Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
Mike Girouard
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
(Filed: 20/08/2004)
Language moulds our thoughts so much that we cannot conceptualise
ideas for which we do not have words, according to an American
researcher.
Dr Peter Gordon of Columbia University, New York, studied an Amazonian
tribe whose language has no word for numbers beyond two. His research
on the Piraha, a tribe of hunter-gatherers, sheds light on
mathematical thought.
Dr Gordon's work, reported in the journal Nature, shows that the
ability of tribal adults to conceptualise numbers is no better than
that of infants or even some animals.
The tribe has words for "one" and "two" - and "one" can also mean
"roughly one" - but anything more than that is not quantified but
merely lumped together as "many". The research suggests that without
words for specific numbers, numeration cannot develop.
The Piraha have little social structure, no art, and they barter
instead of using currency. Their language is limited to just 10
consonants and vowels.
Dr Gordon, whose wife Keren spent 20 years with the tribe, conducted
his research while visiting the Amazon 10 years ago with Dr Daniel
Everett, a linguist who is now at the University of Manchester.
Asked to duplicate a row of up to 10 objects placed on a desk, Dr
Gordon found that the ability of tribesmen to do so faltered beyond
two or three. This was also the case when they were asked to copy up
to 10 lines drawn on paper. In other tests it was shown that the
people lacked the ability to remember specific numbers.
Dr Gordon says that his research casts doubt on claims by linguists
that people have an innate numerical sense. He says that the ability
to perceive specific numbers is innate only up to three.
Dr Gordon's work supports findings made in the 1930s by Benjamin Lee
Whorf, a linguist who argued that language can determine the nature
and content of thought. "Whether one language chooses to distinguish
one thing versus another affects how an individual perceives reality,"
Dr Gordon said.
Dr Lisa Feigenson, a psychologist from Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore, Maryland, said that Dr Gordon's study was "fantastic". She
said that language must be causing the "drastic" difference in the
number sense of the Piraha.
Prof Brian Butterworth, of University College London, said that Dr
Gordon's pioneering work had produced evidence that we needed
"counting words" in order to have concepts of numbers beyond three.
"That is, we can have a sense of threeness without having a word for
three, but we cannot have a sense of fourness and beyond without the
words to express it," Prof Butterworth said.
"This does seem surprising, however, since English-speaking children
of three or four years old, who can use only the words one and two
accurately in counting, can match and compare sets of objects up to
six or seven."
With compliments to the group,
FoggyTown
Jacques Guy
> Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
> By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
> (Filed: 20/08/2004)
Lovely garbage.
> Language moulds our thoughts so much that we cannot conceptualise
> ideas for which we do not have words, according to an American
> researcher.
Sure, ever heard of a certain chemist with a funny name
who dreamt a certain molecule, and happened to be right?
And BTW, how did the notion of "phoneme" ever come into
being? We could not conceptualize it when there was no
word for it, could we? So, some smart cookie thought:
"Pho-neme, pho-neme, hey! that's a nice-sounding word!"
And he said unto himself: "Let 'phoneme' designate those
little things with the sort of raffia work base, that
has an attachment". Now, of, course, it was difficult
to get the meaning across to the rest of the world, which
had no word for "phoneme" and therefore could not
conceptualize it. And there, folks, lieth the origin
of modern phonology. On en apprend tous les jours, hein?
> Dr Gordon's work, reported in the journal Nature
Ah! Nature, Nature of course!
> The tribe has words for "one" and "two" - and "one" can also mean
> "roughly one"
Oh yes, "roughly one". Roughly one what?
> The Piraha have little social structure, no art, and they barter
> instead of using currency.
Wow! Fancy that! How primitive! Has Arsehole Emeritus Gordon
ever lived anywhere real? Has he ever heard of WWII, when
city dwellers would barter with country dwellers for food?
How the fuck can the Piraha barter if they can't tell "one"
from "roughly one", eh?
> Their language is limited to just 10
> consonants and vowels.
And two tones.
So what? What do you think makes you computer tick? A number
system limited to two, count'em, two digits, that's what.
Now let's hear it for !Xu, with some 80 consonants and
24 vowels. What's Arsehole Emeritus Gordon's precious
English compared to that, huh?
> Dr Lisa Feigenson, a psychologist from Johns Hopkins University in
> Baltimore, Maryland, said that Dr Gordon's study was "fantastic".
Right. As in "fantasy".
> "That is, we can have a sense of threeness without having a word for
> three, but we cannot have a sense of fourness and beyond without the
> words to express it," Prof Butterworth said.
Keep up the good work, Butterworth. The Holy Trinity is right
round the corner, and our Pope is famous for canonizing
people as if there was no to-morrow. Ave, St Butterworth, ora
pro nobis!
> With compliments to the group,
Merci! Comme super connerie, ça bat même les élucubrations
de Barry Fell! Bravo, encore, encore, encore!
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
> By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
> (Filed: 20/08/2004)
> Dr Gordon's work, reported in the journal Nature,
What Jacques said.
> Dr Gordon, whose wife Keren spent 20 years with the tribe, conducted
> his research while visiting the Amazon 10 years ago with Dr Daniel
> Everett, a linguist who is now at the University of Manchester.
I expect Dan Everett is preparing to sue for libel.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Richard Herring
<jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes
[big snip]
So, just to be absolutely clear about this, can we take it that there's
something there you disagree with?
--
Richard Herring
Jacques Guy
> So, just to be absolutely clear about this, can we take it that there's
> something there you disagree with?
Nope. I heartily agree with all of it. And I applaud it
will all four hands.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Wow! Fancy that! How primitive! Has Arsehole Emeritus Gordon ever lived
> anywhere real? Has he ever heard of WWII, when city dwellers would
> barter with country dwellers for food? How the fuck can the Piraha
> barter if they can't tell "one" from "roughly one", eh?
Actually, the "roughly one" is great for the opening offer, since it lets
you be coy about whether you're actually willing to offer "one" or "two".
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Richard Herring
<jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes
Oooook.
--
Richard Herring
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:4125E9...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
> Mike Girouard wrote:
> What Jacques said.
Dan Everett's web site has a link to Gordon's.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<news:4126CA...@alphalink.com.au> in sci.lang:
> Mike Girouard wrote:
>> Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
>> By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
>> (Filed: 20/08/2004)
[...]
>> Dr Gordon's work, reported in the journal Nature
> Ah! Nature, Nature of course!
>> The tribe has words for "one" and "two" - and "one" can also mean
>> "roughly one"
> Oh yes, "roughly one". Roughly one what?
I gather from an abstract at Everett's site that what the
language really has is a word for 'one, a few, a small
amount' and another for 'many, a large amount'. If I
remember correctly, they're <hСЛ> and <hРМ>, where the acute
denotes a high tone and the grave a low tone.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Surely he doesn't make the same assertions as the Daily Telegraph (or,
perhaps, Nature)?
