notes almost all abstractions, concepts are communicated using concrete metaphors this moved us from manipulating physical objects to digital/abstract ones (like math) we conceive of events in 2 different ways - 1. cause X to happen to Y, 2. cause Y to receive X so we’re “redistributing wealth” versus “confiscating earnings”, “ending pregnancy” versus “killing a fetus”, “invading Iraq” versus “liberating Iraq” why are so many bribes, threats, requests veiled when both parties know what’s going on? "language is way of negotiating relationships" types: a) communality, b) dominance, c) reciprocity, d) sexuality these mindsets can be stretched (e.g., communality is common w/ family but could be in fraternities) mismatches can be awkward language must satisfy 2 conditions: 1. convey information 2. negotiate relationship thus veiled language as way to negotiate relationship polite request is conditional, even though content is imperative, but not using imperative/dominant voice, allows you to get message across without using dominance another example is “plausible deniability” can be game theoretic
Steve Pinker is one of the most fascinating thinkers of our time. He is getting to the root of knowledge via the subtle clues in our language usage. His examples are extremely perceptive. He is helping us all see through the veneer of "words", deeper into "meaning" -- very stimulating!
Language expresses human experience, language has evolved due to our interdependence in the origins of technologies which condition our economic existence, it is emotion and inhibition which limit human literacy.
wow...i think im gona have to watch that again, ive never read/heard anything about the analysis of language with scientific implications....so many possabilities and ideas have occured in 17mins thanks! to TED
Thought this was going to be one of those chat shows that relies on trivia and curious knownledge. Not dissapointed though! I'm a Modern Languages students and I teach English to Spanish native speakers, most of them adults. This was incredibly helpful!
There is a simpler rule at 6:00 for English use of transitives with/without a preposition (w/w/out "to"). Giving or doing a thing physicallyrequires a preposition. So, you drive a car to Chicago. Giving or doing a thing indirectly/metaphorically/non-physically can have or not have a preposition. So, you give her a hard time but you give it to herhard, or you give her a headache, and she really hands it to you, but she hands you your head, not "to you," hoping to mean figurative, not murder.
I think Pinker would like Japanese grammar. Because in Japanese, there's verb constructions that actually add the words "to give", "to go" and "to come" to other verbs, where in English the intent would be invisible. For example "She taught me" in Japanese: She gave to me that she taught me. Or "Bring beer!": "Bring beer while coming."
The term "black hole" describes a type of singularity. They can be found by making observations on what could possibly be a singularity and then ruling out the other possibilities.
Well, at University you normally differ between natural sciences, that is physics, math, chemics etc, and the humanities, such as linguistics, sociology etc. Whenever you look at something in order to uncover the structure and facts behind it, you have science. Things don't need to explode to be science.
It reminds me of that sound they used to play in cinemas right before the movie. Just when it got the loudest, a white "THX"(?) - white text, black background - would appear. I guess it's a speaker company. Anyway, this was parodied on an episode of The Simpsons. They have that loud crescendo, a few peoples ear drums pop, and everyone cheers.
"I don't need to explain why you are not a polymath.You've explained it yourself." *smirks incredulously* Your sole basis for that claim appears to be a comment on my profile in which I say: "...I have large gaps in my knowledge, especially when it comes to economics." This kind of statement is true of absolutely anyone. If anything it might be construed as a covert boast. When you overstate your case so extravagantly, it demonstrates infallibly that you've no confidence in it yourself.
Have you bothered to read any of his work? He references and metions all ideas used, Lakoff is metioned in the text several times. He is also developing the ideas significantly; ideas do change over time. Also you seem to have missed the fact that Pinker and Chomsky are at loggerheads on most issues, Pinker couldn't be considered a follower. He has taken a new perspective on Lakoff which has put it back in the mainstream.
That's actually exactly what i'm talking about; once einstein's relativity came out they did the math and discovered that something like a singularity (black holes ARE singularities) and then they proceeded to discover them once they knew what to look for and had the proper tools. "It's a simple idea. I hope you start to get it."
