Math in the Common Tongue
Bill Lauritzen
Experimental Ergonomic Math Word List--revised Sep, 1999
by William Lauritzen
Most of the reasons for using the simpler nomenclature are self-evident.
However, at times I add explanatory notes. Teachers are encouraged to
experiment using these words to help simplify learning--so that the
nomenclature does not get in the way of understanding and using math. I am
constantly adding new words and revising words so check my web site at
www.Earth360.com, or write me (bill...@aol.com) to give me feedback or
submit your own favorite words.
I personally have had much success so far in the classroom using: around
(circumference), across (diameter), zoom (similar), long (hypotenuse), by
(adjacent), far (opposite), 6-nik (hexagon, etc.).
(number of syllables in parenthesis)
denominator (5) = pattern (2)
numerator (4) = fill (1)
equals (2) = matches (2)
add (1) = --
subtract (2) = take-away (3)
multiply (3) = --
divide (2) = --
zero (2) = nothing (2)
solution (3) = answer (2)
fraction (2) = break (1)
ratio (2) = to
[one definition of “to” is “against or compared to” as in “the crop was
superior to last years.]
irrational number (6) = no-to number (5)
per (1) = for-one (2)
rate (1) = for-one (2)
unit (2) = one (1)
units (2) = ones (1)
Fancy: Zero times any number equals zero. If you have a fraction with a
numerator of 2 and a denominator of 4, that equals 1/2. To add fractions,
they must have a common denominator. Then you add the numerators. To add 1/2
plus 1/3, first change to a common denominator. Then you add the numerators.
To add 1/2 plus 1/3, first change to a common denominator of 6. So 1/2
equals 3/6 and 1/3 equals 2/6. Then add the numerators to get 5/6.
Common: Nothing times any number matches nothing. If you have a break with a
fill of 2, and a pattern of 4, that matches 1/2. To add breaks, they must
first have a common pattern. Then you add the fills. To add 1/2 plus 1/3,
first change to a common pattern of 6. So 1/2 matches 3/6 and 1/3 matches
2/6. Then add the fills to get 5/6.
decimal (3) = ten-part (2)
percent (2) = per-hundred (3)
multiple (3) = --
factor (2) = --
least common multiple (6) = nearest all multiple (6)
greatest common factor (6) = nearest all factor (6)
least common denominator (8) = least all pattern (4)
equivalent fractions (6) = matching breaks (3)
exponent (3) = --
absolute value (5) = --
terminating decimal (7) = ending ten-part (4)
longitude (3) = east-west (2)
latitude (3) = north-south (2)
radicals (3) = plus roots (2)
square root (2) = second root (3)
[note: “squared, cubed, square root, and cube root” are bad slang as second
power is also associated with area of circles, etc. and third power is also
associated with volume of spheres, etc.]
squared (1) = twoed (1)
cubed (1) = threed (1)
quadratic equation (6) = twoed match (6)
vertical (3) = up-down (2)
horizontal (4) = side-side (2)
logarithm (4) = power (2)
Fancy: Longitude 50 W. Latitude 90 N. The square root of 16 is 4. The
least common multiple of 5, 10, and 12 is 60.
Common: East-West 50 W. North-South 90 N. The second root of 16 is 4. The
nearest all-multiple of 5, 10, and 12 is 60.
shapes:
perimeter (4) = border (2)
area (3) = fill (1)
volume (2) = space (1)
Fancy: The area of a rectangle is length times width. To find the perimeter
of a rectangle add the lengths of all the sides.
Common: The fill of a rectangle is length times width. To find the border of
a rectangle add the lengths of all the sides.
circumference (4) = around (2)
diameter (4) = across (2)
[the Chinese use “straight-line” and “half-line” for diameter and radius]
radius (3) = spoke (1)
[spoke comes from the spoke of a wheel.]
circle (2) = round (1)
sphere (1) = ball (1)
cylinder (3) = can (1)
degrees (2) = clicks (1)
ellipse (2) = oval (2)
Fancy: The circumference of any circle divided by the diameter of the circle
is the same: 3.14, or pi. A circle has 360 degrees. The volume of a cylinder
is pi times the radius squared times the height.
Common: The around of any round divided by the across of the round is the
same: 3.14, or pi. A round has 360 clicks. The space in a cylinder is pi
times the spoke twoed times the height.
angle (2) = nik (1)
[nik is used for angles because an sharp angle can nick you.]
vertex (2) = nik-dot (2)
2-dimensional (5) = flat (1)
polygons (3) = many-niks (3)
triangle (3) = 3-nik (2)
quadrilateral (5) = 4-nik (2)
pentagon (3) = 5-nik (2)
hexagon (3) = 6-nik (2)
decagon (3) = 10-nik (2)
icosagon (4) = 20-nik (3)
square (1) = square or even 4-nik (1)
regular (3) = even (2)
irregular (3) = odd (1)
regular pentagon (6) = even 5-nik (4)
irregular pentagon (7) = odd 5-nik (3)
etc.
Fancy: The regular hexagon has 6 equal sides and six equal angles.
Common: The even 6-nik has 6 matching sides and 6 matching niks.
protractor (3) = nik-ring (2) or shring
compass (2) = rounder (2)
Fancy: Triangles are the only stable polygon. If one puts string through
drinking straws, this is easy to demonstrate. A quadrilateral, hexagon,
decagon, icosagon, in fact all other polyhedra, will collapse, while the
triangle keeps its shape.
Common: 3-niks are the only stable many-niks. If one puts string through
drinking straws, this is easy to demonstrate. A 4-nik, 6-nik, 10-nik,
20-nik, in fact all other many-niks, will collapse, while the 3-nik keeps
its shape.
rectangle (3) = right 4-nik (3)
rhombus (2) = --
point (1) = dot (1)
line (1) = --
plane (1) = flat (1)
ray (1) = --
segment (2) = seg (1)
coplanar (3) = same-flat (2)
collinear (4) = same-line (2)
F: The line crossed the plane in one point.
C: The line crossed the flat in one dot.
monomial (4) = 1-term (2)
binomial (4) = 2-term (2)
polynomial (5) = many-terms (3)
vertex (corner) (2) = nook (1)
3-dimensional (5) = spacial (2)
tetrahedron (4) = 4-nook (2)
[nook is used because it is another name for a corner and polyhedra can be
identified by their number of corners.]
F: A tetrahedron has 4 vertices, 6 edges, and 4 sides.
C: A 4-nook has 4 nooks, 6 edges, and 4 sides.
octahedron (4) = 6-nook (2)
hexahedron (4) = box (1) or 8-nook (2)
icosahedron (5) = 12-nook (2)
dodecahedron (5) = 20-nook (3)
regular tetrahedron (7) = even 4-nook (5)
irregular tetrahedron (8) = odd 4-nook (3)
regular octahedron (7) = even 6-nook (5)
irregular octahedron (8) = odd 6-nook (3)
regular hexahedron (7) = cube (1) or even 8-nook (4)
cube (1) = --
etc.
Fancy: There are only five regular polyhedra. Because they are made of
triangles, tetrahedrons, octahedrons, and icosahedron are stable.
Hexahedrons and dodecahedrons are not.
Common: There are only 5 even many-nooks. Because they are made of 3-niks,
4-nooks, 6-nooks, and 20-nooks are stable. 8-nooks and 12-nooks are not.
isosceles triangle (7) = two-even three-nik (5)
equilateral triangle (8) = even three-nik (4)
Fancy: The measures of the angles of a triangle always add up to 180
degrees. In an equilateral triangle, all the sides and angles are equal.
Common: The measure of the niks of a 3-nik always add up to 180 clicks. In a
even 3-nik, all the sides and niks match.
right angle (3) = right nik (2)
right triangle (4) = right 3-nik (3)
hypotenuse (4) = long (1) or shlong (1)
legs (1) = --
opposite side (5) = far side (3)
adjacent side (5) = by side (3)
Fancy: The right triangle has two legs and a hypotenuse.