Harlan Messinger
"Mike Girouard" <fogg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cb8d4013.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
> By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
> (Filed: 20/08/2004)
>
>
> Language moulds our thoughts so much that we cannot conceptualise
> ideas for which we do not have words, according to an American
> researcher.
If it were true, it would lead to the absurdity that at the point where
language began people had never conceptualized any ideas at all. But if they
had no ideas, then what led to their having words to discuss these ideas
they didn't have? QED by reductio ad absurdum.
>
>
> Dr Peter Gordon of Columbia University, New York, studied an Amazonian
> tribe whose language has no word for numbers beyond two. His research
> on the Piraha, a tribe of hunter-gatherers, sheds light on
> mathematical thought.
>
> Dr Gordon's work, reported in the journal Nature, shows that the
> ability of tribal adults to conceptualise numbers is no better than
> that of infants or even some animals.
>
> The tribe has words for "one" and "two" - and "one" can also mean
> "roughly one" - but anything more than that is not quantified but
> merely lumped together as "many". The research suggests that without
> words for specific numbers, numeration cannot develop.
>
> The Piraha have little social structure, no art, and they barter
> instead of using currency. Their language is limited to just 10
> consonants and vowels.
>
> Dr Gordon, whose wife Keren spent 20 years with the tribe, conducted
> his research while visiting the Amazon 10 years ago with Dr Daniel
> Everett, a linguist who is now at the University of Manchester.
>
> Asked to duplicate a row of up to 10 objects placed on a desk, Dr
> Gordon found that the ability of tribesmen to do so faltered beyond
> two or three.
Maybe in their culture they haven't focused an numeracy and that's why they
don't have words for numbers greater than two.
> This was also the case when they were asked to copy up
> to 10 lines drawn on paper. In other tests it was shown that the
> people lacked the ability to remember specific numbers.
Given that there are even other species that can do this: (1) I am skeptical
that these people can't do it, and (2) since animals without language can do
this, it proves that numerical matters *can* be conceptualized in the
absence of words to express them.
>
> Dr Gordon says that his research casts doubt on claims by linguists
> that people have an innate numerical sense. He says that the ability
> to perceive specific numbers is innate only up to three.
That may be, but that's unrelated to whether later development of the
ability to perceive greater numbers relies on language.
>
> Dr Gordon's work supports findings made in the 1930s by Benjamin Lee
> Whorf, a linguist who argued that language can determine the nature
> and content of thought. "Whether one language chooses to distinguish
> one thing versus another affects how an individual perceives reality,"
> Dr Gordon said.
>
> Dr Lisa Feigenson, a psychologist from Johns Hopkins University in
> Baltimore, Maryland, said that Dr Gordon's study was "fantastic". She
> said that language must be causing the "drastic" difference in the
> number sense of the Piraha.
>
> Prof Brian Butterworth, of University College London, said that Dr
> Gordon's pioneering work had produced evidence that we needed
> "counting words" in order to have concepts of numbers beyond three.
>
> "That is, we can have a sense of threeness without having a word for
> three, but we cannot have a sense of fourness and beyond without the
> words to express it," Prof Butterworth said.
>
> "This does seem surprising, however, since English-speaking children
> of three or four years old, who can use only the words one and two
> accurately in counting, can match and compare sets of objects up to
> six or seven."
Which contradicts the findings of the study being reported, though the
author doesn't seem to have noticed that.
Ron Hardin
>
> "Mike Girouard" <fogg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:cb8d4013.04082...@posting.google.com..
> > By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
> > (Filed: 20/08/2004)
> >
> >
> > Language moulds our thoughts so much that we cannot conceptualise
> > ideas for which we do not have words, according to an American
> > researcher.
>
> If it were true, it would lead to the absurdity that at the point where
> language began people had never conceptualized any ideas at all. But if they
> had no ideas, then what led to their having words to discuss these ideas
> they didn't have? QED by reductio ad absurdum.
Consider the reverse, where there's a word and no concept, like ``comfort''
in various studies, eg. ``rates highest in comfort.''
You can pose questions, add up numbers, rank the highest, but there's still
no concept corresponding to what you're measuring.
What you get is proceduralism and a wave at an ordinary language idiom, eg.
``Well, I don't do it for your comfort ...'' does not have a ranking in mind
but rather a cluster of related words and traditions. Still no concept until
you get back to its surprising etymology.
Lexicographers make do by following the traditions into other traditions.
The word though is handy and habitual.
So in a reverse turn, you get the original result; handy and habitual words
that are the work of traditions substitute where concepts are absent.
But then what is a tradition. It sounds like it comes from gift.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
alexV
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:4126CA...@alphalink.com.au...
> Mike Girouard wrote:
>
> > Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
> > By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
> > (Filed: 20/08/2004)
>
> Lovely garbage.
>
> > Language moulds our thoughts so much that we cannot conceptualise
> > ideas for which we do not have words, according to an American
> > researcher.
>
> Sure, ever heard of a certain chemist with a funny name
> who dreamt a certain molecule, and happened to be right?
>
> And BTW, how did the notion of "phoneme" ever come into
> being? We could not conceptualize it when there was no
> word for it, could we? So, some smart cookie thought:
> "Pho-neme, pho-neme, hey! that's a nice-sounding word!"
> And he said unto himself: "Let 'phoneme' designate those
> little things with the sort of raffia work base, that
> has an attachment". Now, of, course, it was difficult
> to get the meaning across to the rest of the world, which
> had no word for "phoneme" and therefore could not
> conceptualize it. And there, folks, lieth the origin
> of modern phonology. On en apprend tous les jours, hein?
The sheer naiveté of this absurd paragraph is beyond belief!
I haven't seen the Nature article yet but judged by the synopsis this is
precisely what is supposed to take place. We cannot conceptualize things we
do not have GENES for. All concepts in the world are genetically driven. If
there is no gene to comprehend large numbers the person will tell you that
everything large than 2 is MANY. It is quite enough for them. There is no
way you can teach them to count until 10 even you invent the words for them.
I AM SURE THIS HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY. Since they do not have a gene, they do
not have the words for 3,4,5 etc. They have no concept of it not because
they failed to come up with the word yet but because both the word and the
concept are absent with the lack of the foundation which is genetic. You
cannot perk both the concept and its symbol, word, on a foundation of
nothing.
There are many parallels in the animal world. There the concepts exist
without any words attached, BTW. Chimps can count until 6, many birds are
able to count to 2 or 3.
In the ontogenesis and early development children of the modernity clearly
master higher and higher numbers gradually while the genes begin to adjust
to their function. The words for big numbers are all around them but they
cannot handle it.
I suggest that the author of this ridicule try to learn the Tensor Calculus
and General Relativity. It will give him a good lesson not to get into
adventures without procuring the proper genes first.
The author of this paragraph amused the audience with mocking and exposing
his own inability to conceptualize things correctly.