If you disagree with the idea that "language is not so much a creator of human nature, but is more a window onto human nature" is your position that language IS a creator of human nature, and/or that it DOESN'T reveal anything about human nature? If that's the case your example isn't really working for you (more like against you). And your argumentum ad populum fallacy ("...but it is well known that ...") isn't doing you any favours either. Pinker is indeed a smart man.
continued to seanankerr: another thing that disturbs me about your comment... especially when you just watch steven pinker talking about grammar, you should notice that ``bright´´ so far ONLY exists as an adjective. not as a noun. brights do not say ``i am bright´´, they will say ``i am a bright´´ or ``i am part of the brights movement´´. notice the difference?
"...some overly pompous youth trying to string long words together..." And yet at first you thought I was fifty-two. "pompous, 'look at me' language.." Once again I am told that I've exceeded my allotment of polysyllabic words, and stuck my prose where it doesn't belong. This is, of course, a backhanded compliment, and I will heed the admonition the first time it comes from one whose wordcraft is not far inferior to mine. Until then I remain flattered.
Eliot Gould? I think his voice is a little deeper than Mr. Pinker's, but I see where's you're coming from. Or should that be... I approximate from the implication of your communication the meaning you intend to communicate and correct it slightly so that it fits better with my understanding, as well as implying that my knowledge is superior to yours in a hierarchal fashion.
Lacking any real substantive input about my motivation you had to supply your own -also known as psychological projection. You instinctively realize that if it were you that owned a BMW your own poor self image and insecurities would cause you to feel superior over others due to this external validation. I never said a thing about my income or anything like being cool, lmao, and yet that's what you projected onto me -proving my point.
"Whenever you look at something in order to uncover the structure and facts behind it, you have science." this is what modern cognitive science and linguistics does (esp syntax). And both are generally contended to be natural sciences. i dont know if thats your point or not.
I may be wrong but some of this sounds more about the nature of the english language, rather than about language in general. I'm not sure either that some of the observations there are ground breaking. I mean, the opposition between "to be", "to do" and "to have"... Since these are the most basic verbal constructs, one expects these to represent building-block concepts of reason, but Pinker doesn't connect these to kantian a priori. I generally like Pinker but not everything he says is hugely insightful: Here I heard a lot of descriptive exposition (a catalogue of categorised speech examples, all of which is commonly known) and very little synthesis (uncovering generative or unifying mechanisms, bringing insight into the nature of cognition).
Well, thats nice to say, and yes it may not be how it really is, but most of the concepts that I use to analyse you people are at least in parts consistent with his description. And as a child I couldnt even get, that someone wanted to talk to me and reassure me of our social state, when wished a nice day and talked about the weather. So forgive my slight predisposition on this issue. But this kind of toolset is the best working for now. Sure there are better and truer.
The dangers of stereotyping. When you present some people's story as a single and only story of their lives. You may see this as "Academic mentality", but for some this is actually a passion of their lives.
I did not use "put off" to mean that the speaker should dumb down his speech for viewers, so I did not say that the speaker's speech should be anti-intellectual. As a layman viewer who stumbled onto this site, I was simply not stimulated to continue watching the video. Why should I have to explain anti-intellectualism to you? I simply expressed that I was not excited by the lecture in the video and smart people in general. I did not know who Pinker was, so I don't have any hidden agenda.
"It's clear you are not polymath" This might not be so summarily brushed off, nor with such unalloyed insouciance, were it not so blatantly premature and transparently preemptive. True, polymaths are rare and the motive to boast obvious. If you're assuming I'm no polymath as a matter sheer probability, very well; but if you think anything I've said actively belies my implied self-assessment, I hope you'll not deny me the amusement of your attempt to demonstrate why, in lucid and specific terms.
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call tactical ambiguity a feature of language? For one there are other ways of being purposely ambiguous outside of language, think of the moment before a shoot-out where people are hovering their hands over their pistols, or slowely backing away before making a run for it.
Just because cosmology is less advanced a science than particle physics doesn't make it less valid. our ability to look back in time and see how galaxies and stars develope answers plenty of questions. it's hardly shot-in-the-dark guesses.