Common: The right 3-nik has two legs and a shlong.
congruent (3) = matching (2)
similar (3) = zoom (3)
[“Similar triangles” can be called “zoom triangles” because of the
widespread use of the zoom lens. Of course, one may have to flip and/or spin
the triangle to see the “zoomability.”]
similar triangles (6) = zoom three-niks (4)
similar figures (5) = zoom figures (3)
similarity (5) = zoomability (5)
scale factor (3) = zoom factor (3)
proportion (3) = zoom (1)
proportional (4) = zoomable (3)
direct (1) = up-up (1)
inverse (2) = up-down (2)
directly proportional (7) = up-up zoomable (5)
inversely proportional (7) = up-down zoomable (6)
positive (3) = forward (2)
negative (3) = backward (2)
positive numbers (5) = forward numbers (4)
negative numbers (5) = backward numbers (4)
opposite (3) = backward (2)
reciprocal (4) = upside down (3)
trigonometry (5) = three-nik-science (4)
trigonometric tables (7) = 3-nik zoom tables (5)
trigonometric ratios (7) = three-nik tos (4)
sine ratio (3) = far-long to (4) [far side to long side]
cosine ratio (4) = by-long to (4) [by side to long side]
tangent ratio (4) = far-by to (4) [far side to by side]
cosecant ratio (5) = long-far to (4)
secant ratio (4) = long-by to (4)
cotangent ratio (5) = by-far to (4)
corresponding sides (5) = matching sides (3)
acute angle (4) = sharp nik (2)
obtuse angle (4) = blunt nik (2)
complementary angle (7) = right-fill nik (3)
complement (3) = right-fill (2)
supplementary angle (7) = straight-fill nik (3)
supplement (3) = straight-fill (2)
Fancy: The corresponding sides of similar triangles are directly
proportional.
Common: The matching sides of zoomable 3-niks are up-up zoomable.
induction (3) = making-a-rule (4)
deduction (3) = using-a-rule (4)
Fancy: An acute angle is less than 90 degrees. An angle and its complement
add up to 90 degrees.
Common: A sharp nik is less than 90 clicks. A nik and its right-fill add up
to 90 clicks.
parallel (3) = --
perpendicular (5) = right-crossing (3)
bisector (3) = halfer (2)
perpendicular bisector (8) = right-crossing halfer (5)
interior (4) = in (1)
exterior (4) = out (2)
corresponding angles (6) = matching niks (3)
adjacent angles (5) = by-niks (2)
interior angle (6) = in-nik (2)
exterior angle (6) = out-nik (2)
vertical angles (5) = facing niks (3)
transversal (3) = crossing (2)
same side interior angles (8) = same-side in-niks (4)
same side exterior angles (8) = same-side out-niks (4)
alternate interior angles (9) = other-side in-niks (4)
alternate exterior angles (9) = other-side out-niks (4)
tangent line (3) = touching line (3)
vertex (2) = corner, nook, or nik (1)
cone (1) = --
arc (1) = --
subtends (2) = forms (1)
constant (n.) (2) = fixed (n.) (1)
associative property (7) = grouping property (5)
commutative property (7) = switching property (5)
distributive property (7) = spreading property (5)
identity element of mult. (13) = sameness element of mult. (11)
identity element of add. (11) = sameness element of add. (9)
unknown (2) = --
variable (4) = changeable (3)
coefficient (4) = front-number (3)
diagonal (4) = across (2)
equiangular (5) = match-niked (2)
angle bisector (5) = nik halfer (3)
exponent (3) = --
origin (3) = beginning (3)
abscissa (3) = x-line (2)
ordinate (3) = y-line (2)
intercept (3) = crossing (1)
y-axis (3) = y-line (2)
x-axis (3) = x-line (2)
y-intercept (4) = y-line crossing (4)
x-intercept (4) = x-line crossing (4)
quadrant (2) = fourth (1)
linear equation (6) = line-match (2)
quadratic equation (6) = 2nd-power match (5)
parabola (4) = throw curve (2)
hyperbola (4) = --
prime number (3) = --
composite number (5) = patterned number (4)
highly composite number 7 = versatile number (5)
sequence (2) = following (3)
sequential (3) = following (3)
series (2) = group (2)
calculus = --
function (2) = in-out (2)
relation = --
differentiation (6) = slope finding (3)
integration (4) = fill finding (3)
maxima (3) = highest (2)
minima (3) = lowest (2)
intersection (4) = crossing (2)
symmetry (3) = turn-same (2)
center of rotation (6) = spin point (2)
axis of symmetry (6) = line of turn-same (4)
Venn diagrams (4) = overlapping rounds (5)
cumulative (4) = all-so-far (3)
dimensions (3) = measures (2)
consecutive (4) = next-to (2)
conjunction (3) = and-say (2)
disjunction (3) = or-say (2)
proof = showing
prove = show
meter (2) = lank (1)
decimeter (4) = hand (1) (hand width)
centimeter (4) = nail (1) (finger nail width)
millimeter (4) = line (1)
kilometer (4) = shlank (1)
cubic centimeter (6) = cubic nail (3)
binomial theorem (6) = 2-term rule (3)
symmetrical property (7) = turn-same property (5)
transitive property (6) = swap property (4)
substitution property (7) = swap property (4)
mean (1) = average (2)
mode (1) = most (1)
median (3) = middle (2)
range = --
probability (5) = chance (1)
statistics = number-facts
standard deviation = standard off
distribution = spread
histogram = past-spread
normal distribution = normal spread
descriptive statistics = number-fact showing
inferential statistics = number-fact conclusions
correlation = match
variance = shift
frequency = oftenness
correlation = match
experiment = try
observation = see
hypothesis = say
[see my paper on “Useable Science: The Try-See-Say Cycle”]
variable = changeable
dependent variable = fixed changeable
independent variable = unfixed changeable
experimental design = try plan
analysis of variance = breakdown of shift
bill...@aol.com
(c) 1999 W. Lauritzen
Peter Percival
Bill Lauritzen wrote:
> ...
> I personally have had much success so far in the classroom using: around
> (circumference), across (diameter), zoom (similar), long (hypotenuse), by
> (adjacent), far (opposite), 6-nik (hexagon, etc.).
...
Do your pupils or students complain when they discover that they do not
understand the simplest discussions about mathematics because you have failed to
teach them the language that everyone uses? With reference to your subject
line: maths *is* the common tongue but it won't be if you have any success in
perverting it.
Doug Norris
students common vocabulary words? Or is your point that, after leaving
your class, they won't be able to have a discussion with anyone else
about mathematics?
Please elaborate so that we can all "understand" further.
Doug
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Todd Norris (norr...@euclid.colorado.edu) "The Mad Kobold"
Hockey Goaltender Home Page:http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~norrisdt/goalie.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself.
Mankind. Basically, it's made up of two separate words---"mank" and "ind".
What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind."
- Deep Thought, Jack Handey
Lucas Wiman
Bill Lauritzen <bill...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<7r914c$7u0$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Fancy: Zero times any number equals zero. If you have a fraction with a
> numerator of 2 and a denominator of 4, that equals 1/2. To add fractions,
> they must have a common denominator. Then you add the numerators. To add
1/2
> plus 1/3, first change to a common denominator. Then you add the
numerators.
> To add 1/2 plus 1/3, first change to a common denominator of 6. So 1/2
> equals 3/6 and 1/3 equals 2/6. Then add the numerators to get 5/6.
How many people had trouble understanding this?
> Common: Nothing times any number matches nothing. If you have a break
with a
> fill of 2, and a pattern of 4, that matches 1/2. To add breaks, they must
> first have a common pattern. Then you add the fills. To add 1/2 plus 1/3,
> first change to a common pattern of 6. So 1/2 matches 3/6 and 1/3 matches
> 2/6. Then add the fills to get 5/6.
How many people had trouble understanding this?
All that any change in mathematical nomenclature would acomplish is that
mathematicians
would regard it as stupid, but it would be taught in schools, which would
distance teacher
from student, math further from society.
