where schoolkids learn that pi = 3, "exactly 22/7", or "always 3.14"
Kate Gladstone
Missoula (Montana, USA), and 22/7 in some unspecified location.
/1/
/a/
Report (with survey results) on the Japanese national
curriculum, at
http://www.tinyurl.com/46ymo7
"The teaching of pi equals three is actually true to a certain
extent. In the current guidelines, teachers should use 3.14, but in
certain circumstances (what circumstances, the curriculum guidelines
do not say) three may be used." —
see also
http://tinyurl.com/4zspg5
/b/
Similarly (in a news-report on recent changes in the
Japanese educational system) at
http://www.japanecho.co.jp/sum/2005/320208.html —
"The schools envisioned by these reforms [in late 1980s/early 1990s
Japan] were to focus more on fostering thinking skills and living
skills than on instilling knowledge. They would encourage diversity
rather than uniformity. With these goals in mind, the Education
Ministry began pruning the national curriculum. Sets and probability
disappeared from the elementary math curriculum in 1992, and children
were taught that the value of pi was 'about 3' (although the number
3.14 did appear in textbooks)."
http://www.japanecho.co.jp/sum/2005/320208.html
/2/
And mathematician Jim Loy — at
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/pi.htm —
talks about his own introduction to the subject:
"One of my mathematics teachers (in High School, as I recall) told us
that pi was exactly 22/7 (3+1/7), which is 3.142857142857142857 ."
/3/
Japan's young adults, and Jim Loy too, would have to adjust if they
visited Missoula, Montana: where a news-article urging an "update" to
math education — at http://tinyurl.com/427sad — urged all to keep in
mind that:
" .... pi is the number you get when you divide the
circumference of a circle, any circle, by its diameter. ... And it’s
always 3.14. That’s all we need to know."
On a more encouraging note (literally!), contemplate the Sanskrit
teaching-song for a significantly more accurate value of pi
http://tinyurl.com/3shwxg
Unlike more familiar pi-mnemonics, this ancient Indian mnemonic
doesn't rely on word-lengths but on assigning consonant-sounds to
digits.
One can thereby compose a song of any length which encodes a
numerical value to any desired precision. (Each digit corresponds with
several possible sounds, presumably making it easier to write singable
yet mathematically accurate lyrics.)
If I recall my reading, early Hindu scholars routinely used this
and similar techniques to encode, memorize, and orally transmit a
variety of mathematical/numerical data (e.g., orbital periods for the
visible planets).
Of course, the whole thing relies on the consonant-sounds of
Sanskrit ... still, this certainly doesn't rule out adapting the
system to fit the common consonant-sounds of languages more widely
spoken today.
Just think: if we get busy NOW on the "Periodic Polka" and "Log-
Table Limericks"
(and don't forget the
"Strength of Materials Mambo"!),
our post-Armageddon descendants *may* one day thank us as they climb
their long ladder back upwards.
;-S
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Sean Cleary
and put a backwards division sign in the middle of it. This will give
you a value that is good enough, off by less than a millionth, IIRC.
The others are acceptable estimates, but I would like all to be taught
as estimates, and pi as not ever repeating.
Sean
Scott Dorsey
How 3
I 1
Want 4
A 1
Drink, 5
Alcoholic 9
Of 2
Course, 6
After 5
The 3
Heavy 5
Chapters 8
Involving 9
Quantum 8
Mechanics 9
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Joel Polowin
> Quantum 8
7.
Mnemonics have their limitations. :-)
Kip Williams
And there the mnemonic ends, having run into a zero. Lucky it wasn't sooner.
Kip W
noticed that too! yes I did!
Lee Gold
>
> Sean Cleary <seanea...@juno.com> wrote:
> >The best quick estimate on pi is 355/113 start with sequence 113355
> >and put a backwards division sign in the middle of it. This will give
> >you a value that is good enough, off by less than a millionth, IIRC.
> >The others are acceptable estimates, but I would like all to be taught
> >as estimates, and pi as not ever repeating.
>
> How 3
> I 1
> Want 4
> A 1
> Drink, 5
> Alcoholic 9
> Of 2
> Course, 6
> After 5
> The 3
> Heavy 5
> Chapters 8
> Involving 9
> Quantum 8
> Mechanics 9
Now I know a spell unfailing
An artful charm
For tasks availing
Intricate results entailing
Not in too exacting mood
Poetry is pertty good
Try the talismain
Let be
Adverse ingenuity.
(learned from filker Ted Johnstone, back in the late 1960s)
--Lee
Kate Gladstone
> >> Quantum 8
>
> > 7.
If you need an "8" there, why not change "quantum" to "computer"?
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kate Gladstone
> >The best quick estimate on pi is 355/113 start with sequence 113355
> >and put a backwards division sign in the middle of it.
"Backwards division sign"?
Where and when I went to school,
the words "division sign" stood for one of these things:
÷
(a dot over a horizontal over a dot) —
whose horizontal symmetry prevents easily discerning
whether the writer had produced it backwards.
?!?!?!
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kate Gladstone
Mom, I want a large container of orange juice now.
3 . 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3
The comma tells you where to put the decimal point,
and you can even sing it to the first line of YANKEE DOODLE
if you prolong the "now."
(This prolongation reminds you that pi goes on further ...)
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kate Gladstone
> Poetry is pertty good
> Try the talismain
Does the mnemonic require (or permit) the above misspelling of
"talisman"?
I fear it brought back memories, for me,
of a professional teacher-trainer whose workshop on
"Teaching Spelling to Bad Spellers By Mermnoniacs [sic]"
I once had to sit through when I (briefly) pursued a degree in
teaching.
50% of the "mermnoniacs" we had to learn in this course
came from this teacher's own "fertial" [sic] brain —
[as in this little directive, presented as she gave it:
"just remember that FERTIAL spells out
the words 'Fruiteful Ebundant Riches To Inhants All Life'
and you will remember that this is why FERTIAL is spelled
the way that FERTIAL is spelled" ]
so, if we wanted our credit for the course,
we had to learn these wrong mnemonics,
thereby arrive at the wrong spellings,
and believe and use those spellings because, after all,
the mnemonics "justafied" and made "obbligitary"
those spellings.
(I fear that I lost my credit for that required workshop —
a loss which precluded certain future opportunities — through such
"anoying, unquooperitave behavoirs" as noting that the room had a
dictionary and asking why its cover spelled the book's title that way
instead of "dixenery" as she required us to learn through some strange
sentence involving xylophones. Don't ask me why she could spell
"xylophone" correctly but not "dictionary" ... )
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Joseph J. Kesselman
Joseph J. Kesselman
> "Backwards division sign"?
Backslash, \. The idea is to extend the existing 22/7 notation to permit
7\22 ("22 over 7 is 7 under 22"). Perfectly reasonable for use in a
mnemonic, though nonstandard.
Lee Gold
>
> Re:
>
> > Poetry is pertty good
> > Try the talismain
>
> Does the mnemonic require (or permit) the above misspelling of
> "talisman"?
No. And I usually know how to spell the word.
I'm just very tired this week.
I hope to get some rest after....
Passover starts on Saturday night, the 19th.
A&E deadline is the 21st, and I'll mail it on the 22nd.
I hope to get some rest on the 23rd.
--Lee
Kate Gladstone
Well, thanks!
;-)
By the way, does any teaching-song exist (or could someone write one)
to teach a child/parents how to challenge and change such instruction
as requires the memorization and use of incorrect mathematical data,
the memorization and use of incorrect spellings, and other Things That
Happen?
True, one or two of my songs suggest how to challenge the most
notorious venue of incorrect data: namely, creationist-style "biology"
classes. However, the tactic given there wouldn't work in other common
situations,
e.g., when one must challenge
a math instructor who teaches that "pi is always exactly 22/7" —
or an English instructor who deducts points for correct spellings of
words she can't spell and won't bother looking up —
or a history instructor who claims the USA never lost a war and never
suffered invasion before September 11th —
or a reading instructor who won't give you a passing mark, no matter
how well you read and write, if she develops the least suspicion that
you aren't firmly and absolutely monolingual.
(That has happened to some folks I've met.)
I wrote (long ago) a revenge-fantasy song about what SHOULD happen to
clueless/malicious teachers after they die ("The Evil Teacher Song" —
posted here years ago), but find myself at a loss to write a song that
would teach effective strategies for getting any such situations
corrected in the *real* world here and now (mainly because I do not
KNOW any strategies with a more-or-less-respectable success-rate in
the Orwellian world of education.
