vocal tract should
> > be modeled as.................. is an RLC circuit where the R, and the C,
> > and L are NOT constant. And to make it worse, it is not even linear so it is
> > not even an RLC circuit! So only analogy can be used unless you are ready to
> > solve nonlinear DEs. Since nobody is doing it, it must be because it is
> > fucking hard thing to do!
>
> Or because it is not necessary.
>
> > Let's take it in different levels of approximation.
> >
> > 1) Linear time-invariant HO or DHO::: we did this already.
> > 2) Linear non-time-invariant DHO. This is an extrapolation and analogy.
> > This means that the coefficients are not constant. They vary in time.
> > Unless you have temporal functions for the coefficients you cannot
> > solve the equations. period.
> > 3) Same as 2 except that you are given the coefficients as functions of
> > time for some particular utterance (not forever, not for a sentence, not
> > even for a word but let's say for a syllable). You may or may not be able to
> > solve the DEs. So the discussion of the power spectrum etc can only be
> > analogical or extrapolatory.
>
> No, it works quite well. It's very simple. Model the articulators as critically damped
> harmonic oscillators. A given vowel phoneme is realized as a set of impulses to the
> different articulators, ordered by relative phase angle. Track the position of the
> articulators over time and use the formants for each position (determined by whatever
> method you want) and some input function to generate the spectrum of the vowels over
> time. It's been done.
>
> > ...Notice that your statements are misdirected. You are fundamentally
> > confused. You do not comprehend what is being discussed. Rational
> > people know when to change to cope with reality.
>
> Your nice little lecture above does not change the fact that the formants for vowels are
> the same regardless of voicing, etc. That means you can find a transfer function for any
> vowel, with poles as a function of time if you want to include diphthongs, etc., and any
> nonlinearities are negligible. This follows quite simply from the fact that it's an
> adiabatic system. Trying to solve for the poles explicitly as a function of the positions
> of the articulators is quite difficult, but you shouldn't confuse that problem with the
> nature of the system itself. There are other ways of doing it, as I pointed out above,
> that suffice for modeling and understanding speech, and which work precisely because it's
> a linear system.
>
Padraic Brown
: Padraic Brown wrote:
You obviously think it's well worth your while to trade
insults with Mr Hubey like any 4 year old in the play
ground. And not just once in a thread, but several times.
And not just in this thread, but in countless threads
for at least the last six months. At least.
Why don't you do something linguistically worthwhile for
a change and help out an untrained afficianado. I thought
this was "sci.lang" and not "alt.trade-insults-with-others-
and-ignore-questions-about-linguistics".
You _are_ a linguist, aren't you?, and not a four year
old? I am not a linguist. I want linguists' opinions
on the article; not their opinons on each other's ability
to understand differential equations.
Jesus Mary and Joseph, and people wonder why there are
regular postings complaining about sci.lang's heavy-
weights!
Padraic.
: MAT
H.M. Hubey
Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> > Well, let us now ponder this semi-statement. Are you referring to some "plot"
> > of something vs something_else?
Let's look at this carefully.
> No, not fundamentally. It's very simple and factually perfectly accurate. You take the
> speech signal, find the resonance frequencies and bandwidths of the peaks, use those to
> determine the positions of the poles, and abstract them from the signal. Do so until you
This means that you are looking at either the FT of the signal or the FT of the
square of the signal. Or maybe the FT of the autocorrelation of the signal. What do
you do with the noise?
In any case, let's look deeper.
"find the resonance frequencies"::: this means that you are really looking only for
peaks of the FT (fourier transform) of some (which?, see above) signal. How else
can you tell what is a "resonant peak" and a non-resonant(?) peak. So you are
looking at peaks only (and assuming that each peak represents resonance). From here,
do you assume that these peaks are all "formants"?
I don't know what "abstract them from signal" means.
> have as close an approximation to the spectrum produced by the vocal folds as you desire.
So far this looks like you are looking at a/the signal for some vowel. Or since you
have not specified how many "peaks" you are thinking of or if these peaks are formants
it is difficult to see exactly how this fits into the scheme of things if it is not
a vowel. There is nothing here about how you intend to treat noise, or averaging, etc.