-Lucas Wiman
jon wild
for example, he or she is not going to be confused by having to learn a
new word like "irrational," rather than your "no-to." The standard terms
do not "get in the way of learning" maths any more than your new ones do,
and they have the disadvantage (apart from being incomprehensible to
anyone who hasn't studied maths with you) of being vague. Compare 'the
rate of growth per unit of time' to your "plain" 'the for-one of growth
for-one one of time'... And this without even beginning to consider
bizarre locutions such as "up-down zoomable" which sound like they're
straight out of Dr.Seuss. Can you honestly say that as a child you found
the term, say, "Venn Diagram" complicated things? I don't think the
concept would have seemed interesting if it had just been called
"overlapping rounds." Children love learning new words (as do grown-ups).
Jake Wildstrom
mathematics (and every other discipline) is the communication of ideas.
Nonstandard notation will not help your students communicate ideas to their
peers who learned standard notation, or to their future educators who may
disagree with your notational system. In addition, I'd argue that an awful lot
of your words are just less intuitive than the present terminology. It's easy
enough to explain what a "numerator" and a "denominator" are, and these don't
conflict with preconcieved notions, being new words the first time they are
learned. The idea of a "pattern" and a "fill" have rather different meanings in
common usage and are likely to cause more confusion than they alleviate
(especially since "pattern" is a word I would choose to use in describing
tesselations, a different but not entirely disjoint aspect of mathematics from
arithmetic, and "fill" is also a word you choose to use to describe area).
A question: what problem in particular are you trying to solve? Certainly
students are not learning math very well, but I think that terminology
accounts for a tiny fraction of the difficulties experienced by students, and
is probably almost exclusively a problem of students for whom English is a
second language. The problem isn't that students don't know what denominators
are. It's that they don't know how to _deal_ with them. Your energies would be
better spent improving the quality of curriculum than masking its failure with
magic "quick-fixes".
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Richard Carr
:
:circumference (4) = around (2)
:diameter (4) = across (2)
:[the Chinese use “straight-line” and “half-line” for diameter and radius]
:radius (3) = spoke (1)
:[spoke comes from the spoke of a wheel.]
:circle (2) = round (1)
:sphere (1) = ball (1)
:cylinder (3) = can (1)
:degrees (2) = clicks (1)
:ellipse (2) = oval (2)
:
:Fancy: The circumference of any circle divided by the diameter of the circle
:is the same: 3.14, or pi. A circle has 360 degrees. The volume of a cylinder
:is pi times the radius squared times the height.
:Common: The around of any round divided by the across of the round is the
:same: 3.14, or pi. A round has 360 clicks. The space in a cylinder is pi
^^^^^^^^
:times the spoke twoed times the height.
I can just imagine this class:
How can your students understand this?
"What is a cylinder?" they ask.
"Oh, it's what I called a can before."
"Then why call it a cylinder?"
"Because it is what I'm used to- in fact it is what everybody is used to,
outside of this class. You're guinea pigs for my doomed linguistics
experiments."
I mean if you can't even be consistent in your non-standard vocabulary and
nobody uses it outside your classes...
You'll also find that the standard usage is common, not fancy whereas your
usage is gibberish.
Ben Cooper
Bill Lauritzen wrote in message <7r914c$7u0$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>User-Friendly Math: Mathematics in the Common Tongue
>Experimental Ergonomic Math Word List--revised Sep, 1999
>
>by William Lauritzen
>
New words good. Not have so lots of word sound things as old words. Can
do much math now.
It seems to me that most of those words are just as equally arbitrary as
the old words, without the redeeming feature of being in common parlance. Is
it so difficult to explain what the old words mean rather than try to cut
one syllable and make neat sounds?
--
Ben Cooper
01...@williams.edu
Steve Leibel
<bill...@aol.com> wrote:
> zero (2) = nothing (2)
That is false and extremely misleading. "Zero is not nothing" is an
essential concept. Civilization did not really get going till the
invention of the numeral (I said "numeral") zero.
Moreover if you have an empty room and you put zero in it, you have a room
containing zero. The room no longer contains nothing. It contains zero.
This may seem picky, but it's actually very important. No system of
"simplification" can justify out and out falsehoods.
Ok friends flame away.
Steve L
Gerry Myerson
(Steve Leibel) wrote:
=> Civilization did not really get going till the
=> invention of the numeral (I said "numeral") zero.
So much for the pyramids, the glory that was Greece, the grandeur that
was Rome, etc., etc.
GM
Robin Chapman
Why not "times (1)"? This already seems to common usage among
students in the UK who will readily say, without trace of irony or
embarrassment, things like "we times the equation by 2".
:-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(
--
Robin Chapman
http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"They did not have proper palms at home in Exeter."
Peter Carey, _Oscar and Lucinda_
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Richard Carr
:Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:43:15 GMT
:From: Robin Chapman <r...@maths.ex.ac.uk>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Math in the Common Tongue
:
:In article <7r914c$7u0$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
: "Bill Lauritzen" <bill...@aol.com> wrote:
:> multiply (3) = --
:
:Why not "times (1)"? This already seems to common usage among
The fact that it is in common usage probably disqualifies it from
consideration. You may also notice that not all the (un)"common" have
fewer syllables than the "fancy" words they replace (at least once it goes
up from 2 to 3- subtract becomes take-away).
:students in the UK who will readily say, without trace of irony or
:embarrassment, things like "we times the equation by 2".
:
Isn't that "we times the equation adjacent 2" or am I missing something? :)
::-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(
:
:
dann...@here.com
<bill...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>User-Friendly Math: Mathematics in the Common Tongue
>Experimental Ergonomic Math Word List--revised Sep, 1999
>
>by William Lauritzen
>
> Most of the reasons for using the simpler nomenclature are self-evident.
What a considerable waste of time and effort to avoid common language.
You are doing pupils no favour here. On the contrary, they will be
utterly confused when they meet everyone else who has learned and
speaks the common language of mathematics.
Dan.
Richard Carr
The Cauchy-Schwarz non-match shows that the front number of the Pearson
match (occuring in chance and number-facts) doesn't match any number which
when twoed is bigger than one.
Richard Carr
(Is the histogram called past-spread because Mr. Lauritzen has a bizarre
notion that they only can be used for history?)
Disclaimer:
The Common Tongue for mathematics is copyrighted by W. Lauritzen to make
maths easier to understand. It is by no means my usual way of expressing
myself.
PS I think it would be fun if JSH translated his "proof" of FLT into the
Common Tongue. Then everyone would finally understand it.
Richard Carr
Also, if you call right-angled triangles simply right 3-niks, then surely
a triangle without a right angle is a wrong 3-nik. More generally you
should use wrong to describe any shape not having a right angle.
Richard Carr
:Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:11:39 -0400
:From: Richard Carr <ca...@math.columbia.edu>
:Newsgroups: sci.math
:Subject: Re: Math in the Common Tongue
:
:
:The Cauchy-Schwarz non-match shows that the front number of the Pearson
:match (occuring in chance and number-facts) doesn't match any number which
sorry "occurring" was meant.
:when twoed is bigger than one.
:
:
:
Richard Carr
I decided to look at "Knowledge in the Common Tongue" also on the web
page.
Please explain: "consonant = k-sound or guk".
Why is homonym referred to as both "mean-same" and "sound-same" (on
different pages)?
Do you realize that you have written "where" for "were" (somewhere near
the "baby-making system" if I remember correctly)?
Isn't "pentameter = 5-feet" a little confusing? Doesn't it sound a little
like 5 metres.
Probably calling things like hydrogen 1 and lithium 3 etc. will confuse an
awful lot of people because then they have to remember elements by their
atomic number. Would water would be called one twoed eight?
"Fancy: The force equals the mass times the acceleration of the
mass.
Common: The push-or-pull matches the stuff times the
speed-change-rate of the stuff."
"Fancy: gravitational force: the force between two masses is
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the
masses.