Sadly, I can't even exempt all homeschoolers from the charges:
e.g., I know of some who teach as fact that humankind never reached
the Moon — apparently these parents find somewhere, or make on their
computers at home, textbooks to suit this view.)
Who knows, and can share in song, some useful "battle tactics" for
people (of any age) trapped in Wrong Education —
or seeing their families/neighbors so trapped — and unable (for
whatever reason) to go elsewhere?
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Joseph J. Kesselman
> to teach a child/parents how to challenge and change such instruction
> as requires the memorization and use of incorrect mathematical data,
> the memorization and use of incorrect spellings, and other Things That
> Happen?
This is hardly specific to education. Seems to me that the right answer
is to take a step back from teaching and address the general point of
balancing respect for authorities with a recognition that they too can
be wrong.
Any song which expresses that idea -- and there are many -- is teaching
the right mindset. One that gets overspecific about particular cases is,
in my opinion, less likely to do what you want; it's too easy to dismiss
as "well, that one was an obvious aberration."
(Which, frankly, is my reaction to the point that started this thread.)
Kate Gladstone
> > By the way, does any teaching-song exist (or could someone write one)
> > to teach a child/parents how to challenge and change such instruction
> > as requires the memorization and use of incorrect mathematical data,
> > the memorization and use of incorrect spellings, and other Things That
> > Happen?
Joe correctly notes:
>
> This is hardly specific to education. Seems to me that the right answer
> is to take a step back from teaching and address the general point of
> balancing respect for authorities with a recognition that they too can
> be wrong. ...
I've actually tried to write songs that would make this (more general)
point —
they never got as far as the first word (except for CARELESS STEPS and
THE BALLAD OF BORIS SMEDS, which primarily address a slightly
different aspect of the issue: *what* *happens* after authorities get
it wrong. Smeds' specific — and very successful — strategy wouldn't
work too well for many other situations, because Smeds' boss at least
eventually had the good sense to invest in checking out the
possibility that Smeds had it right. One needs strategies for what to
do when a boss/teacher/whoever REFUSES to accept evidence showing that
the boss has it wrong.)
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kip Williams
>>>> Quantum 8
>>> 7.
>
> If you need an "8" there, why not change "quantum" to "computer"?
I believe the 7 is needed there.
Kip W
Joseph J. Kesselman
> I believe the 7 is needed there.
It is.
(Who needs a mnemonic -- I just memorized it as a chant, adding 4-token
units in succession as I'd mastered what came before. "3.14 1592 6535
8979 3238 4626". Stopped there because it was (a) sufficient digits for
any programming language I was working with at the time, and (b) the
next digit was <5 so the 6 is correct whether you're rounding off or
continuing. Mnemonics are useful when you can't remember the raw data,
but it's a lot faster to just have the info directly on tap.)
(I know someone who used to have root-two on tap to several thousand
digits. He'd made the additional effort to break it up into smaller
chunks so he could give you, say, the 293rd digit without having to
count all the way through.)
ObFilk: Bill Roper's _Brain_Sludge_.
Kate Gladstone
correct letter-total) in that famous pi-mnemonic.
Joe notes:
>
> (Who needs a mnemonic -- I just memorized it as a chant, adding 4-token
> units in succession as I'd mastered what came before. "3.14 1592 6535
> 8979 3238 4626".
For a beautiful pi-digits chant in women's voices (and a neat picture
of pi), click here: http://pi.ytmnd.com
And I've just found that pi, _sans_ mnemonic gimmickry, also fits
marvelously well to the tune of "The Volga Boatmen/Barbarian Happy
Birthday":
THREE point ONE four ...
ONE five NINE two ...
SIX five THREE-ee fi-ive,
EIGHT nine SEVEN nine ...
THREE two THREE-ee EI-eight, four SIX TWO,
Six FOUR THREE-ee THREE-ee, eight THREE two,
NINE seven FIVE zero, TWO-oo EIGHT EIGHT four,
One NINE SEVen wu-un, six NINE three ...
NINE NINE three ... SEven FIVE ONE ...
(etc.)
Or consider this music-video, which alternates a chant of pi with some
definitely "alt." mnemonic lyrics ..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=924236369691897191
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Lee Gold
In that case, quantum is perfect.
It's just it shouldn't be numbered as an 8.
--Lee
Joseph J. Kesselman
> And I've just found that pi, _sans_ mnemonic gimmickry, also fits
> marvelously well to the tune of "The Volga Boatmen/Barbarian Happy
> Birthday":
I've also heard folks scan it to the Irish Washerwoman, and...
Song cue: "You can sing anything you want to Alice's Restaurant."
Kip Williams
Right! We're all on the same page now. Page /8/ 7.
Kip W
Joseph J. Kesselman
> It's a lot more work to teach critical thinking in a verse than to teach
> a simple claim of fact, false or true. Songs, even the best ones, tend
> to be oversimplifications.
Cat Faber's _The_Word_Of_God_ also mostly succeeds in illustrating a
focus on evidence over authority. (Assuming the listener is ready to
hear that message; if they aren't... well, never try to teach a pig to
sing.)
I do find myself tempted to rewrite one line, though. As far as I know,
Gallileo was never tortured, or even seriously threatened with that.
<python>"Our chief weapon is surprise. And fear. Surprise and fear. Fear
and surprise... Our TWO chief weapons are surprise and fear.
And..."</python>
Kate Gladstone
>
> > By the way, does any teaching-song exist (or could someone write one)
> > to teach a child/parents how to challenge and change such instruction
> > as requires the memorization and use of incorrect mathematical data,
> > the memorization and use of incorrect spellings, and other Things That
> > Happen?
Gary notes:
>
> It's a lot more work to teach critical thinking in a verse than to teach
> a simple claim of fact, false or true. Songs, even the best ones, tend
> to be oversimplifications.
Agreed —
though I didn't have in mind so much a song on
"how to think critically"
as a song on
"what to do when some inescapable authority
PUNISHES you, or punishes someone you love,
for thinking critically,
arriving at correct conclusions,
and using them."
An example of the difference between the two:
A "how-to-think-straight" song to the tune of GREENSLEEVES
might have as its chorus
"DON'T believe everything you think,
'Cause that will make your thinking stink —
Like my friend who believes he owns a pink
Invisible unico-o-r-n!"
and then tell, verse by verse, the sad tale of this invisible-pink-
unicorn-believing friend and his silly "proofs" that this unicorn
really exists (but evades detection by mere physical means),
that the unicorn spits to make it rain, etc., etc., etc.
On the other hand, a "what-to-do-when-you-DO-think-straight-
andfolks-hurt-you-for-it"
song
would go on from there:
to tell you how to win out against a pink-unicornist
(or otherwise dangerously clueless) boss/teacher/co-worker/room-
mate/family/etc.
that penalized and otherwise harmed/damaged you
whenever you noticed/mentioned/acted on
the abundant evidence discrediting pink-unicorn claims.
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Richard Eney
Kate Gladstone <handwrit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Joe notes:
>>
>> (Who needs a mnemonic -- I just memorized it as a chant, adding 4-token
>> units in succession as I'd mastered what came before. "3.14 1592 6535
>> 8979 3238 4626".
>
>For a beautiful pi-digits chant in women's voices (and a neat picture
>of pi), click here: http://pi.ytmnd.com
>Or consider this music-video, which alternates a chant of pi with some
>definitely "alt." mnemonic lyrics ..
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=924236369691897191
Insta fragment:
Sung and chanted dreaming
You will hear it stranger
You will hear a number
Across a crowded room
Now try to learn pi
Twenty-two places long...
=Tamar Lindsay
Joseph J. Kesselman
interested in.
Lee Gold
>
> I do find myself tempted to rewrite one line, though. As far as I know,
> Gallileo was never tortured, or even seriously threatened with that.
He spent his last years under house arrest by the Inquisition.
According to http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html
and
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html,
they threatened to torture him if he didn't confess his sins and
vow to forsake them.
According to http://evolution.mbdojo.com/conflict.html,
he was "taken down into the dungeons of the church and shown
the instruments of torture that were going to be used on
him if he did not recant."
--Lee
Joseph J. Kesselman
> According to http://evolution.mbdojo.com/conflict.html,
> he was "taken down into the dungeons of the church and shown
> the instruments of torture that were going to be used on
> him if he did not recant."
That checks with my understanding. Which, unfortunately, conflicts with
Cat's lyric. I love the song, but I really want a historically correct
replacement for that one line.