> You find that the poles are at the same positions regardless of this spectrum.
This sentence does not compute. If the poles determine where the peaks go how can the
poles be independent of the spectrum or vice versa. How can the spectrum be independent
of the poles since the poles determine the shape of spectrum?
>It's been
> done for decades; vowels are specified by the poles--that is, by the transfer function of
> the vocal tract for a given vowel.
Something has been done for decades but it is not clear if you are trying to describe it.
Since the resonance is due to poles (and the poles are called poles because the terminology
comes from the DE that describes it) obviously there is some connection of poles to the
transfer function. Obviously the "transfer function" as used here refers to the
integral domain representation of the DE.
>
> > > The point of the discussion was that the resonant peaks of the vocal tract (vowel
> > > formants) are the same regardless of the input function (i.e., voicing or
> > > whispering);
> >
> > You are confusing the actual measured "resonant peaks" of the vocal tract with
> > the integral transform of the differential equation that describes the vocal
> > tract.
>
> No, I am not, as pointed out above.
Are you sure?
What is the relationship between the peaks of the spectrum (specify which you mean
first) and the formants. Is every peak of the spectrum (specify which again)
a formant?
H.M. Hubey
Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> You obviously think it's well worth your while to trade
> insults with Mr Hubey like any 4 year old in the play
> ground. And not just once in a thread, but several times.
> And not just in this thread, but in countless threads
> for at least the last six months. At least.
I think he does not have anyone who can tell him what
he thinks is correct or false so he posts here to show
that he has begun to understand (and in his mind to
take revenge for the past which he brought upon
himself).
He can't write to sci.math or comp.speech because
he probably doesn't know where to start. But he
knows that when he starts slandering me I might
eventually have a few lines to post :-)
Padraic Brown
Well enough. What's your take on the article? Though
you're not above slinging a little mud, I'd like your
thoughts on the article. I'd be willing to bet I'll
an answer from you: it's clear that Mr Thompson won't
give me the time of day.
Padraic.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Mikael Thompson (mith...@indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Padraic Brown wrote:
>: > It may be too much to ask, but I'd like both your opinions.
>: If I had thought it worth commenting on at the time, I would have done
>: so.
>You obviously think it's well worth your while to trade
>insults with Mr Hubey like any 4 year old in the play
>ground. And not just once in a thread, but several times.
>And not just in this thread, but in countless threads
>for at least the last six months. At least.
>Why don't you do something linguistically worthwhile for
>a change and help out an untrained afficianado.
You've been around long enough to know that 'for a change' is
unjustified. And the page in question really does seem almost too
silly to require comment.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
H.M. Hubey
Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> H.M. Hubey (hub...@mail.montclair.edu) wrote:
>
> Well enough. What's your take on the article? Though
> you're not above slinging a little mud, I'd like your
> thoughts on the article. I'd be willing to bet I'll
> an answer from you: it's clear that Mr Thompson won't
> give me the time of day.
What is required is
(1) a phonological/phonetic metric
(2) meaning/semantics metric
Then one runs some statistical test to see if these
words written by whomever are closer to each other
phonologically and semantically than would occur
by pure chance.
It is easy to do (1). Nobody seems to do (2)
although this is probably something linguists
should have done long ago. There are efforts to
take care of this problem presently by AI
researchers. So you should wait for a while to
see what happens or get into AI and do it yourself.
BTW, there is also an old Indian story about
Brahma and the rhinoceros with its horn stuck
in a tree like the goat stuck in the bushes in
the Sumer statuette and the ram stuck in a thicket
of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world.
> Padraic.
>
> : Padraic Brown wrote:
> : >
> : > You obviously think it's well worth your while to trade
> : > insults with Mr Hubey like any 4 year old in the play
> : > ground. And not just once in a thread, but several times.
> : > And not just in this thread, but in countless threads
> : > for at least the last six months. At least.
>
mith...@indiana.edu
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> Mikael Thompson wrote:
> You take the
> > speech signal, find the resonance frequencies and bandwidths of the peaks, use those to
> > determine the positions of the poles, and abstract them from the signal. Do so until you
> > have as close an approximation to the spectrum produced by the vocal folds as you desire...