Sorry for being abrasive. Ignorance seems to be accepted as a virtue in this
lofty liberal newsgroup. It is hard to take.
Brian M. Scott
<alex...@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:_-Sdnd72B6O...@comcast.com> in sci.lang:
[...]
> I haven't seen the Nature article yet but judged by the
> synopsis this is precisely what is supposed to take
> place. We cannot conceptualize things we do not have
> GENES for. All concepts in the world are genetically
> driven. If there is no gene to comprehend large numbers
> the person will tell you that everything large than 2 is
> MANY. It is quite enough for them. There is no way you
> can teach them to count until 10 even you invent the
> words for them.
[...]
> In the ontogenesis and early development children of the
> modernity clearly master higher and higher numbers
> gradually while the genes begin to adjust to their
> function. The words for big numbers are all around them
> but they cannot handle it.
[...]
> Sorry for being abrasive. Ignorance seems to be accepted
> as a virtue in this lofty liberal newsgroup. It is hard
> to take.
No one who talks about a 'gene to comprehend large numbers'
and 'genes begin[ning] to adjust to their function' has any
business complaining about the ignorance of others.
Brian
Harlan Messinger
>Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
>By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
>(Filed: 20/08/2004)
This guy was interviewed today on Science Friday on National Public
Radio.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jacques Guy
> Actually, the "roughly one" is great for the opening offer, since it lets
> you be coy about whether you're actually willing to offer "one" or "two".
I understand it as roughly 0.9999999... (which is one, as we all know),
that is, 0.999 for instance. Or 0.99. Or, why not, let's be a devil! 0.9
Now it occurs to me that those people can't count to 9. So "roughly one"
must be 0.2, perhaps even 0.1. I can't wait for the second installment,
this time in the mathematics section of Nature. If they have one.
If they don't, here is the golden opportunity of golden opportunities.
Lessee... (http://www.nature.com/nature/contacts/editorial.html)
Physical sciences... biological sciences... nope, no eeny meeny
miny mo sciences. Now is the time! And high time it is too.
You listening to this, Dear Editor, Mr Philip Campbell, Sir?
Jacques Guy
> Sorry for being abrasive.
No hard feelings, it's not your fault.
> Ignorance seems to be accepted as a virtue in this
> lofty liberal newsgroup. It is hard to take.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's because you lack the _gene_, see?
Jacques Guy
>
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:06:55 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> <news:4125E9...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
> Dan Everett's web site has a link to Gordon's.
He's figured out which side his bread was Butterworth,
then.
Peter T. Daniels
say the exact opposite of what was reported here.
All we got is a reporter from the Daily Telegraph trying to explain
something way beyond him.
Peter T. Daniels
Or who can't recognize when Jacques, he makes zee joke.
But remember, this is alexV, whom we've met before.
Jacques Guy
> Or who can't recognize when Jacques, he makes zee joke.
That's because he's missing the right gene.
> But remember, this is alexV, whom we've met before.
No, I don't remember him. I must be missing the
alexV-recognition gene :-(
Ron Hardin
Jacques Guy
> Francis Poulenc has a Sonata for One or Two Pianos
> http://www.piano-pal.com/poulenc.htm
So he lacked the same gene exactly as the Piraha.
I see the germ of a seminal paper for Nature there.
And another for Scientific American. New Scientist
will be interested too, no doubt.
Is Cavalli-Sforza still around?
Let's cross-post this to talk.origins, eh?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Let's cross-post this to talk.origins, eh?
Please do... the t.o. trolls have been slack for the past few days, and
I'm getting bored.
Tom Breton
> Scientist says numeracy theories don't add up
> By Roger Highfield, Science Editor (Daily Telegraph)
> (Filed: 20/08/2004)
I read that too. I thought it was pretty flimsy, actually.
The write-up that I read, different from this, pointed out what had
immediately occured to me, that the result could be explained in at
least two mundane ways. It also kept the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis at a
healthy arm's length.
--
Tom Breton, the calm-eyed visionary
Kleinecke
Journalist confused as usual.
First off, South American "Indians" have no difficulty counting in
general. The Inca could count like crazy.
In the Amazon Basin there seem to be relatively little interest in
counting. The average Indian simply displayed fingers and toes. I get
the impression there were tribal specialists who could do big counts
(a man was worth 20 and you might even say a man of men, 400, and so
on).
The languages themselves usually only had separate words for one or
two and these were often hard to recognize because of classifiers. If
you speak a language with classifiers the idea of just "one" as
opposed to, say, "one house" or "one man" is not obvious and you have
to be motivated to make the abstraction.
In the last century or so the Indians of Amazon Basin have been
relentlessly subjected to all kinds of genocide and it is a wonder
that any survive at all. Those that do cannot afford the luxury of
much cultural superstructure. If they haven't kept up on counting it
comes as no surprise to me.
But the earliest records we have, almost nothing before 1800, do show
weak counting systems. But, to be realistic, if you don't use money
and live in small groups, why is counting very important?
alexV
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>
> > Actually, the "roughly one" is great for the opening offer, since it
lets
> > you be coy about whether you're actually willing to offer "one" or
"two".
>
> I understand it as roughly 0.9999999... (which is one, as we all know),
> that is, 0.999 for instance. Or 0.99. Or, why not, let's be a devil! 0.9
0.9... (you call it 0.9999999...) is not the unit, or one.
0.9..(9) is an irrational number. The unit is a rational and even natural
number. They are fundamentally different.
0.999 is not 0.99. Both are fractions or rational numbers. And they are also
different. It is a strange claim that we all know that they are the same. I
do not know it. I bet any science school teacher will tell you they are
different.
Why are you playing loose with mathematical concepts you do not understand?
You do not like when non-linguists play loose with your concepts and you
have no respect for the concepts of other disciplines.
> Now it occurs to me that those people can't count to 9.
FINALLY!
>So "roughly one" must be 0.2, perhaps even 0.1.
This is just ??????????????????? If I had four eyebrows they would have all
gone up.
It may be one of the linguist's "jokes" however? Then my eyebrows come down.
>I can't wait for the second installment,
> this time in the mathematics section of Nature. If they have one.
> If they don't, here is the golden opportunity of golden opportunities.
> Lessee... (http://www.nature.com/nature/contacts/editorial.html)
> Physical sciences... biological sciences... nope, no eeny meeny
> miny mo sciences. Now is the time! And high time it is too.
>
> You listening to this, Dear Editor, Mr Philip Campbell, Sir?
You are like a naughty kid in middle school. No difference. Finding silly
pleasure in shooting paper balls in the teacher's back.
alexV
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:412678...@worldnet.att.net...
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >
> Or who can't recognize when Jacques, he makes zee joke.
Do not lie. There was no joke in what he said and you know it well. Lying is
against one of the commandments but I do not remember which one, perhaps the
thirteenth.