I know. Picky, picky, picky. But it's too good a song to leave it in
challengable form, or so it seems to me.
Kate Gladstone
> > I do find myself tempted to rewrite one line, though. As far as I know,
> > Gallileo was never tortured, or even seriously threatened with that.
And Lee responds:
> ... they threatened to torture him if he didn't confess his sins and
> vow to forsake them.
Furthermore:
according to most sources,
the Inquisitors made Galileo watch them thoroughly explain and
demonstrate to him (though not actually ON him)
the precise usage of each torture-instrument.
Inquisition terminology called this "show-and-tell" step
(performed before actually applying the instruments to the victim)
the first degree of torture: see http://www.weirdload.com/inquis.html
If the Inquisitors called it torture, we certainly can —
but if you and your listeners have (unlike me) such hardy souls
that having to watch a demonstration of torture
wouldn't strike you as a form of torture in itself,
then why not, indeed, edit the Galileo/torture line
to something like this?
"Long ago, lest torture break the remnant of his will ... "
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Joseph J. Kesselman
Effective... This is certainly an improvement, and can be sung alongside
folks who are singing the original words without disrupting them. That's
two points in its favor.
"Remnant" still bothers me, in part because of the way I've heard the
story (which I can't remember well enough to quote authoritatively, so
this may not be a valid objection).
Lemme ponder -- and, if I can find time, recheck to see how far off my
memory is. I may go with this or may tweak it another few degrees.
David G. Bell
<garym-1D29EF....@news-out.mv.net>
garym@_MYLASTNAME_.com "Gary McGath" wrote:
> In article
> <55664219-3644-49f3...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Kate Gladstone <handwrit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pi equals (or until recently equaled) 3 in Japan, "always 3.14" in
> > Missoula (Montana, USA), and 22/7 in some unspecified location.
> >
> > /1/
> > /a/
> > Report (with survey results) on the Japanese national
> > curriculum, at
> > http://www.tinyurl.com/46ymo7
> > "The teaching of pi equals three is actually true to a certain
> > extent. In the current guidelines, teachers should use 3.14, but in
> > certain circumstances (what circumstances, the curriculum guidelines
> > do not say) three may be used." ‹
>
> It all depends on how much accuracy you need. For a quick and rough
> calculation, 3 is fine. For very precise work, 3.14 isn't good enough.
>
> > And mathematician Jim Loy ‹ at
> > http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/pi.htm ‹
> > talks about his own introduction to the subject:
> >
> > "One of my mathematics teachers (in High School, as I recall) told us
> > that pi was exactly 22/7 (3+1/7), which is 3.142857142857142857 ."
>
> Agh. A high-school math teacher who doesn't understand what an
> irrational number is!?
35 years ago I was taught that 22/7 was an approximation, one of
several, and (before calculators) the exam questions would be set up to
that the correct approximation would make the arithmetic easier.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
Kay Shapero
> Gary McGath wrote:
> > It's a lot more work to teach critical thinking in a verse than to teach
> > a simple claim of fact, false or true. Songs, even the best ones, tend
> > to be oversimplifications.
>
> Cat Faber's _The_Word_Of_God_ also mostly succeeds in illustrating a
> focus on evidence over authority. (Assuming the listener is ready to
> hear that message; if they aren't... well, never try to teach a pig to
> sing.)
>
> I do find myself tempted to rewrite one line, though. As far as I know,
> Gallileo was never tortured, or even seriously threatened with that.
>
problem was not the behaviour of the moons of Jupiter, it was that
Galileo was an irasciable sort with a habit of loudly insisting that ALL
questions could be answered by empirical investigation, including those
the Church held to be it's own balliwick. Alas, they really couldn't
just ignore that, but they stuck to things like house arrest.
My main problem is the very audience I WANT to use that Word_of_God on
is the one that would be diverted clean off the topic by the line
"Humans wrote the Bible" appearing to imply God had nothing to do with
the contents. I have yet to find a usable substitute, which is why I've
not sung it in church yet. :(
--
Kay Shapero
Signature munged - to email me use kay at domain of my website, below.
http://www.kayshapero.net
Filk FAQ at http://www.kayshapero.net/filkfaq.htm
Joseph J. Kesselman
> True - the Church was downright embarassed by the whole thing; the
> problem was not the behaviour of the moons of Jupiter, it was that
> Galileo was an irasciable sort with a habit of loudly insisting that ALL
> questions could be answered by empirical investigation, including those
> the Church held to be it's own balliwick. Alas, they really couldn't
> just ignore that, but they stuck to things like house arrest.
Thanks; that does check with what I thought I was remembering.
> My main problem is the very audience I WANT to use that Word_of_God on
> is the one that would be diverted clean off the topic by the line
> "Humans wrote the Bible" appearing to imply God had nothing to do with
> the contents.
Hm. It might be able to set that up by doing an introduction which sets
the book as divinely inspired but filtered through our best
understanding of the time. It's still a great book for the ideas -- it
just shouldn't be taken too literally. "Non-overlapping magesteria."
John in detroit
Though 7\22 is indeed still 22 over 7, It's non-intutitive for a person
who was taught to divide this/way
John in detroit
> Kay Shapero wrote:
>> My main problem is the very audience I WANT to use that Word_of_God on
>> is the one that would be diverted clean off the topic by the line
>> "Humans wrote the Bible" appearing to imply God had nothing to do with
>> the contents.
>
> Hm. It might be able to set that up by doing an introduction which sets
> the book as divinely inspired but filtered through our best
> understanding of the time. It's still a great book for the ideas -- it
> just shouldn't be taken too literally. "Non-overlapping magesteria."
I will support Joseph here. The way I was taught is that the Bible was
written by men, who were inspired by or directed by God.
God did not come down from heaven and hand man a book... It is written
that he DID hand Moses a pair of stone tablets upon which were inscribed
10 commandments. but that is all Just one part of one page of said book.
The rest was written by men, whom we are told were directed or inspired
by God (The choice of different words here is just different ways of
using language)
Of course for the first 300 years or so The Bible was not written, but
was passed by oral tradition, just as, for a period the Muslim Quarran
and I believe the Jewish Torah were also passed by oral tradition for a
period. I'm not going to comment on the effect of that here.
And today there are those even among "men of the cloth" who feel that
the Bible is NOT the word of God, but just a history book. And there
are also those who feel that The Bible is the "Word of God"
EXCLUSIVELY,that every word God has or ever will say is in there and God
has not spoken another word in .. .Well,,,, About 2,000 years (And to
think I once wondered how folks could say God is Dead.. I mean, you you
sit there for 2,000 years and never utter a sound.... You are DEAD!)
And then there are those who think "God is a big boy, if he can't take a
joke, Well, then there is something wrong with him" and will find your
work to be very funny (Note, if you wish, sub Girl and Her).
As it happens... I'm most likely to fall in that group.
Joseph J. Kesselman
> Though 7\22 is indeed still 22 over 7, It's non-intutitive for a person
> who was taught to divide this/way
Mnemonics don't have to be intuitive, just memorable and decypherable.
("How I like a drink..." is hardly intuitive either.)
Though this does remind me of something I posted many years ago:
There was a young fellow named Clay
Who stood on his head all the day.
When people asked why
He gave this reply:
,ihem s!y+ Ja)!u y)nw swaas plJom ay+,
aof --
(PS: If you have trouble with it, try a sans-serif font.)
Kate Gladstone
> > "Long ago, lest torture break the remnant of his will ... "
Joe writes:
>
> Effective... This is certainly an improvement, and can be sung alongside
> folks who are singing the original words without disrupting them. That's
> two points in its favor.
>
> "Remnant" still bothers me, in part because of the way I've heard the
> story (which I can't remember well enough to quote authoritatively, so
> this may not be a valid objection).
I see your point, but think of this:
Galileo, watching the Inquisition's "show-and-tell," likely
said to himself:
"Just by seeing what they can do to me, I've already lost *some*
of my will to keep on fighting.
If the torture proceeds from demonstration to application, that
will break the *rest* of my will.
To prevent that from happening, I'll recant *now.*"
But if "remnant" still bothers you, try singing this:
"Long ago, lest torture break his trembling mind and will ... "
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kip Williams
I don't know a way to say "seven into twenty-two" apart from using the
word "into" instead of a sign.
(Wondering now about people who read right to left. I guess they just
get used to switching for mathematical statements.)
Kip W
Kip Williams
> Though this does remind me of something I posted many years ago:
>
>
> There was a young fellow named Clay
> Who stood on his head all the day.