Common: gravitational pull: the pull between two stuffs is
backward zoomable to the second power of the distance between the
stuffs."
Ah! Now physics is much more perspicuous.
Why isn't "nuclear" "central" or something similar?
Why is "frequency" both "oftenness" and "how-often"? Isn't it better to
restrict oneself to just one (stick to just one), preferably theone with
the least syllables (sounds).
I liked the following quote:
"I enjoyed reading it and begin to wonder about its applications..."
James Lovelock (scientist and author, formulator of Gaia Theory) on
Versatile Economics
I think many either enjoy reading the Common Tongue (because it is so
ridiculous) or else are horrified. I imagine many people do wonder about
its applications.
I was disappointed in
"Thanks for your charming numerophilic writings." Lyn Margulis (scientist
and author, helped formulate Gaia Theory ) on Versatile Economics
which would have read better as "Thanks for your likeable number-liking penned words".
Bill Lauritzen
For 7th graders and up I teach BOTH the pretentious and pedantic terminology
as well as the experimental terminology. And I tell them its experimental.
However, I find I can teach 1st Graders what a tetrahedron is and what an
icosahedron is etc. using the simple 4-nook and 12-nook etc. I don’t try to
teach them the Greek words.
By the way, the Greeks used simple terminology (20-sides) not some ancient
Babylonian or Egyptian terms as we do when we use Greek.
Why not examine each SUGGESTED WORD on the list on its own merit and help
pick the ones which are better and the ones which are not? I never claimed
my list was perfect Why do you think I put it on the internet?
Anyway, we'll see whose students can apply math to the real world and whose
merely manipulate abstract symbols completely divorced from reality. Some of
you apparently think that if you have two apples and you take away two
apples that you now don’t have nothing.
Here’s a short essay that may answer some more of your questions. Or raise
more.
Raising Literacy Part 8: Education in the Common Tongue
by William Lauritzen, MS
You might recall the fact from mathematics that pi is equal to the
circumference of a circle divided by the radius. Perhaps you have never had
any use for this fact. Or perhaps you didn’t care to remember it, as it
brought back painful memories of school, tests, and quizzes.
Instead, what if I drew a circle and said that the “around” of the circle
(showing you what I meant by “around”) divided by the “across” of the circle
(showing you what I meant by “across”) were the same for any circle. And
that we called this number pi. You might find this fact a lot more
palatable.
In fact, I taught mathematics for many years to many different students,
and I found that “around” divided by “across” communicates the concept of pi
much easier and better.
That is because the words “around” and “across” are from what I call our
common tongue. I have found that you can teach science, history, English, in
fact, every subject in the common tongue, and with better results. The
common tongue is the language we spoke as children.
“Circumference” and “diameter” are from Latin and are not normally used by
children in their everyday play activities. They don’t say, “I put the belt
on the circumference of my waist.” They don’t say, “I threw the ball the
diameter of the circle.” They use “around” and “across.” Even thought
“around” and “across” don’t have exact meanings for the circle, they can
easily be given these exact meanings.
I believe that use of the common tongue will lead to greater application.
My theory (which might be called the Common Tongue Application Theory) is
that our common English tongue, the tongue of childhood play, is more
intimately linked to activity, motion, and action than the tongue of the
school classroom.
In school, the Latin, or French, or Greek words (the Pedantic Tongue) are
learned, as these languages were once the languages of learning. For
example, in England, in 1686, Isaac Newton wrote Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy in Latin. However, Latin is no longer the language of
learning. English is. “Circumference” and “diameter” and a host of other
words are really foreign imports.
Thus, our students, in a sense, are having to learn a foreign language in
order to understand much of “higher” education.
Unfortunately, these imported words are often only memorized. They are not
often linked to real word activities. One can attempt to link them by having
the child do kinesthetic projects, manipulate things, make things, etc.
So the student may link “circumference” to the real world.
Even so, circumference has to displace the word “around” to some degree and
that this causes some internal stress. Also, if someone sees the word
“circumference,” they might have to think for a moment, what is
“circumference?” There is a little bit of translation. However, because of
their many early childhood experiences, they would not have to think much
about the word “around” or “across.”
What if all our subjects used common words from our childhood (words that
were granted more exact meanings)? This has been done to some degree
already. The subject of biology is now often called “life science.” Geology
is often now called “earth science.” These are steps, perhaps inevitable, in
the right direction.
What if the respiratory systems were the “breathing system”? Sounds
unscholarly, I know. But easier, yes. Practical, yes.
What if a thermometer was a “heat gauge”?
What if viscosity was “thickness”?
If the earth’s rotation was the earth’s “spin”?
If the radius were the “spoke”?
If spheres were “balls”?
We might have to use hyphens at times: What if the circulatory systems were
the “blood-flow system,” if the reproductive system where the “baby-making
system.” Perhaps igneous rocks should be “fire-formed” rocks? Perhaps
frequency should be “how-often”? Perhaps accelerate should be “speed-change”
(fewer syllables, believe it or not). Perhaps a force should be a
“push-or-pull”?
We might have to make up new words at times, such as I have done in math,
where an icosahedron is a “12-nook," and a hexagon is a “6-nik.” (Believe
me, this makes life a heck of a lot easier on the math student and math
teacher.)
Other subjects besides math and science can also benefit. What if biography
were “life-story,” if the climax were the “high-point,” if the prologue were
“first-talk?” If synonyms were “mean-sames” and homonyms were “sound-sames”?
If capitalization were “big-lettering”? If a conjunction were a “joiner”?
What if democracy were “people-rule” and a monarchy were “king-rule?”
(There are many other examples and I have started to compile a list. If you
have some suggestions send them to me at my web site: Earth360.com.)
Sure, the grammar isn’t always perfect, but who cares? It won’t be the
first time that adjectives have been made to serve as nouns or vice-versa.
Language evolves and the dictionary records popular usage.
If we all used common words, I think we would have a lot less memorization
and a lot more application. I believe if we educated our children using
“around” and “across,” they would naturally apply the concept of pi in their
adult lives, and would not shy away from the concept because of painful
memories, thinking pi is “too intellectual,” or having to stop to make a
mental translation. One of the biggest complaints of private industry is
that they hire graduates that can’t apply what they have studied. Using
these common words can change that.
The use of common English words in the place of Latin words probably
offends some people. The common words do not sound intelligent. That’s
because we have learned that school has to do with Latin, Greek, or French
sounding words that one memorizes. However, should we be more concerned with
understanding and application or with “sounding intelligent”?
So scoff if you like, “scholar.” But ask yourself these questions: Am I a
walking library who memorizes knowledge or am I a dynamic person who applies
knowledge? Am I an impractical theorist or a do-er?
Perhaps school could be a heck of lot less easier than it is. Perhaps
subjects are not really that difficult. Perhaps the emperor has no clothes.
There is one disadvantage to using common words. One would not be able to
learn Latin, French, and Greek so easily. Those languages would be more
foreign to us. But most of the Greek, Latin, and French people have to learn
English anyway, as it is now the language of science, commerce, and
diplomacy.
Let’s forget the pedantry, the sophistry, the snobbishness, and “sounding
intelligent.” Let’s be intelligent by making subjects more user-friendly.
Let’s understand and apply subjects. Let’s educate in the common tongue and
raise literacy.
Part 8 of a series on raising literacy by William Lauritzen. He holds a
master’s degree in Industrial Psychology/Ergonomics and has studied
education for over 15 years. He can be reached via his internet site: Earth3
60.com. (c) 1999 W. Lauritzen.
bo...@my-deja.com
credentials: just a member of the generation that was put through
"New Math" (so-called "new" so-called "math").
1) Where is the evidence that ergonomic efficiency in language is
a good thing, or in any way desirable?
2) Has there ever been a case of successful legislation of language?
3) Something reminds me of the justification of Newspeak by the
Party in Orwell's 1984.
4) You're experimenting on children. Yes, I have a problem with that.