Besides all your so called "jokes" have an odor of a funeral home to them.
Zobby
> "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41275E...@alphalink.com.au...
>> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, the "roughly one" is great for the opening offer, since it
> lets
>>> you be coy about whether you're actually willing to offer "one" or
> "two".
>>
>> I understand it as roughly 0.9999999... (which is one, as we all know),
>> that is, 0.999 for instance. Or 0.99. Or, why not, let's be a devil! 0.9
>
> 0.9... (you call it 0.9999999...) is not the unit, or one.
Yes, it is. The "..." carries some information that you have overlooked.
> 0.9..(9) is an irrational number. The unit is a rational and even natural
> number. They are fundamentally different.
Irrational number?
Ok, here is a hint:
1/3 is rational, right?
1/3 = 0.333...
You agree so far? Then 0.333... is rational.
Now, multiply 1/3 by 3. What do you get? What do you get when you multiply
0.3333... by 3?
What do you think 0.9999... means? Look up the concept of limit and then
you can read the following:
0.9999.... =
0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...
= 0.9(1+10^-1+10^-2+...)
= 0.9 lim Sum[10^-n]
= 0.9 lim [(1 - 1/10^n)/(1 - 1/10)]
= 0.9 x 1/(1 - 0.1) = 1
> 0.999 is not 0.99. Both are fractions or rational numbers. And they are also
> different. It is a strange claim that we all know that they are the same. I
> do not know it. I bet any science school teacher will tell you they are
> different.
>
> Why are you playing loose with mathematical concepts you do not understand?
Hehehe.
Z.
Peter T. Daniels
I'm not joking when I point out how racist you are.
You're the same racist who miscategorized that Korean baby story last
week.
Jacques Guy
>
> "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41275E...@alphalink.com.au...
> > You listening to this, Dear Editor, Mr Philip Campbell, Sir?
> You are like a naughty kid in middle school. No difference. Finding silly
> pleasure in shooting paper balls in the teacher's back.
What teacher? A pompous fart is not a teacher. I would shoot
paper balls (dipped in ink) at them if I had found a way
to stuff paper balls through my modem. But as modems buzz,
I must be content with words.
Satire, my good Sasha V, satire. You know, the hairy fellows
with a big nose, small horns and missapen legs, much like
a goat's, and a big dick hanging out sniffing the air for
the shrimp scent of nymph pussy? That's satire for you.
Leon Zaks
"Zobby" <zo...@zobby.com> wrote in message
news:w0f27fjqphzm.1w...@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:36:23 -0400, alexV wrote:
>
> >
[...]
> > Why are you playing loose with mathematical concepts you do not
understand?
>
> Hehehe.
>
> Z.
So far AlexV has shown to us that he doesn't understand the basic things
about either linguistics or genetics. Now he's having a problem with middle
school math. Is it any wonder that someone like that would be desperately
looking for people towards whom he could feel "superior"?
Leon
Bobby D. Bryant
> This is just ??????????????????? If I had four eyebrows they would have
> all gone up.
If you get in the habit of taking Jacques seriously, you're going to hurt
your eyebrows.
Jacques Guy
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:36:23 -0400, alexV wrote:
>
> > This is just ??????????????????? If I had four eyebrows they would have
> > all gone up.
> If you get in the habit of taking Jacques seriously, you're going to hurt
> your eyebrows.
I still like his long-sleeved pyjamas. Wonder where he got them from?
As for repeating fractions being irrational, I managed to figure that
out. 22/7 is a repeating fraction. It is also equal to pi, which is
irrational. Well... give or take a bit of Piraha slack. Hmmm... the
Piraha don't wear any. So, no slack(s), and therefore pi _is_ 22/7.
QED.
Brian M. Scott
<news:Fs6dnWcWR_l...@comcast.com> in sci.lang:
> "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41275E...@alphalink.com.au...
[...]
>> I understand it as roughly 0.9999999... (which is one, as we all know),
>> that is, 0.999 for instance. Or 0.99. Or, why not, let's be a devil! 0.9
> 0.9... (you call it 0.9999999...) is not the unit, or one.
It certainly is.
> 0.9..(9) is an irrational number.
It is not. It is easy to prove that a repeating decimal is
always rational.
> The unit is a rational and even natural
> number. They are fundamentally different.
You are wrong. 0.999... is by definition the limit of the
infinite series Sum[n > 0; (1/9)^n], which is 1.
[...]
> Why are you playing loose with mathematical concepts
> you do not understand?
Unlike you, Jacques *does* understand them.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Department of Mathematics
Cleveland State University
Brian M. Scott
<jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in
<news:412915...@alphalink.com.au> in sci.lang:
[...]
> As for repeating fractions being irrational, I managed to figure that
> out. 22/7 is a repeating fraction. It is also equal to pi, which is
> irrational. Well... give or take a bit of Piraha slack. Hmmm... the
> Piraha don't wear any. So, no slack(s), and therefore pi _is_ 22/7.
> QED.
355/113, if you prefer tighter slacks.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Maybe you could check them with the non-Korean babies.
Zobby
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:36:23 -0400, alexV
>
>> 0.9... (you call it 0.9999999...) is not the unit, or one.
[...]
>
> You are wrong. 0.999... is by definition the limit of the
> infinite series Sum[n > 0; (1/9)^n], which is 1.
Luckily, alexV doesn't know enough to realize that you are wrong. See the
demonstration I posted yesterday: the summation term should be 9 x 1/10^n,
not 1/9^n.
Z.
Brian M. Scott
wrote in <news:1ay9zfxfau429.1bq6hgeqedq65$.d...@40tude.net>
in sci.lang:
Ouch. You're right, of course. Comes of letting
exasperation get out of hand.
Brian
Rolleston
below. See my comments near the end of this message.
alexV wrote:
>0.9... (you call it 0.9999999...) is not the unit, or one.
>
>0.9..(9) is an irrational number. The unit is a rational and even natural
>number. They are fundamentally different.
:
>Why are you playing loose with mathematical concepts you do not understand?
I am very much mistaken if this is not another one for the logician
of 221B Bonkers Street, a man whose nostrils seem to dilate with
a purely animal lust for the chase.
A hansom cab draws up. Step inside. Hold tight, for we shall
rattle through the gas-lit streets as we chase phantom figures
barely perceptible in the gloom.
We start with alexV (alex...@comcast.net). Note the number
7623. We shall see it again. Note also that there is another AlexV
(al...@comcast.net) who posts to sci.lang.
We leap to a message by another sci.langer, who goes by the
name AlexB (al...@comcast.net): http://tinyurl.com/6rdph
AlexB appears to be thanking someone for a response to alexV's
request. Curious. More curious still when we find a certain alexB
(alex...@hotmail.com) involved with AlexB in an exchange
with PTD: http://tinyurl.com/3sd39
Remember that number? There it is again in alexB's email address.
Now here's a strange thing.