>
> > You find that the poles are at the same positions regardless of this spectrum.
>
> This sentence does not compute.
Yes it does. I said "this spectrum." That is, the spectrum obtained after integrating the
speech signal and anti-filtering the formant peaks.
The rest of your posting is basic signal processing, which you know as well as I do. MAT
Padraic Brown
: >Mr Thompson wrote:
: >: If I had thought it worth commenting on at the time, I would have done
: >: so.
: You've been around long enough to know that 'for a change' is
: unjustified. And the page in question really does seem almost too
: silly to require comment.
Two things. I know full well that Mr Thompson is a linguist,
and has credentials enough and has served this NG well in the
past! Except when crossing swords with Mr Hubey, I have always
enjoyed reading his posts.
On the other hand, I don't care much for being told that my
concern is not worth him wasting his time; for which I feel
well justified in cajolling him, if he won't take three seconds
to pound out an opinion on what's wrong with the article. (While
turning right around and wasting _all_ our time on trading
insults with Mr Hubey.) Frankly, I don't care whether they hate
each other or like each other: I certainly don't like Mr Thompson's
hypocrisy in saying that it's not worth his time to look at a
short article and comment, but won't think twice before having
at his nemesis.
Also, I'd _like_ to think that Real Linguists would be interested
in overturning crackpot theories (I know, there's only a million
and one of them!), or in helping out those of us that aren't as
well educated as them in doing so.
The article in question may well be too silly to comment upon!
I'd rather have some kind of comment on it, though. All I've
gotten is Dr Daniels (I believe) and you who basically say it's
too silly to comment on; and Mr Thompson won't give me the time of
day. It's like pulling teeth around here!, except that the
"regulars" seem quite content pulling each others'.
Padraic.
: Brian M. Scott
H.M. Hubey
mith...@indiana.edu wrote:
>
> "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
>
> > Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> > You take the
> > > speech signal, find the resonance frequencies and bandwidths of the peaks, use those to
> > > determine the positions of the poles, and abstract them from the signal. Do so until you
> > > have as close an approximation to the spectrum produced by the vocal folds as you desire...
> >
> > > You find that the poles are at the same positions regardless of this spectrum.
> >
> > This sentence does not compute.
>
> Yes it does. I said "this spectrum." That is, the spectrum obtained after integrating the
> speech signal and anti-filtering the formant peaks.
Integrating as in anti-differentiation? Is that how the spectrum is obtained?
What is "anti-filtering"?
> The rest of your posting is basic signal processing, which you know as well as I do. MAT
--
H.M. Hubey
Mike Wright wrote:
>
> MIkael Thompson wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > > Hoyle, with
> > > Wickramasinge, went on to claim that life didn't evolve ex nihilo on
> > > earth but was seeded from elsewhere, but that just moves the ultimate
> > > question elsewhere, it doesn't answer it.
> >
> > Hoyle pointed that out himself. He said though that life might have started
> > someplace much more amenable to its arising. MAT
>
> Physicists are like engineers. They shouldn't be allowed to discuss biology.
Yeah, philosophers, anthropologists and linguists should :-)
> --
> Mike Wright
> http://www.CoastalFog.net
> __________________________________________________
> Seldom does any linguist ever agree with any other
> linguist about anything. -- Greg Lee
H.M. Hubey
John Chalmers wrote:
>
> But molecular biology was greatly stimulated by ex-physicists going into
> biology. Read Phage and the Origins of Molecular biology and other
> histories of the scinces in the 50's and 60's.
Why, it is happening even now, both in biology and finance/economics.
There is no other way except for outsiders like physicists and
mathematicians to enter into a new field to breathe new life into
it.
Right now it is especially physicists because the physics field
is dead. It's a good thing, because they bring math into the
fields they wander into.
The basic axiom is: math flows downhill.
Sooner everyone starts to see the truth, the sooner useless
flak will end.
>
> Without the technology developed by physicists and engineers, biology,
> mol bio, biochemistry, biotech, etc. could never have developed as fast
> as it did.