> When people asked why
> He gave this reply:
> ,ihem s!y+ Ja)!u y)nw swaas plJom ay+,
>
> aof --
>
> (PS: If you have trouble with it, try a sans-serif font.)
I once realized (again, in sans-serif) that I could type my name upside
down:
swe!||!M d!>|
Kip Williams
> But if "remnant" still bothers you, try singing this:
> "Long ago, lest torture break his trembling mind and will ... "
How about "...his body, mind and will..."?
Kip W
Joseph J. Kesselman
I think I like that cross-combination better. Thanks to both of you.
(Now to get in the habit of singing it this way...)
Lee Gold
>
> In article <4807f239$1@kcnews01>, keshlam...@comcast.net says...
> > Gary McGath wrote:
> > > It's a lot more work to teach critical thinking in a verse than to teach
> > > a simple claim of fact, false or true. Songs, even the best ones, tend
> > > to be oversimplifications.
> >
> > Cat Faber's _The_Word_Of_God_ also mostly succeeds in illustrating a
> > focus on evidence over authority. (Assuming the listener is ready to
> > hear that message; if they aren't... well, never try to teach a pig to
> > sing.)
> >
> > I do find myself tempted to rewrite one line, though. As far as I know,
> > Gallileo was never tortured, or even seriously threatened with that.
> >
> True - the Church was downright embarassed by the whole thing; the
> problem was not the behaviour of the moons of Jupiter, it was that
> Galileo was an irasciable sort with a habit of loudly insisting that ALL
> questions could be answered by empirical investigation, including those
> the Church held to be it's own balliwick. Alas, they really couldn't
> just ignore that, but they stuck to things like house arrest.
>
> My main problem is the very audience I WANT to use that Word_of_God on
> is the one that would be diverted clean off the topic by the line
> "Humans wrote the Bible" appearing to imply God had nothing to do with
> the contents. I have yet to find a usable substitute, which is why I've
> not sung it in church yet. :(
I would prefer "Humans _read_ the Bible" because I am not arrogant
enough to contradict the great scholars who held that God
wrote the Bible, but it's certainly true that humans read
it as a Rorschach inkblot -- and also read the evidence of
the rocks and the rest of the material universe just as subjectively.
--Lee
Kate Gladstone
> My main problem is the very audience I WANT to use that Word_of_God on
> is the one that would be diverted clean off the topic by the line
> "Humans wrote the Bible" appearing to imply God had nothing to do with
> the contents. I have yet to find a usable substitute, which is why I've
> not sung it in church yet. :(
Possibilities:
/1/ "Whoever wrote the Bible, God wrote the rocks [the stars / life]"
/2/ "We may read the Bible — God wrote the rocks."
/3/ "Humans read the Bible — God wrote the rocks"
.... and @#$% that quirk of the English spelling "system"
which forbids option /3/ to make plain in writing
whether to pronounce "read" as present tense or past.
I mean it as present tense, for the record ...
and only wish that someone could slightly
"patch" the written representation of English
so as to mend the worst of its holes and dropped stitches —
mending any more than the very worst bits, of course,
would make it hard for posterity to read anything now in
print.
To bring this back to science fiction ...
I'd bet good money that,
if we ever learn how to travel to alternate universes,
we'll find quite a few with English-speakers
smart enough to have long ago managed
some simple tweak such as
discreetly replacing one letter to write the past tense as
"redd."
;-)
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kate Gladstone
> Though 7\22 is indeed still 22 over 7, It's non-intutitive for a person
> who was taught to divide this/way
Actually, they taught me to divide
_____
this | way.
(Heck, at least they *taught* it to my class ...
another classroom at the same school
had a teacher who believed that
division and other mathematical operations
had no algorithm and required intuition alone.
Possibly that teacher had such easy and innate mathematical intuition
that she had never learned algorithms or seen their necessity ...
though she never got a problem wrong, so I heard,
her students seldom answered a problem right.)
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kate Gladstone
> There was a young fellow named Clay
> Who stood on his head all the day.
> When people asked why
> He gave this reply:
> ,ihem s!y+ Ja)!u y)nw swaas plJom ay+,
>
> aof --
>
> (PS: If you have trouble with it, try a sans-serif font.)
The sans-serif font (default for my browser) didn't help much, even
when I inverted the document to simulate standing on my head.
It still looks like a cross between calculus and doctors' handwriting
(and conveys less to me than either).
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kate Gladstone
> >> "Long ago, lest torture break his trembling mind and will ... "
> > How about "...his body, mind and will..."?
>
> I think I like that cross-combination better. Thanks to both of you.
> (Now to get in the habit of singing it this way...)
I agree on the superiority of "his body, mind, and will" (I'd written
my "trembling" version because I thought it might help to have a word
sounding something like "remnant.")
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Lee Gold
Or maybe to write the present tense as "rede" and
associate "reading" with "interpretation" and
"advising."
--Lee
Kip Williams
"The world seems much nicer this way!"
M d!>|
Kay Shapero
Anybody who's ever read a newsgroup knows how fatally easy it is to get
people wasting endless posts on a typo, while ignoring your actual
POINT. Similar things will happen if I sing that song in a church
setting - everybody will get into the "but God inspired the Bible"
discussion instead of noticing the "God wrote the rocks" line. Trouble
is I can't find an alternate with nearly the power.. or quite the
meaning. Hmm... maybe "Long before the Bible"?
Kate Gladstone
> > if we ever learn how to travel to alternate universes,
> > we'll find quite a few with English-speakers
> > smart enough to have long ago managed
> > some simple tweak such as
> > discreetly replacing one letter to write the past tense as
> > "redd."
Lee notes another possibility:
>
> Or maybe to write the present tense as "rede" and
> associate "reading" with "interpretation" and
> "advising."
Yes, "I rede today, and I read yesterday" would solve the problem
nicely ... I wouldn't feel surprised to see either Lee's tweak or mine
in the English dictionaries of a thousand alternate universes.
Of course a really good tweak would do something that neither Lee's or
my envisioned alternate entirely does.
Both Lee's and my guesses at alternate-English "read" forms retain
(in one or the other tense) the ambiguous "ea" digraph (ambiguous
because you can't reliably predict whether a given word's "ea" stands
for the sound /ee/ or the sound /eh/ — to tell which sound, you have
to rely on word-memorization or guesswork.)
So I suspect that any alternate-universe English whose speakers had
cleaned up or avoided the mess with READ
(not to mean the somewhat similar messes of
LEAD ["to direct" /leed/ or
"element 82" /led/ ]
and
TEAR ["lacrimal duct secretion" /teer/
or "rip" /tair/ ]
would also have avoided in general our habit of using "ea" for
both /ee/ and /ai/ (not to mention some of the other jobs we give it)
A world whose Samuel Johnson or Noah Webster had had somewhat
different notions than ours might restrict the "ea" to representing
just one of those vowel-sounds — or might not use it at all, and write
things like
"See me leed the ledd pipe thru the tair
with a teer in my ie" —
I presume that
if they'd run a "patch" routine on the "ea" messes, it would have also
occurred to them
to patch-and-replace a few
of the worst other messes, too.
Bringing this back to filk:
when we *do* invent alternate-world travel,
we will doubtless attend filkcons in the alt-worlds
as we find them.
At any filkcons in those alt-worlds that
"hav slitely cleened-up ritten English,"
in addition to hearing the songs rhyme,
when we look at the con songbooks
we will *see* the songs' rhymes.
;-)
Awaiting the slings and arrows of the
outraged defenders of this-world spelling ...
or possibly the hundred-pound trebuchet
of the *really* far-out alt-world
where spoken English matches ours
but the written language hasn't changed since King Alfred ...
(not too far off from, allegedly, the real-world situation in Tibet.
Speakers of Tibetan tell me that the spoken language has changed so
much
since the standardization of Tibetan spelling
about 1200 years ago
that by now even easy Tibetan words
present the same situation we'd face
if the required spelling for "daily" in today's English
had remained "gedaeghwamlice" all these years.
("Just remember, class,
in the word 'daily' the silent letters
are both of the G's, the first and third E's,
the H, the W, the second A, the M,
the L, and the C. Now, who can tell me
what the next word says?"
---- translated CrossTime Surveillance
archive file of a gifted high-school class
in Alternate Universe #899-142857,
file-name "Hooked on Hlemraedcraeft"
Back — sighing relief — to *this* universe ... )
Reportedly, by now Tibetan spelling has gotten far enough out of sync
with the actual language
that getting to basic literacy in Tibetan
now usually takes about 2 - 3 times as long
as getting to basic literacy in English.