Some of alexB's earlier postings are signed "-f":
http://tinyurl.com/5agbe
http://tinyurl.com/5hq26
In the second of the two messages we find this:
"The concept of God is genetically determined."
We ask ourselves, which other poster signs his messages
in the same way? There are few who do, but there is one
Frank Vivacious (frankvi...@msn.com) who wrote this:
[Google Groups, http://tinyurl.com/4cg9f]
"Religiosity is genetically determined."
And there is a Frank Vivacious (frankvi...@hotmail.com),
who, most of the time, signs his messages "-f". But what's this:
It's signed "- alexB"!
This is all becoming rather drawn out, so we complete the
turn of the wheel with a quote from Mr Vivacious himself:
[Google Groups, http://tinyurl.com/6pc2b]
The joke has somewhat misfired and has to be modified.
It is, in fact, a rational number: 2.9333333. My apologies.
This is just a bit of light-hearted amateur sleuthing, so don't
draw too many conclusions. There will be many weaknesses
in any argument based on the details above alone. For this
reason, I am not going to claim that alexV is Frank Vivacious.
Instead, I shall retire to my Bonkers St. residence and torture
the neighbours with my violin playing.
R.
Jacques Guy
> 355/113, if you prefer tighter slacks.
Er... you know the story of the fellow who
suffered from terrible migraines, do you?
alexV
You are right. There are no irrational numbers in here. All decimal numbers
with repeats (periodicity) are rational. I am sorry.
Rolleston
[...]
>You are right. There are no irrational numbers in here. All decimal numbers
>with repeats (periodicity) are rational. I am sorry.
Never mind. These things happen. Btw, are you Frank Vivacious?
Your messages brought to mind some of his, for some reason.
R.
Paul J Kriha
Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message news:4129D5...@alphalink.com.au...
Is that the story about a guy who had an amputation performed
by his doctor to stop terrible migraines? He is happy about having
no more headaches but later finds it was all his tailor's fault.
When he has another pair of pants made the tailor asks him
on which side he prefers to "carry". When he is reticent to answer
the tailor says "It is important sir, if we get it wrong, the pants
could give you terrible headaches".
PJK
Jacques Guy
>
> Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message news:4129D5...@alphalink.com.au...
> > Er... you know the story of the fellow who
> > suffered from terrible migraines, do you?
> Is that the story about a guy who had an amputation performed
> by his doctor to stop terrible migraines? He is happy about having
> no more headaches but later finds it was all his tailor's fault.
> When he has another pair of pants made the tailor asks him
> on which side he prefers to "carry". When he is reticent to answer
> the tailor says "It is important sir, if we get it wrong, the pants
> could give you terrible headaches".
Close enough. According to my version, it was the underwear,
a size too small. So in my version, it was the fellow's fault.
"Carry"? Interesting. The expression I know is "dress".
"Which side do you dress?" Comments, anyone?
Keith Edgerley
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:412A76...@alphalink.com.au...
"Dress" would be the British tailor's term, I feel.
On the other hand, the last time I heard that joke it was told in French,
and I'm fairly sure the teller used the verb "porter".
Which could swing it either way, I suppose.
--
Keith Edgerley
owe war sint verswunden
alliu miniu jar
Mike Girouard
My version is a little Jewish tailor and shirt collars.
FoggyTown
Jacques Guy
> My version is a little Jewish tailor and shirt collars.
That, somehow, reminds me of this joke about a woman
who had had many, many, face-lifts and complained
that the last one had left her with bags under her eyes
and a moustache on her chin.
"Madam", said the surgeon, "the bags are your breasts
and the moustache your pubic hair."
Paul J Kriha
Mike Girouard <fogg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cb8d4013.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Keith Edgerley" <edger...@bluewin.ch> wrote in message news:<4129fb10$1...@news.bluewin.ch>...
> > "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:412A76...@alphalink.com.au...
> > > Paul J Kriha wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:4129D5...@alphalink.com.au...
> >
> > > > > Er... you know the story of the fellow who
> > > > > suffered from terrible migraines, do you?
> >
> > > > Is that the story about a guy who had an amputation performed
> > > > by his doctor to stop terrible migraines? He is happy about having
> > > > no more headaches but later finds it was all his tailor's fault.
> > > > When he has another pair of pants made the tailor asks him
> > > > on which side he prefers to "carry". When he is reticent to answer
> > > > the tailor says "It is important sir, if we get it wrong, the pants
> > > > could give you terrible headaches".
> > >
> > > Close enough. According to my version, it was the underwear,
> > > a size too small. So in my version, it was the fellow's fault.
> > > "Carry"? Interesting. The expression I know is "dress".
> > > "Which side do you dress?" Comments, anyone?
> >
> > "Dress" would be the British tailor's term, I feel.
True, "dress" would also be more common term up here downunder.
That is if you manage at all to find an English speaking tailor :-)
> > On the other hand, the last time I heard that joke it was told in French,
> > and I'm fairly sure the teller used the verb "porter".
> >
> > Which could swing it either way, I suppose.
>
> My version is a little Jewish tailor and shirt collars.
> FoggyTown
But what kind of amputation was involved here? :-)
And how did it stop the migrains? :-)
PJK
David Brandon Thomas
>
>> 355/113, if you prefer tighter slacks.
>
>suffered from terrible migraines, do you?
Wore tight pants and thought with his... nevermind.
- Vae
"You are here to learn the mysteries of Kung Fu, not linguistics. If you can't
understand me, I will communicate with you like I would a dog. When I yell,
when I point, when I beat you with my stick!" {Pai Mei}
David Brandon Thomas
>
>> My version is a little Jewish tailor and shirt collars.
>
>who had had many, many, face-lifts and complained
>that the last one had left her with bags under her eyes
>and a moustache on her chin.
>
>"Madam", said the surgeon, "the bags are your breasts
>and the moustache your pubic hair."
Not to mention her "Adam's Apple..."
Jacques Guy
> Not to mention her "Adam's Apple..."
Not to mention that I stuffed up big time. "A moustache
on her chin" I wrote. Can you imagine that? Ze mind,
she boggle.
Peter T. Daniels
In English we call it a goatee.
Jacques Guy
> In English we call it a goatee.
Yes, so do I, when I speak English I mean.
Now here is a profound thought. I wear
a beard. An almost full beard (I only shave
the narrow strip of upper lip beneath the nose.
I won't tell the reason: you might be having
breakfast, or lunch, or dinner, and I don't
want to spoil you appetite. Anyway, where
was I? Ah yes...) Do I wear a goatee?
Peter T. Daniels
No.
Rolleston
Jacques Guy
> Anyway, where
> > was I? Ah yes...) Do I wear a goatee?
> No.
Such a pithy, informative answer.
Let me inquire further:
-- Why?
No, don't trouble yourself, I'll answer for you:
-- Because.