5) If you have two apples and you take away two apples you have hands,
hair (some of us), life, possibly oranges and sandwiches... But you
have zero apples. Some people apparently have trouble distinguishing
the empty set from the number of elements of the empty set.
6) I never thought I'd say it but it appears that there *IS* something
worse than New Math.
Dave Rusin
Bill Lauritzen <bill...@aol.com> wrote:
>Why do you think I put it on the internet?
Internet bottlenecks would vanish if we asked this question about each
item on the 'net. I would advocate tossing almost everything except
humor items. Good news for you :-)
dave
Charles H. Giffen
>
> User-Friendly Math: Mathematics in the Common Tongue
> Experimental Ergonomic Math Word List--revised Sep, 1999
>
> by William Lauritzen
>
> Most of the reasons for using the simpler nomenclature are self-evident.
> However, at times I add explanatory notes. Teachers are encouraged to
> experiment using these words to help simplify learning--so that the
> nomenclature does not get in the way of understanding and using math. I am
> constantly adding new words and revising words so check my web site at
> www.Earth360.com, or write me (bill...@aol.com) to give me feedback or
> submit your own favorite words.
> I personally have had much success so far in the classroom using: around
> (circumference), across (diameter), zoom (similar), long (hypotenuse), by
> (adjacent), far (opposite), 6-nik (hexagon, etc.).
>
What tomfoolery! You even left out:
divides = guzinta ("goes into")
A lot of students have real trouble with those guzintas.
--Chuck Giffen
Eric Behr
> You might recall the fact from mathematics that pi is equal to the
>circumference of a circle divided by the radius.
> In fact, I taught mathematics for many years to many different students,
It was funny at first, but now my skin is crawling more and more.
--
Eric Behr | NIU Mathematical Sciences | (815) 753 6727
be...@math.niu.edu | http://www.math.niu.edu/~behr/ | fax: 753 1112
Dennis Paul Himes
>
> For 7th graders and up I teach BOTH the pretentious and pedantic
> terminology as well as the experimental terminology. And I tell them its
> experimental.
I don't see how one system is any more or less pedantic than the other.
However, I do see how declaring one source of English words (e.g. Old
English) to be better than another (e.g. Latin) is pretentious.
> ... the words “around” and “across” are from what I call our common
> tongue. I have found that you can teach science, history, English, in
> fact, every subject in the common tongue, and with better results. The
> common tongue is the language we spoke as children. “Circumference” and
> “diameter” are from Latin and are not normally used by children in their
> everyday play activities.
I spoke English as a child. I neither used the words "circumference"
and "diameter" nor the words "around" and "across" in your definitions of
them.
> Even thought “around” and “across” don’t have exact meanings for the
> circle, they can easily be given these exact meanings.
As can "circumference" and "diameter".
I think your approach is the exact opposite of what would be helpful.
Words which are going to be given a new meaning should *not* be words which
already have a similar meaning. If they are, it just leads to confusion. A
good example of this is the use of "work" in physics.
> ... if someone sees the word “circumference,” they might have to think for
> a moment, what is “circumference?” There is a little bit of translation.
> However, because of their many early childhood experiences, they would not
> have to think much about the word “around” or “across.”
Yes they would. They would think "where is that preposition's object?".
Even if they didn't use the correct grammatical terms, they understand
English grammar and they would be more likely to be confused for a moment
with two uses of the same term than with a new term. These are children,
after all, not adults. Learning new words is one of the things they do
best.
> The use of common English words in the place of Latin words probably
> offends some people. The common words do not sound intelligent. That’s
> because we have learned that school has to do with Latin, Greek, or French
> sounding words that one memorizes. However, should we be more concerned
> with understanding and application or with “sounding intelligent”?
If you believe this then why are there so many Latin, Greek, and French
words in your new terminology? For instance:
Latin and/or French:
across
average
border
chance
change, changeable
conclusion
crossing
cube
curve
facing
factor
facts
fixed
formed, forms
front
gauge
grouping
multiple
normal
number
oval
part
pattern
per
plan
plus
power
rule
second
seg
space
spacial
standard
term
touching
using
versatile
Greek:
story
system
============================================================================
Dennis Paul Himes <> den...@sculptware.com
http://www.connix.com/~dennis/dennis.htm
Disclaimer: "True, I talk of dreams; which are the children of an idle
brain, begot of nothing but vain fantasy; which is as thin of substance as
the air." - Romeo & Juliet, Act I Scene iv Verse 96-99
John Savard
>By the way, the Greeks used simple terminology (20-sides) not some ancient
>Babylonian or Egyptian terms as we do when we use Greek.
> I believe that use of the common tongue will lead to greater application.
>My theory (which might be called the Common Tongue Application Theory) is
>that our common English tongue, the tongue of childhood play, is more
>intimately linked to activity, motion, and action than the tongue of the
>school classroom.
> Unfortunately, these imported words are often only memorized. They are not
>often linked to real word activities. One can attempt to link them by having
>the child do kinesthetic projects, manipulate things, make things, etc.
The advantage of specialized terms is that each one can be given a
precise meaning, while everyday terms have a range of multiple
meanings.
Also, if students don't learn the existing "official" names of all
these things, it will be harder for them to understand the literature.
Learning both names just means an extra set of names to learn.
And there is resistance nowadays to "dumbing down" the curriculum, due
to many other changes that have been made, some of which have not
worked out well (such as the drift away from phonics in teaching
reading).
You may well have a point: if people use everyday language when
learning new concepts, they will be more likely to think of ways to
apply these concepts, instead of thinking of them as belonging to a
realm removed from any relevance to their own lives. But there may be
other ways of achieving this goal that are less problematic.
John Savard ( teneerf<- )
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
John Savard
> The use of common English words in the place of Latin words probably
>offends some people. The common words do not sound intelligent. That’s
>because we have learned that school has to do with Latin, Greek, or French
>sounding words that one memorizes. However, should we be more concerned with
>understanding and application or with “sounding intelligent”?
If those people who have been educated sound different from those who
have not, it will be all the easier for employers to choose the right
people for positions requiring an education.
Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting that we spell the English
language in a phonetic manner.
Dave L. Renfro
"Math in the Usual Words"--oops, I mean "Common Tongue",
but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter.
From page 111 of
M. Richardson, COLLEGE ALGEBRA, Prentice-Hall, 1947:
The algebraic sum of one or more integral rational
expressions (or polynomials) and one or more
fractional rational expressions is often called
a mixed expression. {footnote: A mixed expression
should be distinguished from the look on a student's
face when he sees one; the latter is more properly
called a "mixed up" or "confused" expression.}
Jeff Hoffman
I think you have a nugget of truth here, although it's a very small one.
Making math and science accessible is a double-plus-good thing. Removing the
stuffiness helps. One of my best profesors talked while solving an equation,"
...So we take this critter here, multiple by that mess over there, these guys
cancel and we have a much nicer beast to work with..." It made it into a game
(which it kinda is).
I think learning is the process of developing new concepts based on old ones.
What I object to is that you're substituting the old concepts for the new. If
I do an experiment with your 'around' and 'across', things could get messy. I
might measure the circumference with a series of chords on my ruler. Or maybe
I measure the diameter with a chord that doesn't quite go through the center.
Alot of math, maybe all of it, is about these kinds of details. By the time
you get through describing exactly the thing you want (i.e.define it), I think
it really deserves a word of it's own.
I realize that some students may not follow a discussion very well because
instead of following the thread, they're thinking, "Now, what did 'radius' mean
again?" I think it's better to ensure one knows what 'radius' means than to
show the area of a circle has a relationship to a 'spoke-thingie' that one only
intuitively knows. So I ask that you use all the old concepts and common
tounge words you need to get your point across, but please, don't lose the new
concept. New words (well, new to them) help mark the new concept.