(Before you laugh, recall that getting to the same level takes us
English-speakers about 3 - 4 times as long as it takes the Finns, who
standardized their spelling recently enough that the sound-letter
"mappings" still work terrifically well.)
Just to provide SOME filk tie-in for the above rant —
does anyone here know of any filk about the Great English Vowel
Shift? I tried to write one, once, but got no further than the tune-
title ("When Giants Walked") and this fragmentary line-and-a-half:
" ... So [something, something] rearranged
When Vow-Els Changed!"
I spend the next few days out of town, so you won't hear from me for
that long at least.
Kate Gladstone (or however they spell it in your favorite altworld) —
http://www.learn.to/handwrite
(Warning to altworld guests:
neither "lern.tu/handrite" nor
"leorne.to/handwritan" will reach the server)
Lee Gold
>
> In article <4808D07C...@ca.rr.com>, Lee Gold <lee....@ca.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would prefer "Humans _read_ the Bible" because I am not arrogant
> > enough to contradict the great scholars who held that God
> > wrote the Bible,
>
> which shows that a deity wrote the Bible. No research which shows that
> the words miraculously popped into existence. No examination of ancient
> manuscripts which shows divine generation of the letters.
>
> People can believe what they want, but when they bring in the authority
> of fabricated "scholarship," I must object.
You seem to be equating "scholar" and "research scientist."
OneLook defines "scholar" as "a learned person
(especially in the humanities)."
I don't see much point in further discussion on this here.
--Lee
Sean Cleary
> Kate Gladstone (or however they spell it in your favorite altworld) —http://www.learn.to/handwrite
> (Warning to altworld guests:
> neither "lern.tu/handrite" nor
> "leorne.to/handwritan" will reach the server)
Sean
Eyal Mozes
> I would prefer "Humans _read_ the Bible" because I am not arrogant
> enough to contradict the great scholars who held that God
> wrote the Bible, but it's certainly true that humans read
> it as a Rorschach inkblot -- and also read the evidence of
> the rocks and the rest of the material universe just as subjectively.
Lee, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying
that the line you'd prefer, "Humans read the bible", would be a better
way of expressing Cat's point in this song? Or are you saying you
disagree with Cat, and would prefer "Humans read the bible" because
that would express your own viewpoint rather than hers?
If you're saying the latter, then I'd consider that off-topic for this
newsgroup. If you're saying the former, then you're clearly wrong.
The point of the song is not that we should regard the bible and
scientific evidence on an equal footing, the way the "intelligent
design" advocates suggest, because both can be read subjectively by
humans. The point of the song is that scientific evidence should be
regarded as *superior* to the bible, because the objects observed by
science - the rocks, the sky, and life - were written by god while the
bible was not. The line you're suggesting would not express that point
at all.
Also note that the scientific method, as advocated by this song,
requires that when scientific evidence conflicts with the claims of
authority - including the claims of authorities that you regard as
great scholars - then you *should* accept the scientific evidence,
which requires being arrogant enough to contradict the authorities. If
you want to change the song to avoid this implication, then that would
not be a minor change, it would be a totally new song with a totally
different viewpoint.
Eyal Mozes
> Similar things will happen if I sing that song in a church
> setting - everybody will get into the "but God inspired the Bible"
> discussion instead of noticing the "God wrote the rocks" line.
I don't understand how you think the two can be separated. This
contrast between the bible and nature; a contrast that means nature,
rather than the bible, should be regarded as "the word of god"; is the
main point of the song.
This is most clear in the third verse: "Remember should you have to
choose between them in the strife, humans wrote the bible, God wrote
life". If you sing these lines in church; and if some listeners then
object that "but God inspired the Bible", and that therefore if you
have to choose between the claims of the bible and the evidence of
biology you should *not* necessarily choose biology; then that
discussion would not be an off-topic diversion, it would be addressing
precisely the main point.
Performing this song in church might or might not offend people,
depending on what church you go to. But if people do get offended, or
start an argument about whether "God inspired the Bible", you should
realize that that would not be a diversion off the song's topic, it
would be precisely because they got the song's main point and are
offended by it.
Wes Struebing
<handwrit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Re my certainty that:
>
>> > if we ever learn how to travel to alternate universes,
>> > we'll find quite a few with English-speakers
>> > smart enough to have long ago managed
>> > some simple tweak such as
>> > discreetly replacing one letter to write the past tense as
>> > "redd."
>
>Lee notes another possibility:
>
>>
>> Or maybe to write the present tense as "rede" and
>> associate "reading" with "interpretation" and
>> "advising."
>
>Yes, "I rede today, and I read yesterday" would solve the problem
>nicely ... I wouldn't feel surprised to see either Lee's tweak or mine
>in the English dictionaries of a thousand alternate universes.
>
I know it happens all the time, but the problem I have with that is
the verbification (grin) of the word "rede".
It's already a perfectly acceptable, if archaic, noun.
But, as I say, that's just me, and the construct does work, I
suppose...
--
Wes Struebing
Jan. 20, 2009 - the end of an error
P.F. Bruns
> Re:
>
>>> The best quick estimate on pi is 355/113 start with sequence 113355
>>> and put a backwards division sign in the middle of it.
>
> "Backwards division sign"?
Well, since a forward slash ( / ) is called a virgule, perhaps we should
call a backslash ( \ ) an elugriv.
Best,
Perry
Wading through these one by one
-=-=-
... Corduroy pillows: They're making headlines!
P.F. Bruns
> I know I'm risking trouble by saying this, but there is _no_ scholarship
> which shows that a deity wrote the Bible.
>
I'll go a step further toward blasphemy by suggesting that perhaps the
Bible was a sort of theological proto-Wiki.
*ducks*
Best,
Perry
-=-=-
... $665.95 - Retail price of the Beast
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>Gary McGath wrote:
>
>> I know I'm risking trouble by saying this, but there is _no_ scholarship
>> which shows that a deity wrote the Bible.
>>
>
>I'll go a step further toward blasphemy by suggesting that perhaps the
>Bible was a sort of theological proto-Wiki.
>
>*ducks*
>
>Best,
...without the feedback/editing capabilities...
(also ducking)
Kay Shapero
only sing "Word of God" as is - there is no way of modifying it without
damaging it. Also that the message I'm actually trying to convey
(basically that God and scientific discoveries about the world like
evolution are NOT incompatible, and insisting that they are is only
going to drive people away from Christianity) will probably work out
better if I sing Lee Gold's "A Poet Is a Maker".
Kip Williams
> In article <gpkn04h6bvm6seuft...@4ax.com>,
> Wes Struebing <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:04:03 GMT, "P.F. Bruns" <booms...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gary McGath wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know I'm risking trouble by saying this, but there is _no_ scholarship
>>>> which shows that a deity wrote the Bible.
>>>>
>>> I'll go a step further toward blasphemy by suggesting that perhaps the
>>> Bible was a sort of theological proto-Wiki.
>>>
>>> *ducks*
>>>
>>> Best,
>> ...without the feedback/editing capabilities...
>
> remains.
Has somebody been posting salacious verse under that name again? Darn
those kids!
Kip W
Joseph J. Kesselman
> The main thing this discussion has now convinced me of is that I should
> only sing "Word of God" as is - there is no way of modifying it without
> damaging it.
I'm OK with the Galileo fix for historical accuracy (though that's in
the pet peeve category for me). I really wouldn't muck with it beyond
that since the rest says what it wanted to say quite well. It might not
be the song I would have written, but it's probably better songwriting
than I'd manage. If I had serious problems with it, I'd sing something
else, or (per our discussion here many moons ago) drop in a "non credo"
qualification.
> Also that the message I'm actually trying to convey
> (basically that God and scientific discoveries about the world like
> evolution are NOT incompatible, and insisting that they are is only
> going to drive people away from Christianity) will probably work out
> better if I sing Lee Gold's "A Poet Is a Maker".
... Which I don't think I've heard. I'll have to remember to request it.
Joseph J. Kesselman
I find myself pondering the question of rede instruments.
Joseph J. Kesselman
> Well, since a forward slash ( / ) is called a virgule, perhaps we should
> call a backslash ( \ ) an elugriv.
I'm sure it has a proper typographic name... which I should know, darn
it, but I can't remember it.