Jacques Guy
> Does it look like this:
> http://www.northrup.org/Photos/Animals/low/billy-goat-profile1.jpg ?
No, not at all. So goats wear them differently.
I wonder... it says "billy-goat". Where do nanny-goats
wear them? Is there a photo there too?
David Brandon Thomas
>
>> Not to mention her "Adam's Apple..."
>
>Not to mention that I stuffed up big time. "A moustache
>on her chin" I wrote. Can you imagine that? Ze mind,
>she boggle.
Hmm... I had just assumed she was really, really ugly.
And what, sir, doth she boggle?
(Heh.)
Jacques Guy
> And what, sir, doth she boggle?
Ze mind? She boggleth naught, Sir,
nor does anything nor anyone else.
"Boggle" is intransitive, is he not?
David Brandon Thomas
[Intransitive it is, yet
I jest that it is not]
Yet how boggleth she naught;
Naught something would be?
And how startled to be boggled, poor Naught!
Keith Edgerley
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:412CFD...@alphalink.com.au...
Not nowadays
I've been trying, but for the life of me I can't remember who first produced
the expression "it boggles the mind." It was, I think, a White House defence
spokesman.
Does anyone know?
Clearly, it was an instant success.
--
Keith Edgerley
Jacques Guy
> Not nowadays
> I've been trying, but for the life of me I can't remember who first produced
> the expression "it boggles the mind." It was, I think, a White House defence
> spokesman.
> Does anyone know?
> Clearly, it was an instant success.
Sacred faeces! I just did a google search for "boggles the mind" and...
do one yourselves. I just cannot believe it. My mind boggleth over.
Des Small
> Keith Edgerley wrote:
>
> > Not nowadays
>
> > I've been trying, but for the life of me I can't remember who
> > first produced the expression "it boggles the mind." It was, I
> > think, a White House defence spokesman. Does anyone know?
> > Clearly, it was an instant success.
From the entry for <boggle> at
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boggles&r=67>:
"""
To shy away or be overcome with fright or astonishment: "The mind now
boggling at all the numbers on the table, both sides agreed to a
recess of an hour" (Henry A. Kissinger).
"""
> Sacred faeces! I just did a google search for "boggles the mind" and...
> do one yourselves. I just cannot believe it. My mind boggleth over.
Webfroot, huh? Crazy!
Des
has no idea
--
"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the
International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had
close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian
and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>
> > Keith Edgerley wrote:
> >
> > > Not nowadays
> >
> > > I've been trying, but for the life of me I can't remember who
> > > first produced the expression "it boggles the mind." It was, I
> > > think, a White House defence spokesman. Does anyone know?
> > > Clearly, it was an instant success.
>
> From the entry for <boggle> at
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boggles&r=67>:
>
> """
> To shy away or be overcome with fright or astonishment: "The mind now
> boggling at all the numbers on the table, both sides agreed to a
> recess of an hour" (Henry A. Kissinger).
> """
>
> > Sacred faeces! I just did a google search for "boggles the mind" and...
> > do one yourselves. I just cannot believe it. My mind boggleth over.
>
> Webfroot, huh? Crazy!
>
> Des
> has no idea
Which came first, the transitive seen above, or the adjective
"mind-boggling"? Can the latter reasonably be seen as a derivation from
"the mind boggles"?
(And Boggle is Peggy Hill's favorite pastime.)
Peter T. Daniels
Because a goatee is only on the chin; if you don't shave the sides of
the jaw and the cheeks, you have, perhaps, a "chin-strap" beard,
something like Abraham Lincoln's.
The name is from its putative resemblance to a billy-goat's whiskers.
For a prototypical example, see drawings of Uncle Sam.
Ben Zimmer
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Des Small wrote:
> >
> > Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
> >
> > > Keith Edgerley wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've been trying, but for the life of me I can't remember who
> > > > first produced the expression "it boggles the mind." It was, I
> > > > think, a White House defence spokesman. Does anyone know?
> > > > Clearly, it was an instant success.
> >
> > From the entry for <boggle> at
> > <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boggles&r=67>:
> >
> > """
> > To shy away or be overcome with fright or astonishment: "The mind now
> > boggling at all the numbers on the table, both sides agreed to a
> > recess of an hour" (Henry A. Kissinger).
> > """
> >
> > > Sacred faeces! I just did a google search for "boggles the mind" and...
> > > do one yourselves. I just cannot believe it. My mind boggleth over.
>
> "mind-boggling"? Can the latter reasonably be seen as a derivation from
> "the mind boggles"?
According to the OED's latest draft entries for the third edition, "the
mind boggles" goes all the way back to 1899, while "mind-boggling" is
only attested from 1964. Here are the earliest cites:
1899 Amer. Jrnl. Philol. 20 439 If the MSS, in attributing
works to ancient authors, only furnish us with a thesis to
prove, there is opened a vista of scepticism and material
for dissertations at which the mind boggles.
1964 Punch 19 Feb. 257/1 A lot of mind-boggling statistics.
There are no OED cites yet for transitive "boggle the mind", but the New
York Times archive has examples back to 1958 (long before Kissinger):
Topics of The Times
New York Times, Apr 8, 1958, p. 28
A few years ago the idea of a man-made star no bigger
than a grapefruit tracking through space would have
boggled the mind.
The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after
'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive
usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation
(on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
Jacques Guy
> Because a goatee is only on the chin; if you don't shave the sides of
> the jaw and the cheeks, you have, perhaps, a "chin-strap" beard,
> something like Abraham Lincoln's.
>
> The name is from its putative resemblance to a billy-goat's whiskers.
Goodness gracious me! I have partaken of a delicious explanation!
Rolleston
Beardism is widespread in these isles. We are not far from the day
when the wearing of a chin-rug will be an imprisonable offence.
Beardies are sinister masters of disguise. Their heads could be
upside-down and you just wouldn't know it.
What's more, chin hair goes against tradition: Omnes vero se
Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem, atque hoc
horridiores sunt in pugna aspectu; capilloque sunt promisso atque
omni parte corporis rasa praeter caput et labrum superius. -Caes
Moustaches and blue dye to make a comeback.
R.
Peter T. Daniels
> The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after
> 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive
> usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation
> (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
What model could the participle-from-intransitive have been following?
(Do you dare ask a.u.e.? I won't.)
Ron Hardin
>
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
>
> > The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after
> > 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive
> > usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation
> > (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
>
> What model could the participle-from-intransitive have been following?
``It boggles the mind'' is the obvious source.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Ben Zimmer wrote:
> >
> > > The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after
> > > 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive
> > > usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation
> > > (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
> >
> > What model could the participle-from-intransitive have been following?
>
> ``It boggles the mind'' is the obvious source.
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Have you, as usual, not been paying attention? The latter is not
attested until considerably after the former.
Ron Hardin
> > > What model could the participle-from-intransitive have been following?
> >
> > ``It boggles the mind'' is the obvious source.