>
> --John
Mikael Thompson
Padraic Brown wrote:
> On the other hand, I don't care much for being told that my
> concern is not worth him wasting his time; for which I feel
> well justified in cajolling him, if he won't take three seconds
> to pound out an opinion on what's wrong with the article.
If I remember correctly, you posted it when I was in the middle of writing a
paper. It has since disappeared from my server, and Deja only has on file
back to something about Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. I'm not going to spend time
rooting around for it. If you want my comments, repost the URL.
> (While
> turning right around and wasting _all_ our time on trading
> insults with Mr Hubey.)
It takes two to waste time. If you don't like them, don't read them.
> Frankly, I don't care whether they hate
> each other or like each other: I certainly don't like Mr Thompson's
> hypocrisy in saying that it's not worth his time to look at a
> short article and comment, but won't think twice before having
> at his nemesis.
I don't have to root around in Deja.com to find his postings.
Mikael Thompson
Mikael Thompson
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> mith...@indiana.edu wrote:
>
> > Yes it does. I said "this spectrum." That is, the spectrum obtained after integrating the
> > speech signal and anti-filtering the formant peaks.
>
> Integrating as in anti-differentiation? Is that how the spectrum is obtained?
>
> What is "anti-filtering"?
Look it up if you don't know or go away. This is not a classroom and you are not my teacher. MAT
benlizross
>
> Brian M. Scott (sc...@math.csuohio.edu) wrote:
>
> : >Mr Thompson wrote:
> : >: If I had thought it worth commenting on at the time, I would have done
> : >: so.
>
> : You've been around long enough to know that 'for a change' is
> : unjustified. And the page in question really does seem almost too
> : silly to require comment.
>
> Two things. I know full well that Mr Thompson is a linguist,
> and has credentials enough and has served this NG well in the
> past! Except when crossing swords with Mr Hubey, I have always
> enjoyed reading his posts.
>
> concern is not worth him wasting his time; for which I feel
> well justified in cajolling him, if he won't take three seconds
> turning right around and wasting _all_ our time on trading
> each other or like each other: I certainly don't like Mr Thompson's
> hypocrisy in saying that it's not worth his time to look at a
> short article and comment, but won't think twice before having
> at his nemesis.
>
> in overturning crackpot theories (I know, there's only a million
> and one of them!), or in helping out those of us that aren't as
> well educated as them in doing so.
>
> The article in question may well be too silly to comment upon!
> I'd rather have some kind of comment on it, though. All I've
> gotten is Dr Daniels (I believe) and you who basically say it's
> too silly to comment on; and Mr Thompson won't give me the time of
> day. It's like pulling teeth around here!, except that the
> "regulars" seem quite content pulling each others'.
>
> Padraic.
>
> : Brian M. Scott
In your original post you said:
As far as I can tell, it seems to be a bit of a hodge podge of
unconnected sentences without any analysis (almost certainly
no linguistic analysis); which tries to connect all sorts of
words that have similar sound patterns or meanings and connota-
tions.
That seems like a pretty fair assessment. Other posters on this group
have seconded your impression by coming up with further fanciful "manu"
connections of their own, to show both how easy and how meaningless it
is. If I gave a group of bright 12-year-olds a pile of dictionaries and
said "See how many words you can find that sound a bit like "manu" and
mean something to do with "man", "flood", "water", "rain", "sky", etc",
they would find still more, until they got bored with the game. (Has
anybody mentioned Polynesian ma'anu "to float" yet?) Now if you don't
identify it as a game, but present it in solemn paragraphs with
footnotes and all, some readers will get the impression that you're
doing comparative linguistics, which as we know is a powerful scientific
technique for uncovering secrets of the past. :) This kind of simulated
linguistics is practised by people trying to support all kinds of
alternative theories; it's a regular feature both here and on
sci.archaeology, which may be why people are a bit short in dismissing
it. There is a discussion on Mark Rosenfelder's sci.lang FAQ.
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
<hub...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
>Padraic Brown wrote:
>> H.M. Hubey (hub...@mail.montclair.edu) wrote:
>> Well enough. What's your take on the article?