Rob Wynne
> I'm OK with the Galileo fix for historical accuracy (though that's in
> the pet peeve category for me).
I don't even have a problem with the Galileo line as written. That reality
fails to competely live up to the myth isn't really as important as what
the myth is conveying.
I'm reminded of the exchange between Morpheus and Auberon in Neil Gaiman's
"Sandman":
AUBERON: We thank you, shaper. But this diversion, although pleasant, is
not true. Things never happened thus.
MORPHEUS: Oh, but it IS true. Things need not have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts
are dust and ashes, and forgot.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2008: Jan 11-13, 2008 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Joseph J. Kesselman
> I don't even have a problem with the Galileo line as written. That reality
> fails to competely live up to the myth isn't really as important as what
> the myth is conveying.
In another context I'd agree with that. In a song whose message is the
appropriate distinction between, and use of, myth and fact... It just
bothers me. Your milage will vary.
Lee Gold
>
> Kay Shapero wrote:
> > Also that the message I'm actually trying to convey
> > (basically that God and scientific discoveries about the world like
> > evolution are NOT incompatible, and insisting that they are is only
> > going to drive people away from Christianity) will probably work out
> > better if I sing Lee Gold's "A Poet Is a Maker".
>
> ... Which I don't think I've heard. I'll have to remember to request it.
We will not be coming to conventions we have to fly to until
Barry gets Medicare (November, 2011) and the TSA & airports
aren't so difficult.
So we'll only be attending conventions we can drive to
and that will be affected by the price of gasoline
ConChord
maybe Consonance
Loscon
maybe Baycon
maybe Westercon
This year that means we went to Consonance and plan
to go to ConChord and Loscon.
--Lee
Lee Gold
>
> We will not be coming to conventions we have to fly to until
> Barry gets Medicare (November, 2011) and the TSA & airports
> aren't so difficult.
>
> So we'll only be attending conventions we can drive to
> and that will be affected by the price of gasoline
We made an exception in 2007 for Boskone which asked us to
come as Filk Guests.
--Lee
Joseph J. Kesselman
> We will not be coming to conventions we have to fly to until
> Barry gets Medicare (November, 2011) and the TSA & airports
> aren't so difficult.
Ah well. Some day I'll consider traveling farther to cons... but it's
unclear whether that'll happen before 2011.
Kate Gladstone
> >>> Or maybe to write the present tense as "rede"
>
> I find myself pondering the question of rede instruments.
Presumably, an Alternate World With Sensibly Spelled English (AWWSSE)
would have found ways to distinguish homophones without creating
anything as problematic as our own universe's standard English usages;
so an AWWSSE would likely have arrived at some such series as:
REED - water-plant used for oboe parts
REDE - decode a text
REDD - past tense of REDE
RED - the color of oxygenated hemoglobin
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Wes Struebing
wrote:
I'll think of you and Barry at Denvention...(I know you'll be there in
spirit in the filk venue(s)...)
Kate Gladstone
> I know it happens all the time, but the problem I have with that is
> the verbification (grin) of the word "rede".
>
> It's already a perfectly acceptable, if archaic, noun.
*And* a perfectly acceptable, if archaic, verb (meaning "advise") —
check the Oxford English Dictionary,
and also such poetry as the Robert Burns work abundantly cited here:
http://tinyurl.com/3jn7ue
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Lee Gold
Yes. We'd have loved to have gone but the other problem is that it's
in August, the month that the business that Barry now works at won't
let anyone take vacations because a major client does major
changes in its webpages then. Barry had to commute from Anaheim
to work during the weekdays of LA-con, arriving around 7:30 PM
and going to bed at 11 PM so he could get up at 5 AM and dirve to
work. (I was getting a lot of naptime too, since it was only
four weeks after major surgery.)
--Lee
Joe Ellis
<2450870c-ddb9-4f3e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Kate Gladstone <handwrit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> REDD - past tense of REDE
Or rather, the "nest" of any of a number of salmonids.
F'rex:
http://www.cornwallriversproject.org.uk/education/ed_cd/fisheries/salmoni
d.htm
--
"The Dream is Alive! Music of the Space Shuttles" now available at your
local filk dealer, at http://cdbaby.com/cd/joeellis, and as a digital
download on iTunes at http://preview.tinyurl.com/yd7gns
PT
wrote:
a math instructor who teaches that "pi is always exactly 22/7" —
or an English instructor who deducts points for correct spellings of
words she can't spell and won't bother looking up —
or a history instructor who claims the USA never lost a war and never
suffered invasion before September 11th —
or a reading instructor who won't give you a passing mark, no matter
how well you read and write, if she develops the least suspicion that
you aren't firmly and absolutely monolingual.
--I don't know about tactics, but that sounds a bit like Gilbert &
Sullivan's policeman song, to me.
Lee Gold
>
> In article
> <2450870c-ddb9-4f3e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Kate Gladstone <handwrit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > REDD - past tense of REDE
>
> Or rather, the "nest" of any of a number of salmonids.
Spellings do change over the years, but not always for the best.
"Read" (rhymes with "feed", present tense) and "read" )rhymes
with "bed," past tense) seems to be towing lead/led to follow its
example (with the alchemical help of "lead" the metal)
so that I see more and more usually literate people (inclusing
Oxbridge grads) writing "lead" as a past tense of "lead."
--Lee
Kate Gladstone
> > > REDD - past tense of REDE
>
> > Or rather, the "nest" of any of a number of salmonids.
Truly ... but that meaning occurs only in contexts not subject to the
ambiguity that affects more common meanings of anything spelled "read"
or pronounced /reed/ or /red/.
Someone reading "Have you redd much science-fiction?" wouldn't
interpret it as "Have you salmon-nest much science-fiction?",
any more than s/he would similarly misinterpret the same question in
spoken form.
As Lee correctly notes, misguided attempts to improve a word's
spelling can make matters worse instead of better:
e.g., present-day "colonel / friend / island / sovereign" have
definite shortcomings, when compared with earlier (e.g., Renaissance)
common spellings for the same English words ("coronel / frend /
iland / sovran": at least three of these fit the etymological facts,
as well as the phonemic facts, better than ours.)
Thankfully, "coronel" has seen a revival in at least one body of
modern writing: it pops up throughout Harry Turtledove's A DIFFERENT
FLESH book of short stories, which traces the history of a world in
which Europe its colonies diverged from ours in the late Renaissance
when explorers discovered that _Homo_sapiens_ had never reached the
New World but _Homo_erectus_ most assuredly, and violently, *had.*
I never figured out just how the consequences of this would have
kept users of English from making the mistake they made in our own
world (the mistake of changing the spelling to an assumed-but-wrong
derivation from Italian _colonello_ instead of accepting the actual
derivation from _coronello_) ... one can only assume that some bad
guesser died before making that bad guess (in that cosmos but not in
ours).
In any case, Turtledove does ably and richly hint at a wealth of not-
so-obvious consequences of a world where the Americas had no
_H._sapiens_ until 1492 (and therefore, among other things, maize
never existed).
If you haven't read A DIFFERENT FLESH, do so!
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kate Gladstone
> a math instructor who teaches that "pi is always exactly 22/7" —
>
> or an English instructor who deducts points for correct spellings of
> words she can't spell and won't bother looking up —
>
> or a history instructor who claims the USA never lost a war and never
> suffered invasion before September 11th —
>
> or a reading instructor who won't give you a passing mark, no matter
> how well you read and write, if she develops the least suspicion that
> you aren't firmly and absolutely monolingual.
PT writes:
> --I don't know about tactics, but that sounds a bit like Gilbert &
> Sullivan's policeman song, to me.
Unlike the cop in the G&S "Policeman's Song" (PIRATES OF PENZANCE),
the "policemen" in these cases (the teachers with their power to
enforce obedience to their stupid notions the above laws of stupidity)
appear to have had a lot *much* happier than they deserved. At least —
as far as I can discover — no one fired them, let alone sent them out
like real policemen to enforce such matters out on the street: the
classroom "policemen" enjoyed the safety and pleasure of "correcting"
captive audiences.
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Kip Williams
> Unlike the cop in the G&S "Policeman's Song" (PIRATES OF PENZANCE),
> the "policemen" in these cases (the teachers with their power to
> enforce obedience to their stupid notions the above laws of stupidity)
> appear to have had a lot *much* happier than they deserved. At least —
> as far as I can discover — no one fired them, let alone sent them out
> like real policemen to enforce such matters out on the street: the
> classroom "policemen" enjoyed the safety and pleasure of "correcting"
> captive audiences.