>
> attested until considerably after the former.
So now you know about attestation.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
Ben Zimmer
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
[snippage restored so that a.u.e can follow along]
> > York Times archive has examples back to 1958:
> >
> > Topics of The Times
> > New York Times, Apr 8, 1958, p. 28
> > A few years ago the idea of a man-made star no bigger
> > than a grapefruit tracking through space would have
> > boggled the mind.
> >
> > The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after
> > 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive
> > usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation
> > (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
>
> What model could the participle-from-intransitive have been following?
>
> (Do you dare ask a.u.e.? I won't.)
There are a number of participles of the form X-Ying, meaning "causing
one's X to Y" (i.e., Y is construed intransitively):
heart-pounding
jaw-dropping
eye-popping
spine-tingling (?)
stomach-churning (?)
(The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could be
understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering",
and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or
intransitively.)
Any others?
Richard Chambers
"Ben Zimmer" <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote
Yes, good idea. Let's have a brain-storming session. That usually helps the
idea-forming process.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Ben Zimmer
>
> "Ben Zimmer" <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote
>
[snip re: "mind-boggling"]
> > There are a number of participles of the form X-Ying, meaning "causing
> > one's X to Y" (i.e., Y is construed intransitively):
> >
> > heart-pounding
> > jaw-dropping
> > eye-popping
> > spine-tingling (?)
> > stomach-churning (?)
> >
> > (The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could be
> > understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering",
> > and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or
> > intransitively.)
> >
> > Any others?
>
> Yes, good idea. Let's have a brain-storming session. That usually helps the
> idea-forming process.
"Brain-storming" is derived from "brain-storm", and thus has no bearing
on the discussion (it doesn't mean "causing one's brain to storm").
"Idea-forming" is another one that could be construed either
transitively or intransitively (the process forms ideas, or the process
causes ideas to form).
I'll restate the question: are there any others that are clearly
intransitive?
Rolleston
[...]
>There are a number of participles of the form X-Ying, meaning "causing
>one's X to Y" (i.e., Y is construed intransitively):
>
>heart-pounding
>jaw-dropping
>eye-popping
>spine-tingling (?)
>stomach-churning (?)
>
>(The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn" could be
>understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening", "ear-shattering",
>and "heart-wrenching" could be construed either transitively or
>intransitively.)
"heart-sinking"?
"It sank her heart" - iffy
"Her heart sank" - fine
"thread-zimmering"?
R.
Rolleston
R.
Richard Maurer
There are a number of participles of the form X-Ying, meaning
"causing one's X to Y" (i.e., Y is construed intransitively):
heart-pounding
jaw-dropping
eye-popping
spine-tingling (?)
stomach-churning (?)
(The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn"
could beunderstood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening",
"ear-shattering", and "heart-wrenching" could be construed
either transitively or intransitively.)
Ben Zimmer later:
I'll restate the question: are there any others
that are clearly intransitive?
Have any of these that you like.
toe-curling
foot-tapping
heart-stopping
gut-wrenching
toe-tapping
eyebrow-raising
hair-raising
nail-biting
knee-buckling
blood-draining
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels
The only one that _might_ be intransitive is "knee-buckling," though I
don't know quite what it would mean.
Rolleston
[...]
>> foot-tapping
>> heart-stopping
>> gut-wrenching
>> toe-tapping
>> eyebrow-raising
>> hair-raising
>> nail-biting
>> knee-buckling
>> blood-draining
>
>The only one that _might_ be intransitive is "knee-buckling," though I
>don't know quite what it would mean.
What about "foot-tapping"?
Clearly, one can tap feet. That is not what is meant.
R.
Steve Hayes
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>[...]
>>> foot-tapping
>>> heart-stopping
>>> gut-wrenching
>>> toe-tapping
>>> eyebrow-raising
>>> hair-raising
>>> nail-biting
>>> knee-buckling
>>> blood-draining
>>
>>The only one that _might_ be intransitive is "knee-buckling," though I
>>don't know quite what it would mean.
>
>What about "foot-tapping"?
And finger-lickin'?
Though I prefer the Afrikaans: "vingerlek-lekker".
Which reminds me of the Afrikaans version of "Big Rock Candy Mountain"
Waar die likkewane lik
en die aasvoels aas
en in die bobbejane bop in die berge.
which, being interpreted for the benefit of transequatorial transpondian
readers, means roughly
where the leguaans lick
and the vultures vulch (or the bait birds bait)
and the baboons bop in the mountains
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Lyle
No, that's a good one. A "toe-tapping" or "foot-tapping" tune doesn't
transitively tap your toes or feet, it sets them a'tapping.
"Arse-clenching" is not unknown over here, and I submit it's a
parallel. I have a very clear sense of what "knee-buckling" means, so
that should be in, too.
("Swash-buckling", of course, doesn't mean what everybody thinks it
means, and would in any case be inadmissible. But how are we to place
"bodice-ripping"?)
Mike.
Rolleston
[...]
>> What about "foot-tapping"?
>>
>> Clearly, one can tap feet. That is not what is meant.
>
>No, that's a good one. A "toe-tapping" or "foot-tapping" tune doesn't
>transitively tap your toes or feet, it sets them a'tapping.
In case clarification is needed (I'm not entirely sure if it is):
when I wrote "Clearly, one can tap feet" I was referring to
the transitive use.
R.
Jerry Friedman
I can't tell whether "toe-tapping", "foot-stomping", and the like
should be considered transitive or intransitive. Eyebrow-raising
behavior is the kind that raises eyebrows. Toe-tapping music doesn't
tap toes; it causes hearers to tap their toes (transitive) or causes
toes to tap or is accompanied by toes tapping (both intransitive and
possibly parallel to the supposed development from "the mind boggles"
to "mind-boggling"). Maybe the pros over there at sci.lang know how
to tell the difference and whether the difference is important.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Maurer
The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed
"after 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging
transitive usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed
to the formation (on the analogy of "mind-numbing",
"mind-altering", etc.).
Ben Zimmer later wrote:
There are a number of participles of the form X-Ying, meaning
"causing one's X to Y" (i.e., Y is construed intransitively):
heart-pounding
jaw-dropping
eye-popping
spine-tingling (?)
stomach-churning (?)
(The last two are questionable, since "tingle" and "churn"
could be understood as transitive. Similarly, "eye-opening",
"ear-shattering", and "heart-wrenching" could be construed
either transitively or intransitively.)
Richard Maurer wrote:
toe-curling
foot-tapping
heart-stopping
gut-wrenching
toe-tapping
eyebrow-raising
hair-raising
nail-biting
knee-buckling
blood-draining
Jerry Friedman wrote:
I can't tell whether "toe-tapping", "foot-stomping",
and the like should be considered transitive or intransitive.
Eyebrow-raising behavior is the kind that raises eyebrows.