Now if your aim is to just have nicer, cuter, contemporary labels for all these
new concepts, be forewarned. I'm no linguists guy (just look at my spelling
:)), but I betcha most programmatic and conscience attempts to change the
language have had little success. Conside how many words these days are
verbed. Try and find 'finalize' in a dictionary a few decades old. My guess
is that the person that first used that word couldn't get the word 'complete'
off the tip of their tounge. So the ever-creative human nature popped out that
gem. I doubt it was a directed thought. Funny, but the people who made that
new word popular are probably the same snobby, stuffy people you're hoping to
get around.
Cheers,
Jeff H
Pertti Lounesto
> "Bill Lauritzen" <bill...@earthlink.net> wrote, in part:
>
> > The use of common English words in the place of Latin words probably
> >offends some people. The common words do not sound intelligent. That’s
> >because we have learned that school has to do with Latin, Greek, or French
> >sounding words that one memorizes. However, should we be more concerned with
> >understanding and application or with “sounding intelligent”?
>
> If those people who have been educated sound different from those who
> have not, it will be all the easier for employers to choose the right
> people for positions requiring an education.
>
> Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting that we spell the English
> language in a phonetic manner.
In my country, Finland, people speak two languages, Finnish and
Swedish. Finnish is written in a phonetic manner and is very
different from the European languages, in structrure.
Much of the math expressions in Finnish are translations from
Swedish, from the time more than 100 years ago, when all the
university teachers had Swedish as their mother tongue. The
Finnish expressions, or translations, often fail to convey the
idea to students, and are misleading. Should I today use more
descriptive Finnish expressions, which students cannot find in
Finnish textbooks? If I teach those Finnish expressions, will
my students still speak mainly Finnish, when they die, or will
Finnish vanish altogether?
Anyway, even though Finnish is written phonetically, it is
easy to pick up the educated people by their articulation;
just a few words suffice to reveal that for employers, not
to speak about vocabulary chosen.
Ed Hook
... and, moving up, is the activity of drawing rectangular shapes
to be referred to as "4-nik-ation" ???
--
Ed Hook | Copula eam, se non posit
MRJ Technology Solutions, Inc. | acceptera jocularum.
NAS, NASA Ames Research Center | I can barely speak for myself, much
Internet: ho...@nas.nasa.gov | less for my employer
Daniel Longley
parts of speech on all these words? Since when is "around" a noun? No one
ever talks about "the around" of anything. At least call it "the distance
around", and make it into a noun. That will make it possible for people
using your language to be able to talk about math while speaking English at
the same time. You shouldn't force English speaking people to have to speak
it incorrectly, just to talk about math.
I thought you were trying to make it easy for people to talk about math, but
here you go, introducing a whole new vocabulary. A litmus test for a simple
math tongue is whether or not it can be understood by someone who only knows
English, right?
e.g. "The around of any round divided by the across of the round is the
same: 3.14, or pi. A round has 360 clicks. The space in a cylinder is pi
times the spoke twoed times the height."
What on earth is an "around"? What is a "round"? What's an "across"? I
didn't know a round had an across. Maybe you can walk across a round,
though. How do you "two" something? (Seems ambiguous, too. Do you square
it or double it?)
By round I guess you mean a circle. It really would be easier to use
"circle" here, don't you think? You have to start from some primitive
geometric objects at some point, and circle is one that just about any small
child should know.
How about reformulating that above example using correct English that anyone
should be able to understand without having to sit down and learn a bunch of
new words:
"The distance around any circle divided by the distance across that circle
is always the same: 3.14, or pi. The distance around any circle can be
broken evenly into 360 pieces (so each one is a 360th of the circle). The
amount of space taken up by an object that is round with flat, circular ends
is equal to pi times half the distance across an end times half the distance
across an end times the height."
Any why are we introducing this Greek letter for a number? Why not toss
that and anytime we would normally just say pi, we'll say, "the distance
around any circle divided by the distance across that circle", instead.
Ahhh, but stripping down a language means that you'll start to see a whole
lot of really long phrases starting to appear everywhere. Before long, it
gets impossible to read anything, so you start to collapse those phrases
into single words. (Maybe you should make German your primary language for
this experiment. Quite often they collapse phrases into single words by
just appending the words together. e.g. sehenswurdigkeiten.) But that
introduces new terminology. Uh oh!
Well, here's the fundamental problem. You start with some primitives that
everyone can understand. Ideas very close to those primitives can be
expressed rather easily, and just about anyone can understand them. Once
you start to build more complex ideas, the language gets confusing, so you
add words. Anyone who wants to understand the more complicated idea should
already be familiar with the simpler idea, and they were probably already
thinking, "gee, there really should be a word for this..." So, introduce a
standard word. Ideally it should be clearly associated with the thing
you're talking about -- which is precisely why things like the "across" of a
circle are not good. A "distance across" could easily be associated with
any of the chords going across a circle, just by the sound of it. What a
catasrophe! It needs to be called the "longest possible distance across a
circle". But that's a huge phrase, isn't it. Maybe English doesn't already
have a word to capture that phrase. We're stuck. We need a new one. Why
not "diameter", since we have to learn a new word anyway? Don't forget that
good terminology is generally accepted and used by a lot of people. That
is, we say it is "standardized".
Also, realize that abstract terminology can be used to describe abstract
ideas. The whole point of abstract thinking is that it's not tied down to
reality. But that's bad, right? Wrong! Abstract thinking is how
generalizations are found, and how similarities are found between seemingly
different real phenomena. Using abstract language, you can talk about a
much wider variety of topics, but you can use the same language to talk
about all of them! How's that for simpler vocabulary? Groups acting on
sets can describe Rubik's cubes, how to paint a building, how to organize
things on a shelf, and many (perhaps uncountably infinitely many) other
things.
Sometimes it actually helps to not use language to confine our thoughts to
specific examples of things which we know can exist. That way we can play
around with the ideas. Powerful math goes on in the head. It's not some
pushing around of notation on paper.
Thank you to anyone who read this far.
Dan
Brian M. Scott
[...]
> Instead, what if I drew a circle and said that the “around” of the circle
> (showing you what I meant by “around”) divided by the “across” of the circle
> (showing you what I meant by “across”) were the same for any circle. And
> that we called this number pi.
Consistency would suggest calling it 'pee' and writing 'p'.
> You might find this fact a lot more
> palatable.
Or I might wonder why you were mangling the English language. If you
don't like 'circumference' and 'diameter', the obvious expressions are
'distance around' and 'distance across'. I have no doubt that at least
some youngsters are sufficiently sensitive to the language to think that
the use of 'around' and 'across' as substantives sounds ridiculou.
> In fact, I taught mathematics for many years to many different students,
> and I found that “around” divided by “across” communicates the concept of pi
> much easier and better.
> That is because the words “around” and “across” are from what I call our
> common tongue. I have found that you can teach science, history, English, in
> fact, every subject in the common tongue, and with better results. The
> common tongue is the language we spoke as children.
> “Circumference” and “diameter” are from Latin and are not normally used by
> children in their everyday play activities. They don’t say, “I put the belt
> on the circumference of my waist.” They don’t say, “I threw the ball the
> diameter of the circle.” They use “around” and “across.”
They also don't say 'I put the belt on the around of my waist' and 'I
threw the ball the across of the circle'. You've set up a straw man:
the normal expressions use prepositional phrases, and *any* noun phrase
is going to sound a bit odd.
> Even thought
> “around” and “across” don’t have exact meanings for the circle, they can
> easily be given these exact meanings.
As can 'circumference' and 'diameter', which have the advantage of being
understood by others.
[...]
> In school, the Latin, or French, or Greek words (the Pedantic Tongue) are
> learned, as these languages were once the languages of learning. For
> example, in England, in 1686, Isaac Newton wrote Mathematical Principles of
> Natural Philosophy in Latin. However, Latin is no longer the language of
> learning. English is. “Circumference” and “diameter” and a host of other
> words are really foreign imports.
So are <sky>, <cross>, <face>, <chair>, <cherry>, <beef>, <skirt>,
<ketchup>, <number>, <circle>, and a host of other everyday words. On
the other hand, the comparatively uncommon words <deem>, <reave>,
<quicken> 'bring to life', <quoth>, <quickbeam>, <fast> 'fixed, firm',
and many others are of Old English origin. Whether a word is of native
origin has little bearing on how familiar it is.