[...]
>What is required is
>(1) a phonological/phonetic metric
>(2) meaning/semantics metric
>Then one runs some statistical test to see if these
>words written by whomever are closer to each other
>phonologically and semantically than would occur
>by pure chance.
You forgot a much easier prerequisite step: verify the forms and
meanings given in the article. Several look rather suspicious.
>It is easy to do (1).
Well, no. It's not even altogether clear what the points of the space
would be. It's certainly not clear how to define the metric to give
the desired results, for reasons that we've been through too many
times already.
[snip more non-commentary on the article]
Brian M. Scott
Bobby D. Bryant
> Also, I'd _like_ to think that Real Linguists would be interested
> in overturning crackpot theories (I know, there's only a million
> and one of them!), or in helping out those of us that aren't as
> well educated as them in doing so.
The fact that there are a million and one of them is what makes it less than
worthwhile to respond to each one of them. If a "Real Linguist" did that,
s/he would not have much time left to study Real Linguistics.
> The article in question may well be too silly to comment upon!
> I'd rather have some kind of comment on it, though. All I've
> gotten is Dr Daniels (I believe) and you who basically say it's
> too silly to comment on; and Mr Thompson won't give me the time of
> day. It's like pulling teeth around here!, except that the
> "regulars" seem quite content pulling each others'.
That's a problem in every newsgroup.
As for the article, it quite simply has nothing to recommend it. Lots of
people go out an pick a list of words from various languages that sound
more-or-less similar and claim without further argument that the words are all
related. This simply is not good science.
To take a few howlers from this Web page:
"""The similarity of danu to manu is evident. (13) [13 There is no actual
documentation of a phonetic change from "ma" to "da," although such would have
been quite possible, especially in view of the similar meanings of
derivatives. ]""""
I notice that "foot" and "food" are also similar. More so than his example,
in fact. What am I allowed to conclude from this? His footnote essentially
admits that there is no evidence, so he falls back on an "it could happen!"
argument. ("It could happen" that I turn out to be the legitimate heir of the
kingship of your ancestral nation, but somehow I don't think you're going to
send me any tax money until the proof comes in.)
"""Similarly the original Sanskrit word for "ship" is nau. This root has
developed even in English into such words as "navy," "nautical," "nausea,"
etc. (22) This word could very well be still another variant of "Noah," the
first master shipbuilder."""
The author leaves me wondering whether he even knows that these words were
borrowed into English. Then he proceeds with another "it could happen!"
argument. Finally, he concludes with the assumptions that Noah was "the first
master shipbuilder" and that therefore similar-sounding "nau-" words must be
related to his name. Notice that there is not the least bit of evidence
presented to support these assumptions.
"""The trails are tenuous and often almost obliterated, so that some of the
inferred connections are speculative and possibly mistaken, but the
correlations are too numerous to be only coincidental, thus adding yet one
more evidence for the historicity of the worldwide Flood."""
In other words, "My data may be wrong, but my conclusions are right!"
Also, he is not showing any "correlations" at all, but merely some (weak)
similarities. Nor does he offer anything to support the claim that the number
of "correlations" is beyond the realm of coincidence. (How many does it take
to rule out coincidence?)
Finally, he makes a tangential leap to the historicity of a worldwide flood.
Even if his linguistic argument was reasonable (it's not), it would do nothing
to prove the historicity of a worldwide flood. There are just too many
alternative explanations that are too easy to pull out of a hat. (But why
bother, when his "evidence" is nonsense to begin with?)
To summarize his argument: "seems especially evident", "may in turn have come
from", "It is highly probable", "could mean", "could well be the original form
of", "may even be reflected", "which seems a clear reference", "seems often to
have taken the form", "could well relate to", "seems to have started", "seems
to mean", "it may also be that", "probably means", "seems to have been
modified", "may also have been derived from", "may have been", "It is not
impossible that", and "could very well be still another variant".
You shouldn't need to know the first thing about linguistics, or any of the
other "facts" he cites, to be able to see that the entire gist of his argument
is "maybe". This kind of yarn-spinning is fine for stories around the
campfire, but it isn't scholarship.