Toe-tapping music doesn't tap toes; it causes hearers to tap
their toes (transitive) or causes toes to tap or is accompanied
by toes tapping (both intransitive and possibly parallel to
the supposed development from "the mind boggles"
to "mind-boggling"). Maybe the pros over there at sci.lang
know how to tell the difference and whether the difference
is important.
It occurs to me that the likely model was 'mind-opening'.
Jerry's point bothered me too.
"They were playing mind-boggling music."
"They were playing foot-tapping music."
"Jim spoke about a mind-boggling incident."
"Jim spoke about a hair-raising incident."
Where is the transitive/intransitive difference?
Is a supposition that "the mind is the whole person" involved?
Keith Edgerley
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:412DCD...@worldnet.att.net...
Is it anything to do with a knee-tremble? Or would that be knee-trembling?
--
Keith Edgerley
owe war sint verswunden
alliu miniu jar
Keith Edgerley
"Richard Maurer" <rcpb1_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:01c48be4$418a3f00$e9cb480c@default...
> >
>
> Richard Maurer wrote:
> toe-curling
> foot-tapping
> heart-stopping
> gut-wrenching
> toe-tapping
> eyebrow-raising
> hair-raising
> nail-biting
> knee-buckling
> blood-draining
>
>
>
>>
>
> It occurs to me that the likely model was 'mind-opening'.
>
Or "mind-blowing"?
Mike Girouard
>
> Though I prefer the Afrikaans: "vingerlek-lekker".
>
> Which reminds me of the Afrikaans version of "Big Rock Candy Mountain"
>
> Waar die likkewane lik
> en die aasvoels aas
> en in die bobbejane bop in die berge.
>
> which, being interpreted for the benefit of transequatorial transpondian
> readers, means roughly
>
> where the leguaans lick
> and the vultures vulch (or the bait birds bait)
> and the baboons bop in the mountains
That wasn't anywhere in the Burl Ives version as I remember.
FoggyTown
"Whatever you can do I've already done so many times it got boring."
Donna Richoux
> Rolleston <roll...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> foot-tapping
> > >> heart-stopping
> > >> gut-wrenching
> > >> toe-tapping
> > >> eyebrow-raising
> > >> hair-raising
> > >> nail-biting
> > >> knee-buckling
> > >> blood-draining
> > >
> > >The only one that _might_ be intransitive is "knee-buckling," though I
> > >don't know quite what it would mean.
> >
> > What about "foot-tapping"?
> >
> > Clearly, one can tap feet. That is not what is meant.
>
> I can't tell whether "toe-tapping", "foot-stomping", and the like
> should be considered transitive or intransitive. Eyebrow-raising
> behavior is the kind that raises eyebrows. Toe-tapping music doesn't
> tap toes; it causes hearers to tap their toes (transitive) or causes
> toes to tap or is accompanied by toes tapping (both intransitive and
> possibly parallel to the supposed development from "the mind boggles"
> to "mind-boggling"). Maybe the pros over there at sci.lang know how
> to tell the difference and whether the difference is important.
Is the difference supposed to be whether, for example, doing a thing
causes one's own foot to tap, or doing the thing causes someone *else's*
foot to tap?
Because if it is, I wouldn't call that a question of transitivity.
They're both transitive. I'd call it reflexivity. (I wash myself vs. I
wash the car.)
If that's not the point.... what is it? Is there some linguistic
significance to "transitivity" that is different from the well-known
properties of transitive and intransitive verbs?
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Douglas G. Kilday
"Ben Zimmer" <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote ...
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > "mind-boggling"? Can the latter reasonably be seen as a derivation from
> > "the mind boggles"?
>
> According to the OED's latest draft entries for the third edition, "the
> mind boggles" goes all the way back to 1899, while "mind-boggling" is
> only attested from 1964. Here are the earliest cites:
>
> 1899 Amer. Jrnl. Philol. 20 439 If the MSS, in attributing
> works to ancient authors, only furnish us with a thesis to
> prove, there is opened a vista of scepticism and material
> for dissertations at which the mind boggles.
>
> 1964 Punch 19 Feb. 257/1 A lot of mind-boggling statistics.
>
> There are no OED cites yet for transitive "boggle the mind", but the New
>
> Topics of The Times
> New York Times, Apr 8, 1958, p. 28
> A few years ago the idea of a man-made star no bigger
> than a grapefruit tracking through space would have
> boggled the mind.
>
> 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive
> usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation
> (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
The 1903 Funk & Wagnalls already has two transitive senses s.v. boggle:
1. To make a bungle or botch of. [cf. AHD1]
2. (Rare.) To perplex or disconcert.
The second sense fits "mind-boggling" quite well and could have been
illustrated by the 1958 NYT citation. In my view, the OED staff should
chuck that draft etymology and get busy looking for attestations of emerging
transitive non-bungling boggling in the 1890s.
Ben Zimmer
> > mind boggles" goes all the way back to 1899, while "mind-boggling" is
> > only attested from 1964. Here are the earliest cites:
> >
> > 1899 Amer. Jrnl. Philol. 20 439 If the MSS, in attributing
> > works to ancient authors, only furnish us with a thesis to
> > prove, there is opened a vista of scepticism and material
> > for dissertations at which the mind boggles.
> >
> > 1964 Punch 19 Feb. 257/1 A lot of mind-boggling statistics.
> >
> > There are no OED cites yet for transitive "boggle the mind", but the New
> >
> > Topics of The Times
> > New York Times, Apr 8, 1958, p. 28
> > A few years ago the idea of a man-made star no bigger
> > than a grapefruit tracking through space would have
> > boggled the mind.
> >
> > The OED's draft etymology for "mind-boggling" says it was formed "after
> > 'the mind boggles'", but it's possible that the emerging transitive
> > usage in the '50s and '60s could also have contributed to the formation
> > (on the analogy of "mind-numbing", "mind-altering", etc.).
>
> The 1903 Funk & Wagnalls already has two transitive senses s.v. boggle:
>
> 1. To make a bungle or botch of. [cf. AHD1]
> 2. (Rare.) To perplex or disconcert.
See also the 1913 Webster's, which has:
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=boggle
Bog"gle, v. t. To embarrass with difficulties;
to make a bungle or botch of. [Local, U. S.]
> The second sense fits "mind-boggling" quite well and could have been
> illustrated by the 1958 NYT citation. In my view, the OED staff should
> chuck that draft etymology and get busy looking for attestations of emerging
> transitive non-bungling boggling in the 1890s.
To be fair, the entries for "mind" and "mind-boggling" (from which I
took the above citations) have been updated recently, since the OED3
revisions started with the letter M. The OED2 entry for "boggle" looks
like it has remained intact from the late 19th century when the early
fascicles were compiled. The editors will eventually get back around to
the beginning of the alphabet, at which time I'm sure the history of
transitive "boggle" will be further elucidated.