Offenbach wrote the music for an entertaining "Gendarmes' Duet" that's
very much in the same vein as Gilbert & Sullivan: "When danger looms
we're never there... But when we meet a helpless woman / Or little boys
that do no harm / We run them in, we run them in / We show them we're
the bold Gendarmes..." I sent a MIDI of the song to someone in Germany
once. Hm, he was going to send me a recording of a performance he was
putting together. Oh, well.
Anyway, the song's relevant to this group in another way. The tune was
modified slightly and retrofitted into a song that's still heard today.
Where the original (English translation, I presume) has "We're public
gendarmes, bold yet wary / And of ourselves we take good care," we're
now accustomed to hearing "From the halls of Montezume / To the shores
of Tripoli..."
Kip W
Lee Gold
>
> In article <mtednbJXxYVRWpLV...@comcast.com>,
> Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the song's relevant to this group in another way. The tune was
> > modified slightly and retrofitted into a song that's still heard today.
> > Where the original (English translation, I presume) has "We're public
> > gendarmes, bold yet wary / And of ourselves we take good care," we're
> > now accustomed to hearing "From the halls of Montezume / To the shores
> > of Tripoli..."
>
> searching on "Offenbach" and "Deux Gendarmes." This turned up a lot of
> mentions, but no actual words. But one of our libraries has a recording
> of "Genevieve de Brabant," which seems to be where it comes from. I
> might just borrow that today.
The current Wikipedia article on "Marines' Hymn" states
"The music is from the Gendarmes' Duet from the opera Geneviève
de Brabant by Jacques Offenbach."
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=40711 states
"A comic duet for bass and baritone, to French audiences it is
known as 'Couplets des Deux Hommes d'Armes'; to the British it is
'The Gendarmes' Duet' ('We're public guardians, bold, yet wary,
And of ourselves we take good care!'…with its chorus 'We run them
in, we run them in, we show them we're the bold gendarmes!')...."
This webpage also has the Glasgow University Songbooks' English
translation and another one as well.
http://www.boosey.com/downloads/Genevieve1859.pdf
has the libretto of the Offenbach opera
--Lee
Kip Williams
> In article <mtednbJXxYVRWpLV...@comcast.com>,
> Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> modified slightly and retrofitted into a song that's still heard today.
>> Where the original (English translation, I presume) has "We're public
>> gendarmes, bold yet wary / And of ourselves we take good care," we're
>> now accustomed to hearing "From the halls of Montezume / To the shores
>> of Tripoli..."
>
> searching on "Offenbach" and "Deux Gendarmes." This turned up a lot of
> mentions, but no actual words. But one of our libraries has a recording
> of "Genevieve de Brabant," which seems to be where it comes from. I
> might just borrow that today.
>
I don't have French originals, only the English version. It's in
"Victorian Songs & Duets" by Tear & Luxon, published by Cramer. I
probably still have the MIDI I made of the tune, but I'm not sure where
it is at the moment. The first half of the tune is where the
"inspiration" is.
Kip W
John in detroit
> Unlike the cop in the G&S "Policeman's Song" (PIRATES OF PENZANCE),
> the "policemen" in these cases (the teachers with their power to
> enforce obedience to their stupid notions the above laws of stupidity)
> appear to have had a lot *much* happier than they deserved. At least —
> as far as I can discover — no one fired them, let alone sent them out
> like real policemen to enforce such matters out on the street: the
> classroom "policemen" enjoyed the safety and pleasure of "correcting"
> captive audiences.
You have a very good point there Kate. What is worse is the teachers
who simply teach wrong (many examples up thread) These poor kids are
going to have to unlearn all the "Crap" they learned in whatever school
said incompetent teaches at.. And it'll be a wonder if they can think at
all, after that
Apologies to you know who for that line but they did say it rather well
(And, being modified from a line in a song ...)
One can only hope that the false teachers are properly rewarded for all
eternity... AND SOON.
D.J.
<bl...@blank.net> wrote:
]You have a very good point there Kate. What is worse is the teachers
]going to have to unlearn all the "Crap" they learned in whatever school
]said incompetent teaches at.. And it'll be a wonder if they can think at
]all, after that
My experience is legends and folk tales are told in US high
school history classes as if the legends etc. were facts. When I
took US history at university, some of the students got a little
upset at learning the Pilgrims didn't wear silver buckles in
their hats, didn't wear black and white clothing all of the time,
and did smile occasionaly. Or that George Washington didn't have
wooden teeth.
JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/blog/ Mar 29, 2008: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog Apr 1, 2008
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/newblog/ AD&D blog AD&D Apr 21, 2008
Kate Gladstone
> Kate Gladstone wrote:
> > Unlike the cop in the G&S "Policeman's Song" (PIRATES OF PENZANCE),
> > the "policemen" in these cases (the teachers with their power to
> > enforce obedience to their stupid notions the above laws of stupidity)
> > appear to have had a lot *much* happier than they deserved. At least —
> > as far as I can discover — no one fired them, let alone sent them out
> > like real policemen to enforce such matters out on the street: the
> > classroom "policemen" enjoyed the safety and pleasure of "correcting"
> > captive audiences.
>
> You have a very good point there Kate. What is worse is the teachers
> who simply teach wrong (many examples up thread) ...
I agree: in the end, if I had to choose between the two,
I'd rather have had a teacher who kept me grimly, unwillingly captive
to teach me actual *truths*
than a teacher who (though I attended the lessons joyfully and without
compulsion) taught me untruths ...
whether or not the teacher *knowingly* taught untruths.
(Teachers abound, in those examples upthread and elsewhere, who
unknowingly teach falsity:
I don't know whether to feel more hate and fear for them, or for the
smaller number who *knowingly* teach some falsehood as fact.
What appalls you more:
for a teacher to teach "The USA has never lost a war" or "pi = 3"
because s/he actually believes this & has never found out otherwise,
or for him/her to teach this because s/he recognizes it as false but s/
he believes
that this falsehood will serve some "useful goal" such as
"helping the kids feel more patriotic" or "helping the kids feel that
they can learn math"
or some other such "goal" other than transmitting *valid*
information from one generation to the next?)
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Gary McGath
wrote:
> The current Wikipedia article on "Marines' Hymn" states
> "The music is from the Gendarmes' Duet from the opera Geneviève
> de Brabant by Jacques Offenbach."
This is the kind of situation where Wikipedia is least trustworthy,
where there's a high ratio of legend to demonstrable fact.
> http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=40711 states
> "A comic duet for bass and baritone, to French audiences it is
> known as 'Couplets des Deux Hommes d'Armes'; to the British it is
> 'The Gendarmes' Duet' ('We're public guardians, bold, yet wary,
> And of ourselves we take good care!'…with its chorus 'We run them
> in, we run them in, we show them we're the bold gendarmes!')...."
> This webpage also has the Glasgow University Songbooks' English
> translation and another one as well.
>
> http://www.boosey.com/downloads/Genevieve1859.pdf
> has the libretto of the Offenbach opera
Curiously, that libretto doesn't contain the word "gendarme" anywhere.
It's a send-up of a medieval legend, with Arthur, Lancelot, and Charles
Martel in it, and as much respect for historical authenticity as a Monty
Python movie. There are a number of men-at-arms in the operetta, and
various bits in ballad meter which would bit, but nothing jumps out at
me just from reading the text. The British song obviously isn't a
translation of anything in the operetta. I wouldn't be surprised if it
was written to an Offenbach tune the better to make fun of the French.
Not much luck yet at the library. It's in the online catalogue, but
there's no call number or shelving information. I may head over in
person tomorrow to see if the CD can be found.
--
Gary McGath
http://www.mcgath.com http://www.mcgath.com/blog
Kate Gladstone
>
> My experience is legends and folk tales are told in US high
> school history classes as if the legends etc. were facts. ...
... something also done in at least some US elementary school/middle
school/high school classes in reading/English, science, foreign
languages, and math. (I'll spare you examples, unless someone really
begs for any.)
If (for some bizarre reason) the teachers of the United States
actually had once-upon-a-time gotten together and *resolved* to teach
folk-tales and legends as facts, wouldn't you think that they could
have picked out some more *interesting* legends to teach as facts?
Among all the wonders that legendry holds, why choose to instill
*those* particular (and rather drab) legendary substitutes for fact?
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Richard Eney
Because they are Moral Tales For Children. The 19th century made up
a lot of "history" when there wasn't much information available to
contradict the Uplifting Myths they were creating about our
glorious founders. (Not too unlike the myths being made up at
the same time in parts of Europe, really.)
