Re: All languages are equally fit
António Marques
> My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
> Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
> character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
But that's because LSD is either intentionally lying, or, more likely,
just not too bright. As I've had to explain him some days ago, if you
change to a synonym morpheme, you change the character. That's the
opposite of ideographic.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
>> Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
>> character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
>
>But that's because LSD is either intentionally lying, or, more likely,
>just not too bright.
My subjective impression is that LSD is very bright (and not lying),
brighter than you (and me), although you too I think are rather bright
(perhaps brighter than me).
Not that this is relevant, but now that you mention it, I thought I'd
let you know.
>As I've had to explain him some days ago, if you
>change to a synonym morpheme, you change the character. That's the
>opposite of ideographic.
The sun character was shown to have two readings (not exactly
synonyms) is the example LSD gave. That fact was ignored by most other
contributors, just to make the dogma hold. That's how it works here:
dogmas first, then bend the data towards them.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu
António Marques
> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:02:18 +0000: António Marques<m....@sapo.pt>: in
> sci.lang:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>> My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
>>> Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
>>> character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
>>
>> But that's because LSD is either intentionally lying, or, more likely,
>> just not too bright.
>
> My subjective impression is that LSD is very bright (and not lying),
> brighter than you (and me), although you too I think are rather bright
> (perhaps brighter than me).
>
> Not that this is relevant, but now that you mention it, I thought I'd
> let you know.
Well, maybe it's about time you revisit some of your subjective impressions.
>> As I've had to explain him some days ago, if you
>> change to a synonym morpheme, you change the character. That's the
>> opposite of ideographic.
>
> The sun character was shown to have two readings (not exactly
> synonyms) is the example LSD gave. That fact was ignored by most other
> contributors, just to make the dogma hold. That's how it works here:
> dogmas first, then bend the data towards them.
?? If it had two readings (not exactly synonyms) in his example (I don't
recall it; I only recall the recent 'sunday' exchange which LSD
conveniently left unanswered), then it clearly is not ideographic.
António Marques
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:02:18 +0000: António Marques<m....@sapo.pt>: in
>> sci.lang:
>>
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
>>>> Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
>>>> character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
>>>
>>> But that's because LSD is either intentionally lying, or, more likely,
>>> just not too bright.
>>
>> My subjective impression is that LSD is very bright (and not lying),
>> brighter than you (and me), although you too I think are rather bright
>> (perhaps brighter than me).
>>
>> Not that this is relevant, but now that you mention it, I thought I'd
>> let you know.
>
> Well, maybe it's about time you revisit some of your subjective
> impressions.
(The reason it is relevant is that you're giving LSD's statements undue
credit because you've been misled by LSD's pretense knowledge of
subjects you find complex [but are not sufficiently interested in to
check for yourself].)
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>> The sun character was shown to have two readings (not exactly
>> synonyms) is the example LSD gave. That fact was ignored by most other
>> contributors, just to make the dogma hold. That's how it works here:
>> dogmas first, then bend the data towards them.
>
>?? If it had two readings (not exactly synonyms) in his example (I don't
>recall it; I only recall the recent 'sunday' exchange which LSD
>conveniently left unanswered), then it clearly is not ideographic.
_HE_ left it unanswered?? You are turning thing upside down. LSD asked
a question, repeatedly, and noone was willing to answer it. Clearly
because then they'd have to admit he was right, and that of course is
"not done", because the dogma is and must remain that he isn't..
So far, so good.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>> Well, maybe it's about time you revisit some of your subjective
>> impressions.
>
>(The reason it is relevant is that you're giving LSD's statements undue
>credit because you've been misled by LSD's pretense knowledge of
>subjects you find complex [but are not sufficiently interested in to
>check for yourself].)
The whole of the discussion was beyond me, yes, but this part was very
clear. LSD sometimes display that ability, to present seemingly
complex matters clearly.
António Marques
> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:50:00 +0000: António Marques<m....@sapo.pt>: in
> sci.lang:
>
>>> Well, maybe it's about time you revisit some of your subjective
>>> impressions.
>>
>> (The reason it is relevant is that you're giving LSD's statements undue
>> credit because you've been misled by LSD's pretense knowledge of
>> subjects you find complex [but are not sufficiently interested in to
>> check for yourself].)
>
> The whole of the discussion was beyond me, yes, but this part was very
> clear. LSD sometimes display that ability, to present seemingly
> complex matters clearly.
(Which does not implicate 'truthfully')
António Marques
> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:46:38 +0000: António Marques<m....@sapo.pt>: in
What??? Go look up the conversation starting with my message
hct8n1$ps6$1...@news.eternal-september.org
(http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/a3df74e9822b9983), to which
LSD gave the usual asininely uncontextualised reply, continued by
hcupkg$bi8$1...@news.eternal-september.org
(http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/1680cd78591e274a), at which
he fired one of the cryptic one-liners he resorts to when he doesn't
know what to say, and ending (so far) with
hcupkg$bi8$1...@news.eternal-september.org
(http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/9547e70fecc23c28), to which
he didn't even give a stupid reply because there was no part of it he
could easily wave away.
Sorry, never got handy with the message-id stuff. But I'm certain you
can get around it.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:46:38 +0000: Ant�nio Marques<m....@sapo.pt>: in
I won't even look at it. I remember how it went. That's enough.
António Marques
> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:26:28 +0000: António Marques<m....@sapo.pt>: in
> sci.lang:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:46:38 +0000: António Marques<m....@sapo.pt>: in
You clearly don't remeber or didn't read it right in the first place.
It's there for you to see.