Truly, those who said that it isn't worth commenting on were correct.
When reading a Web site about a topic that is out of your expertise, the first
thing you should do is look at the rhetorical structure of the argument. That
will tip you off that very many of them are fraudulent, even before you start
examining the details of the claims.
By the way, don't let an author's credentials or the trappings of scholarship
(footnotes, etc.) sway you either. You know the tree by its fruit, and all
that.
Similarly, mixing some facts in with nonsense does not leaven the nonsense.
Even if all this author's purported facts are correct, they do not add up to a
coherent argument. Let alone a proof. It is merely a collection of
uncritical surmise, with a whopper of a non sequitur appended to the end.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
H.M. Hubey
Mikael Thompson wrote:
>
> "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
>
> > mith...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Yes it does. I said "this spectrum." That is, the spectrum obtained after integrating the
> > > speech signal and anti-filtering the formant peaks.
> >
> > Integrating as in anti-differentiation? Is that how the spectrum is obtained?
Is this how you obtain the spectrum? YOu integrate the speech signal to obtain the
spectrum? Is that right?
> > What is "anti-filtering"?
>
> Look it up if you don't know or go away. This is not a classroom and you are not my teacher. MAT
I'd rather you answered it.
H.M. Hubey
"Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>
>
> >Then one runs some statistical test to see if these
> >words written by whomever are closer to each other
> >phonologically and semantically than would occur
> >by pure chance.
>
> You forgot a much easier prerequisite step: verify the forms and
> meanings given in the article. Several look rather suspicious.
Preprocessing must always be done.
> >It is easy to do (1).
>
> Well, no. It's not even altogether clear what the points of the space
> would be. It's certainly not clear how to define the metric to give
> the desired results, for reasons that we've been through too many
> times already.
Yes, we have gone over it. EVen if nothing else, what is being
done by linguists and has been done for a century can be done.
Would they protest against that too?
>
> [snip more non-commentary on the article]
>
> Brian M. Scott
--
Mikael Thompson
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> Mikael Thompson wrote:
> >
> > "H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> >
> > > mith...@indiana.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes it does. I said "this spectrum." That is, the spectrum obtained after integrating the
> > > > speech signal and anti-filtering the formant peaks.
> > >
> > > Integrating as in anti-differentiation? Is that how the spectrum is obtained?
>
> Is this how you obtain the spectrum? YOu integrate the speech signal to obtain the
> spectrum? Is that right?
No. You integrate the signal to remove the zero at the origin.
> > > What is "anti-filtering"?
> >
> > Look it up if you don't know or go away. This is not a classroom and you are not my teacher. MAT
>
> I'd rather you answered it.
You'll find there are many things you want that you won't get, especially when you're a patronizing
pompous ass.
Mikael Thompson
Mikael Thompson
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> As for the article, it quite simply has nothing to recommend it. Lots of
> people go out an pick a list of words from various languages that sound
> more-or-less similar and claim without further argument that the words are all
> related. This simply is not good science.
>
> To take a few howlers from this Web page:
Ah yes, I remember it now. Most if not all of it concerned languages I don't
know much or at all and other respondents picked out what fishiness I could have
in it, and had criticized the "methodology" sufficiently by the time I saw it, so
there was no need of or value in my responding.
Mikael Thompson
H.M. Hubey
Peter T. Daniels
> > The article in question may well be too silly to comment upon!
> > I'd rather have some kind of comment on it, though. All I've
> > gotten is Dr Daniels (I believe) and you who basically say it's
> > too silly to comment on; and Mr Thompson won't give me the time of
> > day. It's like pulling teeth around here!, except that the
> > "regulars" seem quite content pulling each others'.
>
> That's a problem in every newsgroup.
>
> As for the article, it quite simply has nothing to recommend it. Lots of
> people go out an pick a list of words from various languages that sound
> more-or-less similar and claim without further argument that the words are all
> related. This simply is not good science.
>
> To take a few howlers from this Web page:
Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I wonder what happened to the
original poster who introduced the article *expressing his own doubts at
the same time*.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Bobby D. Bryant
> Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I wonder what happened to the
> original poster who introduced the article *expressing his own doubts at
> the same time*.