Any country that didn't have a long history was looked at as nouveau
riche so they made up histories to give themselves a long tradition
to pass on. When the truth began to come to light in the 20th century
it was too late to stop the myths.
And returning to the idiotic written stuff topic, today I bought
something at Sears and on the printed receipt was an invitation to
get a 'free' entry into some lottery by going to their website to
report on the quality of the experience of shopping at Sears. To
make such a report and get the 'free' entry, you have to type in
the identification number on the purchase receipt. Fine, except
that in the instructions printed on the receipt it says "no purchase
necessary."
=Tamar
John in detroit
> My experience is legends and folk tales are told in US high
> school history classes as if the legends etc. were facts. When I
> took US history at university, some of the students got a little
> upset at learning the Pilgrims didn't wear silver buckles in
> their hats, didn't wear black and white clothing all of the time,
> and did smile occasionaly. Or that George Washington didn't have
> wooden teeth.
Re: the Wooden Teeth.... There was a trivia contest show (Dual I think)
where the question was "George Washington did not have teeth made of:
1
2
3
4 Wood
And Wood was, of course,the correct answer.
However... We were, as you noted, taught WRONG
Just like we are taught that he chopped down a tree that did not exist
in this country at the time. Oh well.
Rich Brown
> Just like we are taught that he chopped down a tree that did not exist
> in this country at the time. Oh well.
G.W. chopped down EVERY cherry tree in North America -- replacement trees
had to be imported at a later date...
There, glad to have cleared that up.
--
Rich Brown -- Song Assassin -- http://freemars.org/filk/
Kate Gladstone
>
> >http://www.boosey.com/downloads/Genevieve1859.pdf
> > has the libretto of the Offenbach opera
>
> Curiously, that libretto doesn't contain the word "gendarme" anywhere.
The piece (French title "Couplets des Deux Hommes d'Armes)
indeed doesn't appear in the 1859 two-act version of "Geneviève" —
it *does* appear, though, in the longer (three-act) version published
in February 1868
(Offenbach had published this song's score by itself in
January 1868,
and apparently it had become the sheet-music equivalent of a
"hit" single.)
French printings of the song usually title it "Couplets des deux
hommes d'armes" (Duet of the two men-at-arms).
Also see
"Offenbach's Songs from the Great Operettas : Complete Music for
Thirty-Eight Songs from Fourteen Operettas by Jacques Offenbach" —
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0486233413/classicalnetA/103-7949711-8889450
and
http://marissabidilla.blogspot.com/2007/12/gendarmes-duet.html
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite
Rob Wynne
> Speaking of distorted history, there's an entertaining song which Paul
> Estin sometimes does at filksings about Kenesaw Mountain Landis, which
> is full of the most outrageous fabrications the writer could think of
> (for laughs, not serious history). I don't know who wrote it.
>
Guessing it's the one by Jonathan Coulton. I doubth there's two.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2008: Jan 11-13, 2008 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Kate Gladstone
> >If (for some bizarre reason) the teachers of the United States
> >actually had once-upon-a-time gotten together and *resolved* to teach
> >folk-tales and legends as facts, wouldn't you think that they could
> >have picked out some more *interesting* legends to teach as facts?
> >Among all the wonders that legendry holds, why choose to instill
> >*those* particular (and rather drab) legendary substitutes for fact?
>
> Because they are Moral Tales For Children. ...
... and never mind the sheer silly strangeness of fabricating (and
teaching as fact)
a Moral Tale to teach the importance of telling the truth (George
Washington/cherry tree)
Bringing this back to "the word of God" (in some sense) ...
Fabrications (created to teach a Moral Lesson) often, strangely,
misrepresent a book regarded as sacred by the person telling or
hearing the story:
e.g., I have heard people try to prove some moral point or
other by stating (incorrectly) that the Bible nowhere contains the
word "laugh," just as I have seen people try to put down the Jews by
stating (incorrectly) that the Old Testament nowhere contains the
words "love" or "mercy" — in each case, much to the claimant's
discomfiture when someone searched the Bible as a text-file (or even
pulled a hard-copy concordance off the claimant's shelf) and
demonstrated otherwise.
In recent years, "Moral Lesson"-style misquotes/fabrications have
often tended to involve misquotations of *other* folks' Holy Writ
rather than the Holy Writ of the misquoter.
For example: I used to know someone who got kicked out of her
church on a late fall afternoon in 2001 for noting the spuriousness of
a claimed "Qur'an quotation" which the pastor had put into the church
newsletter (and cited in a sermon) as proof that Mohammed had
commanded Muslims to destroy America.
The spurious quote (which apparently had circulated rapidly
among various Fundies via e-mail) said something on the order of "When
the land of the Eagle shall arise, thou shalt bide thy time until it
groweth great and mighty and then thou shalt destroy it so that Allah
may destroy the Christians' God and rule forever" (naturally, this
doesn't appear anywhere in the actual Qur'an) when my friend asked the
paper, after services, what chapter of the Qur'an this appeared in,
the pastor didn't say "I'll have to look it up" — no, he ignored
her ... and so, thenceforth, did the "friends" she thought she had
made at church.
I have also seen (in 1999 or 2000, as I recall) a Muslim calligrapher
get kicked off a listserv of artists for pointing out that a much
better-known, much more pleasant (but equally spurious) "Qur'an quote"
("If you have but two loaves of bread, sell one and buy
hyacinths to feed thy soul")
actually doesn't appear in the Qur'an but comes from a poem by Sufi
mystic Moslih Eddin Sadi [1184-1291] ).
For some reason, this information grievously offended people on
the listserv who had loved to believe that their cherished "hyacinth
quote" came from some other culture's holy book instead of "just"
coming from a poem. The offended people (a majority, as it turned out)
seemed to reason as follows (if one can call it "reasoning") ...
/1/ "How *dare* this quote not come from the Qur'an? After
all, my art teachers all loved that quote, and they all *told* me it
came from the Qur'an! ... so where does this guy get the right to tell
us it doesn't?"
/2/ "Our cultural beliefs, as artists, include the belief that
this is a quote from an exotic Eastern scripture because it just FEELS
right to us for it to be a quote from an exotic Eastern scripture.
Therefore, nobody who actually believes that scripture has the right
to suggest that our belief (about what he believes) might need to
change in any detail."
(As one _grande_dame_ on that listserv put it, in an e-mail
venting her spleen to friends and to the man himself: "It is simply
wrong and inconsiderate for one person to believe that this quotation
is not in the scripture of his faith. Given that the rest of us
cherish the belief that the hyacinth quotation is a well-known part of
his holy book, then he just needs to go along with this." Strangely,
she didn't seem willing to apply the same logic both ways, when the
Muslim asked her: "What would you think if a listserv of mostly Muslim
artists believed that your favorite Emerson quote was in the Bible,
and called you 'wrong and inconsiderate' for caring that it actually
isn't?"
Re:
> And returning to the idiotic written stuff topic, today I bought
> something at Sears and on the printed receipt was an invitation to
> get a 'free' entry into some lottery by going to their website to
> report on the quality of the experience of shopping at Sears. To
> make such a report and get the 'free' entry, you have to type in
> the identification number on the purchase receipt. Fine, except
> that in the instructions printed on the receipt it says "no purchase
> necessary."
>
My husband and I had a similar experience about 10 years ago at a
convenience store which had some kind of promotion going: a chance to
win a $50 gift certificate, as I recall. When we each filled out a
postcard-sized form to participate, the teen-aged clerk said she
couldn't accept the forms unless we gave our credit-card numbers — we
pointed to the fine print which specifically directed that we should
leave that line blank unless we wanted a chance at some other prize
which we didn't happen to want — whereupon the clerk pointed, word by
word, at the fine print, slowly and loudly MISREADING various words as
she indicated each one.
(Where the actual text said something like:
"If you want a chance at the $50,000 yacht, you must also
enter your credit card number on line 5,"
the clerk "read" it to us, word by pointed-at word, as something
like:
"If you want to enter this contest, you must make sure to
enter your credit card number on line 5.")
We complained — she replied: "Well, that's what it says. Are you
calling me stupid or something?"
We then called over the manager ...
who shooed us out of the store
for "taking up the time" of his clerk
and for "insulting her."
(The manager claimed we had insulted the clerk "by trying to make
it look like she doesn't know how to read.")
Kate Gladstone — http://www.learn.to/handwrite