> Thus, our students, in a sense, are having to learn a foreign language in
> order to understand much of “higher” education.
Learning to understand the common language of educated persons is
perhaps the single most important part of education.
[...]
> Even so, circumference has to displace the word “around” to some degree
Nonsense: 'around' is a preposition, not a substantive. 'Circumference'
doesn't displace anything, as there is no everyday word for the same
concept.
[...]
> What if a thermometer was a “heat gauge”?
Students would be even more confused than they are now about the
difference between heat and temperature.
> What if viscosity was “thickness”?
I have a thin layer of a thick fluid and a thick layer of a thin fluid.
The thickness of the former is 1 mm - or is it 10 poises?
> If the earth’s rotation was the earth’s “spin”?
> If the radius were the “spoke”?
> If spheres were “balls”?
Topologists generally make a distinction between the two.
[...]
> We might have to make up new words at times, such as I have done in math,
> where an icosahedron is a “12-nook," and a hexagon is a “6-nik.” (Believe
> me, this makes life a heck of a lot easier on the math student and math
> teacher.)
I don't believe you. And even if it were true in the short term, it
would criminally irresponsible in the long term.
[...]
> If we all used common words, I think we would have a lot less memorization
> and a lot more application.
When you define a word to have a precise, technical meaning, that
combination of word and meaning has to be memorized whether the word is
common or not. And if the word is from the everyday language, you have
to worry about possibly unwanted connotations that it will drag along
with it.
> I believe if we educated our children using
> “around” and “across,” they would naturally apply the concept of pi in their
> adult lives, and would not shy away from the concept because of painful
> memories, thinking pi is “too intellectual,” or having to stop to make a
> mental translation. One of the biggest complaints of private industry is
> that they hire graduates that can’t apply what they have studied. Using
> these common words can change that.
I see no reason to think so.
> The use of common English words in the place of Latin words probably
> offends some people. The common words do not sound intelligent.
They aren't, of course - any more than the Latinate words; perhaps you
meant that people who use them don't sound intelligent?
> That’s
> because we have learned that school has to do with Latin, Greek, or French
> sounding words that one memorizes. However, should we be more concerned with
> understanding and application or with “sounding intelligent”?
So you would oust from the language a large number of fully naturalized
English words. Most of these words are common currency. You would
replace them with neologisms whose *precise* meanings are no more
apparent than those of the words that they replace. Unless you teach
*two* vocabularies, you would cut people off from all earlier scientific
writing.
> So scoff if you like, “scholar.” But ask yourself these questions: Am I a
> walking library who memorizes knowledge or am I a dynamic person who applies
> knowledge? Am I an impractical theorist or a do-er?
Both false dichotomies - very obviously so. These are the questions of
a propagandist or a fool.
[...]
> There is one disadvantage to using common words. One would not be able to
> learn Latin, French, and Greek so easily. Those languages would be more
> foreign to us. But most of the Greek, Latin, and French people have to learn
> English anyway, as it is now the language of science, commerce, and
> diplomacy.
*Latin* speakers learn English? My goodness. Beside this splendid
gaffe even the silliness of the last sentence (and the implied narrow
view of why people learn foreign languages) pales.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
bo...@my-deja.com
very good at it.
George Baloglou
[reply address is baloglouAToswego.edu -- balo...@panix.com accepts no mail]
Hmm ... I did not know that we are in a face of transition, from "that's
Greek to me" to "that's Latin to me" ... But I guess this prosperous thread
does explain a classroom incident in Business Calculus about 4 years ago:
a student with no trace of foreign accent failed to understand a comment
of mine, apparently becau ... se he did know "numerator" and "denominator";
when I asked him which terms he would use instead, he very naturally said
"top" and "bottom" ... which made me yell back to him that "we are not on
the beach, this is just a Calculus class!" :-) I was unreasonably furious,
so much so that remorse made me change the poor guy's grade from a C- to a C
when he so pleaded over a lengthy long distance call just before July 4th...
["Legal" question: could my response have had implications in case that
top/bottom student had been female?]
George Baloglou -- http://www.oswego.edu/~baloglou
Michel pointed out that the talks were sponsored by NATO and asked him
if he knew what NATO was. No, Grothendieck replied. Michel explained it
to him and recalls Grothendieck saying, "They never told me!"
[In "Grothendieck: The Genie of the Bois-Marie", AMS Notices, 3/99, p. 332]
Lee Rudolph
>Hmm ... I did not know that we are in a face of transition, from "that's
>Greek to me" to "that's Latin to me" ... But I guess this prosperous thread
>does explain a classroom incident in Business Calculus about 4 years ago:
>a student with no trace of foreign accent failed to understand a comment
>of mine, apparently becau ... se he did know "numerator" and "denominator";
>when I asked him which terms he would use instead, he very naturally said
>"top" and "bottom" ... which made me yell back to him that "we are not on
>the beach, this is just a Calculus class!" :-) I was unreasonably furious,
>so much so that remorse made me change the poor guy's grade from a C- to a C
>when he so pleaded over a lengthy long distance call just before July 4th...
>["Legal" question: could my response have had implications in case that
>top/bottom student had been female?]
Umm...I don't know how to break this to you, George, but to the extent
that it could have had "implications in case that top/bottom student
had been female", it could also have had (somewhat different) implications
in case the student had been male.
Lee Rudolph
robert a moeser
Rudolph) wrote:
> Umm...I don't know how to break this to you, George, but to the extent
> that it could have had "implications in case that top/bottom student
> had been female", it could also have had (somewhat different) implications
> in case the student had been male.
or female.
-- rob
Herman Rubin
Bill Lauritzen <bill...@aol.com> wrote:
>User-Friendly Math: Mathematics in the Common Tongue
>Experimental Ergonomic Math Word List--revised Sep, 1999
>by William Lauritzen
> Most of the reasons for using the simpler nomenclature are self-evident.
Some of them are what is more properly called baby-talk. Some of the
others are just plain wrong, and in many cases, looking at the literal
term conveys much meaning.
Specifically:
>(number of syllables in parenthesis)
By first grade, if they have been taught reading reasonably
well, the number of syllables should not matter.
>denominator (5) = pattern (2)
>numerator (4) = fill (1)
The deNOMinator literally means the namer. It names the
sizes of the parts which the NUMERator counts. The
relation with name and number have been capitalized.
>equals (2) = matches (2)
Equals and matches have quite different meanings. One
should avoid introducing ambiguities.
>add (1) = --
>subtract (2) = take-away (3)
>multiply (3) = --
>divide (2) = --
In all of these cases, the formal word is not complicated.
Also, the formal word adds to the meaning.
>zero (2) = nothing (2)
This is only going to make it harder to understand. Zero
is overloaded as it is, but it is not "nothing". The
distinction between 102 and 12 should make that clear,
but there are mathematical reasons which do not involve
numerals.
>solution (3) = answer (2)
So?
>fraction (2) = break (1)
No. The meanings are totally different.
>ratio (2) = to
>[one definition of to is against or compared to as in the crop was
>superior to last years.]
And this meaning is different from ratio.
>irrational number (6) = no-to number (5)
>per (1) = for-one (2)
>rate (1) = for-one (2)
>unit (2) = one (1)
>units (2) = ones (1)
Nothing is gained here.
>Fancy: Zero times any number equals zero. If you have a fraction with a
>numerator of 2 and a denominator of 4, that equals 1/2. To add fractions,
>they must have a common denominator. Then you add the numerators. To add 1/2
>plus 1/3, first change to a common denominator. Then you add the numerators.
>To add 1/2 plus 1/3, first change to a common denominator of 6. So 1/2
>equals 3/6 and 1/3 equals 2/6. Then add the numerators to get 5/6.