Yeah, that was kind of odd. I suspect someone needed ammunition for a private
argument off-line, and came here hoping to recruit an Authoritative Linguist (TM)
to support his position.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Padraic Brown
: Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
: > > The article in question may well be too silly to comment upon!
: > > I'd rather have some kind of comment on it, though. All I've
: > > gotten is Dr Daniels (I believe) and you who basically say it's
: > > too silly to comment on; and Mr Thompson won't give me the time of
: > > day. It's like pulling teeth around here!, except that the
: > > "regulars" seem quite content pulling each others'.
: >
: > That's a problem in every newsgroup.
: >
: > As for the article, it quite simply has nothing to recommend it. Lots of
: > people go out an pick a list of words from various languages that sound
: > more-or-less similar and claim without further argument that the words are all
: > related. This simply is not good science.
: >
: > To take a few howlers from this Web page:
: Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I wonder what happened to the
: original poster who introduced the article *expressing his own doubts at
: the same time*.
That would be me. And I haven't gone anywhere! My doubts are the doubts of the
nonprofessional, though, and have been more or less supported by folks here
(after a little cajolling, perhaps).
It'd still be neat if someone with experience in Egyptian, Hebrew, Sumerian,
etc. would discuss as little in that area. I don't have the article in
front of me, but if I remember right, one of the "connections" was between
Egyptian "mer" and Spanish "mar" (and presumably Latin "mare"). I have my
doubts that there is a connection; but I don't know what the Egyptian word
means, and have no access to an ancient Egyptian dictionary.
Padraic.
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Padraic Brown
: "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
: > Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I wonder what happened to the
: > original poster who introduced the article *expressing his own doubts at
: > the same time*.
: Yeah, that was kind of odd. I suspect someone needed ammunition for a private
: argument off-line, and came here hoping to recruit an Authoritative Linguist (TM)
: to support his position.
How is it odd? If you really want to know, such a discussion was the reason
for the post, wherein one of the discussers believes the article in question
to be a) valid linguistics and b) a plausible scenario.
I am, and was all along, quite certain that "a" wasn't the case; and others
have said as much here. It's all well and good for me to say that the article
is crappy linguistics; but how do I counter "b" without knowing what the words
in the article mean and what their real (i.e. linguisticky) etymologies are?
Hence the reason for this post. So, yes, a little better ammo than I had would
be in order.
Padraic.
: Bobby Bryant
: Austin, Texas
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Brown) wrote:
>I don't have the article in
>front of me, but if I remember right, one of the "connections" was between
>Egyptian "mer" and Spanish "mar" (and presumably Latin "mare"). I have my
>doubts that there is a connection; but I don't know what the Egyptian word
>means, and have no access to an ancient Egyptian dictionary.
One of the meanings of <mr> is "canal, dam".
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels (gram...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>
> : > > The article in question may well be too silly to comment upon!
> : > > I'd rather have some kind of comment on it, though. All I've
> : > > gotten is Dr Daniels (I believe) and you who basically say it's
> : > > too silly to comment on; and Mr Thompson won't give me the time of
> : > > day. It's like pulling teeth around here!, except that the
> : > > "regulars" seem quite content pulling each others'.
> : >
> : > That's a problem in every newsgroup.
> : >
> : > As for the article, it quite simply has nothing to recommend it. Lots of
> : > people go out an pick a list of words from various languages that sound
> : > more-or-less similar and claim without further argument that the words are all
> : > related. This simply is not good science.
> : >
> : > To take a few howlers from this Web page:
>
> : original poster who introduced the article *expressing his own doubts at
> : the same time*.
>
> nonprofessional, though, and have been more or less supported by folks here
> (after a little cajolling, perhaps).
>
> It'd still be neat if someone with experience in Egyptian, Hebrew, Sumerian,
> front of me, but if I remember right, one of the "connections" was between
> Egyptian "mer" and Spanish "mar" (and presumably Latin "mare"). I have my
> doubts that there is a connection; but I don't know what the Egyptian word
> means, and have no access to an ancient Egyptian dictionary.
I think we're not talking about the same thing -- I'm thinking of the
(quasi-)Creationist who posted the URL for the article at Institute of
Creation Research, whom I'd never heard of before, and to whom I
recommended Pennock's *Tower of Babel*.
Jacques Guy
> but how do I counter "b" without knowing what the words
> in the article mean and what their real (i.e. linguisticky) etymologies are?
Fair enough. To do this, however, you need the opinion of experts in
the various languages that article draws from. And there is the catch:
the article is so much patent drivel that few experts are likely to
bite. Imagine an article arguing that pi = 3 exactly, or is variable,
as I have seen argued on talk.origins, and more unhinged notions of
mathematics, physics, chemistry and astronomy. Who is going to bother
refuting it in convincing detail? The situation is even worse: most
scientist know enough maths, physics, etc. to argue about pi; but
very few linguists know enough Ancient Egyptian, etc. to argue about
this or that word, this or that etymology.
Bobby D. Bryant
> How is it odd? If you really want to know, such a discussion was the reason
> for the post, wherein one of the discussers believes the article in question
> to be a) valid linguistics and b) a plausible scenario.
>
> I am, and was all along, quite certain that "a" wasn't the case; and others
> have said as much here. It's all well and good for me to say that the article
> is crappy linguistics; but how do I counter "b" without knowing what the words
> in the article mean and what their real (i.e. linguisticky) etymologies are?
As I pointed out in my long-winded post, you really don't need to know the first thing
about linguistics to see that the article is nonsense. Making a case requires (i)
having your facts straight, and (ii) applying sound logic to those facts. If an
author fails on either count, s/he fails to make the case.
In this instance, you could assume that all the linguistic claims were correct (i),
and then evaluate whether the author built a sound argument on them for his claim
(ii). He didn't. Therefore he failed, and can safely be ignored. Even if his
purported facts (i) happened to be correct, they would not redeem his bad argument.
(Some sleazy authors like to use facts as window dressing, on the assumption that by
saying something true now and then they will convince uncritical readers that
*everything* they say is true. A moment's reflection should tell you that this is not
so.)
As for "their real (i.e. linguisticky) etymologies", I can't tell you because I don't
know. Nor do I even find it an interesting question in this case -- it is trivially
easy to find words in pairs of languages that "sound similar" and "mean something
similar". People do it all the time, and are usually as full of it as this author
was. It only gets interesting when they can point out *systematic* correspondences,
e.g. "/b/ in this language regularly corresponds to /p/ in that language". When an
author does *that*, then it's time to look at the etymologies to see whether the
pairings do in fact represent "the same word".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> > but how do I counter "b" without knowing what the words
> > in the article mean and what their real (i.e. linguisticky) etymologies are?
>
> the various languages that article draws from. And there is the catch:
> the article is so much patent drivel that few experts are likely to
> bite. Imagine an article arguing that pi = 3 exactly, or is variable,
> as I have seen argued on talk.origins, and more unhinged notions of
> mathematics, physics, chemistry and astronomy. Who is going to bother
> refuting it in convincing detail? The situation is even worse: most
> scientist know enough maths, physics, etc. to argue about pi; but
> very few linguists know enough Ancient Egyptian, etc. to argue about
> this or that word, this or that etymology.
It says in the Bible that pi = 3, and that's good enough for them.
Doug Weller
> nd to whom I
> recommended Pennock's *Tower of Babel*.
>
>
for bringing to to my attention (although of course I'm not the person you were
aiming it at!).
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <394E93...@worldnet.att.net>, gram...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > nd to whom I
> > recommended Pennock's *Tower of Babel*.
> >
> >
> My copy just arrived Friday from Amazon, looks very good Peter, thanks
> for bringing to to my attention (although of course I'm not the person you were
> aiming it at!).
On my recommendation? --I forgot that it was ANE List I mentioned it to
yesterday, and here a few days ago.
Obviously you're in a position to need it a lot ...
BTW is it paperback? How much? Amazon doesn't do remainders, does it?
(Mine was $9.98 at Labyrinth.)