>Common: Nothing times any number matches nothing. If you have a break with a
>fill of 2, and a pattern of 4, that matches 1/2. To add breaks, they must
>first have a common pattern. Then you add the fills. To add 1/2 plus 1/3,
>first change to a common pattern of 6. So 1/2 matches 3/6 and 1/3 matches
>2/6. Then add the fills to get 5/6.
Ugh! Consider the following for addition of fractions. If
the denominators (named parts) are equal, one adds the counts
(numerators) of the parts for the individual fractions to
obtain the total number (numerator) of the sum. NEVER teach
an algorithm without giving a clear explanation of why it is
used. The equality of fractions with different denominators
should be carefully explained as well. There is ONE key
rule in mathematics, and that is that the same operation
performed on equal entities yields equal results.
>decimal (3) = ten-part (2)
>percent (2) = per-hundred (3)
>multiple (3) = --
>factor (2) = --
>least common multiple (6) = nearest all multiple (6)
>greatest common factor (6) = nearest all factor (6)
>least common denominator (8) = least all pattern (4)
>equivalent fractions (6) = matching breaks (3)
>exponent (3) = --
>absolute value (5) = --
>terminating decimal (7) = ending ten-part (4)
>longitude (3) = east-west (2)
>latitude (3) = north-south (2)
>radicals (3) = plus roots (2)
>square root (2) = second root (3)
These go from poor to somewhat wrong, and add nothing.
>[note: squared, cubed, square root, and cube root are bad slang as second
>power is also associated with area of circles, etc. and third power is also
>associated with volume of spheres, etc.]
>squared (1) = twoed (1)
>cubed (1) = threed (1)
The analog of "twoed" in any language would be multiplication
by two, or duplication. Doubled means multiplied by two.
>quadratic equation (6) = twoed match (6)
>vertical (3) = up-down (2)
>horizontal (4) = side-side (2)
>logarithm (4) = power (2)
>Fancy: Longitude 50 W. Latitude 90 N. The square root of 16 is 4. The
>least common multiple of 5, 10, and 12 is 60.
>Common: East-West 50 W. North-South 90 N. The second root of 16 is 4. The
>nearest all-multiple of 5, 10, and 12 is 60.
>shapes:
>perimeter (4) = border (2)
>area (3) = fill (1)
Now you have committed a major sin. You have used fill
for two totally different things.
>volume (2) = space (1)
>Fancy: The area of a rectangle is length times width. To find the perimeter
>of a rectangle add the lengths of all the sides.
>Common: The fill of a rectangle is length times width. To find the border of
>a rectangle add the lengths of all the sides.
>circumference (4) = around (2)
>diameter (4) = across (2)
Circumference means DISTANCE around, and diameter means DISTANCE
through, literally.
>[the Chinese use straight-line and half-line for diameter and radius]
>radius (3) = spoke (1)
>[spoke comes from the spoke of a wheel.]
Ray is more basic than wheel.
>circle (2) = round (1)
There are lots of round objects.
>sphere (1) = ball (1)
Similarly.
>cylinder (3) = can (1)
I have yet to see a can which is quite a
mathematical cylinder as you see it.
>degrees (2) = clicks (1)
What does the operation of clicking have to do
with anything.
>ellipse (2) = oval (2)
There are lots of other ovals. An Oval of Cassini is
defined as the locus of points such that the product of
the distances from the foci is constant; Cassini
suggested this as an alternative to ellipses, before
Newton gave a better explanation for planetary orbits.
I am deleting the rest of the atrocity.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
mir...@my-deja.com
"Bill Lauritzen" <bill...@aol.com> wrote:
> User-Friendly Math: Mathematics in the Common Tongue
> Fancy: The right triangle has two legs and a hypotenuse.
> Common: The right 3-nik has two legs and a shlong.
You've got a real winner there.
Brian M. Scott
> Bill Lauritzen <bill...@aol.com> wrote:
> >User-Friendly Math: Mathematics in the Common Tongue
> >Experimental Ergonomic Math Word List--revised Sep, 1999
> >by William Lauritzen
[...]
> >denominator (5) = pattern (2)
> >numerator (4) = fill (1)
> The deNOMinator literally means the namer. It names the
> sizes of the parts which the NUMERator counts. The
> relation with name and number have been capitalized.
Yes. If we were so silly as to change long-standard terminology at this
late date, 'namer' and 'counter' would be the obvious choices, following
the German calques <Nenner> and <Zaehler>. (Or, given Mr. Lauritzen's
preference for native words, 'namer' and 'teller'.)
[...]
> >solution (3) = answer (2)
> So?
Besides, in elementary courses a distinction is often made between a
solution and an answer, the former including all of the computations and
explanations leading to the latter.
[...]
> >Fancy: Zero times any number equals zero. [...]
> >Common: Nothing times any number matches nothing. [...]
Let's see: the whole idea is to make these concepts more accessible to
people whose grasp of the language is limited to the vernacular, right?
So why does Mr. Lauritzen expect that this won't be interpreted as 'No
product of two numbers is equal to anything at all', especially by
people whose vernacular includes such forms as 'He didn't give me
nothing'?
[...]
> >[note: squared, cubed, square root, and cube root are bad slang
Wrong: they are standard terminology.
> as second
> >power is also associated with area of circles, etc. and third power is also
> >associated with volume of spheres, etc.]
Irrelevant.
[...]
Quite apart from anything else, Mr. Lauritzen has a tin ear. At best.
Brian M. Scott
Zdislav V. Kovarik
:In article <7r914c$7u0$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,:>[deletia]
:> Fancy: The right triangle has two legs and a hypotenuse.
:> Common: The right 3-nik has two legs and a shlong.
:
:You've got a real winner there.
And you are on to something: The suffix "-nik" is an import from the
Yiddish (so far so good, imports make a language livelier); but Yiddish
uses this (originally Slavic) suffix specifically to create sarcastic,
derogatory words such as beatnik, peacenik, allrightnik (who makes a fuss
about being successful), and the winner is nudnik (ask Yiddish speakers).
My own attempt at contribution to this list is "political correctnik".
Have fun, ZVK(Slavek).
Keith Ramsay
Richard Carr <ca...@math.columbia.edu> writes:
|Also, if you call right-angled triangles simply right 3-niks, then surely
|a triangle without a right angle is a wrong 3-nik. More generally you
|should use wrong to describe any shape not having a right angle.
A nonnative speaker once used the term "rectangle triangle", which
has a certain charm.
Keith Ramsay
Richard Herring
> What if a thermometer was a “heat gauge”?
Please, no! Thermometers measure temperature, not heat. Teaching
thermodynamics is hard enough without introducing that kind of
confusion into the language.
(I'm speaking here as scientist rather than mathematician.)
The problem here is that physical science works with
precisely-defined abstract concepts (such as "heat" and "work".)
Some of them map to everyday concepts, and the everyday word has
been borrowed to name them - but with a new, precise, definition
which may not correspond to its familiar meaning. That can cause
perpetual confusion. Heat and work are both energy, but energy is
not power or force. Mass is not weight.
One could almost make a case for deliberately using made-up
words *not* based on common English roots, to make it clear
when the scientific concept, rather than its everyday analogue,
is being discussed.
> What if viscosity was “thickness”?
You'd have no word for the thing measured by wire gauge.
> If the earth’s rotation was the earth’s “spin”?
Big problems for quantum mechanics, where spin is not just
another rotation.
> Other subjects besides math and science can also benefit. What if biography
> were “life-story,” if the climax were the “high-point,” if the prologue were
> “first-talk?” If synonyms were “mean-sames” and homonyms were “sound-sames”?
> If capitalization were “big-lettering”? If a conjunction were a “joiner”?
> What if democracy were “people-rule” and a monarchy were “king-rule?”
Nothing new there. "Blue-eyed English" enjoyed quite a vogue at one
time. Of course, many of its supporters were motivated by dubious
political philosophies, so it's not as popular as it was.
Of course, there's always Basic English. What can you do with a
vocabulary of just 800 words?
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>