2007 had significantly lower video quality in general. RUclips is only around since 2005. Two years into the platform, it didn't have that amazing qualities. Some of the TED conferences from back then qualitatively also were much worse than the rather consistently high standards they have by now. TED Talks of this form only exist since spring '06. A LOT changed since then.
I always thought that TED talk was actually directed at a broader more "layman" adience. I am a what he calls a "layman" yet I rarely if ever have a problem following most TED talks. On top of that english is not my native language which adds a bit of extra difficulty.
blindly betting against theories in ANY field only slows down progress. what's imporant is to put the facts before the theory; the big bang theory is considered because it fits all the facts, and as new facts are discovered the theory itself changes to fit them. That's how all science is done.
Pinker is brilliant. The problem is, he's analyzing what language speakers all do intuitively. Thus it seems boring. The same would be true for a physiological explanation of the sex act. No more passion.
Usually it's instinctual rejection based on your original prime. It sounds wrong because you didn't learn it that way, and you hate it because your mind has to spend extra time trying to recognize it. Or not. :3
"And like Newtonian gravity of mass..." This is absolutely nothing more than a metaphor, and you bandy them about with a careless imprecision that would make Bergson blush.
"However, as the complexity of meaning as dialed up AI couldn't keep up..." Yes, yes, how do you know? I am *quite sincerely* uncertain whether you are at all able to draw a distinction between assertion and argument.
My boyfriend, Stephen, once told me that if I don't omnipotent on the 24 cats in our garage that my heart would turn black. Reviewing if his claim was woordenboek in the city of Bloomington, I found that I wanted to stay classy regardless of the law. So today, March 13th 2017, I have decided to focus on these 24 cats and become a legend
Miss Yerk3, I have a little time for you. First, my comment was not about pollution. Its useless to debate that with liberals because its a matter of religious faith to them and not science. So you were wrong there to begin with. My response was to the guy that wrote F**k BMW. You know nothing about me but what Ive mentioned about driving my BMW across country so you cant possibly be certain whether I was bragging or tweaking the individual who said F**K BMW -just to piss him off.
I was talking to a professor at Rice U in Houston. I was telling her how we must remain detached as scientist and let the data speak. She said BS on that and that she got into biology so she could make a difference. She is an activist not a scientist.
I remain unconvinced by the initial conceit of this talk. The Academie clearly has not been successful in imposing its will over all speakers of French, in all circumstances; it has, however, prevented a an unstoppable erosion. Most French speakers will refer to the time between end-of-business on Friday, and the return to work on Monday, as "le weekend" (as opposed to "la fin de semaine".) I have found that "courriel" is widely used, instead of "email"... or more simply a "mel", for euphonic comfort. In the IT sphere, the Academie has scored a winner with "'logiciel" Put that in your pipe. It's not difficult to understand a permissive POV which advocate that the culture of any People should evolve according to whichever way the wind blows. Conversely, one can also argue in favor of social, collective, self-defense. Alienation of our connections to our past ...because we become estranged to the replaced vocabulary of our forebears: that is NOT acceptable. Sir, your culture acquired the use of "laissez-faire". "Let [them] do." Goody goody. But please bear in mind that societies other than you own, which has adopted a rather extreme position /among western societies\ along in these matters, are not Masada-like resistant to guidance from their Government of the People, by the Peeps... you're getting it, I hope.
You don't have to be present during an event to study what caused it, make a theory and then test it. Also, towards the implication that the big bang is supposedly supernatural, no big bang theorist would be satisfied with the explanation that "it just happened". But due to the nature of the event, it'd be difficult to find evidence for how it happened.
@naturalpreservation Here's something I remember distinctly answering though, when you asked me before whether I was "quite finished"..."just a little after you are" doll. :)
Of course character counts, but its not only that, the usage of the # sign ... perhaps technospeak would be more appropriate, it might not reduce *your* capacity to express real thought, but for most it is, much like text-speak... are you really implying it produces true expression? It reduces , for most, attention spans
notes
almost all abstractions, concepts are communicated using concrete metaphors
this moved us from manipulating physical objects to digital/abstract ones (like math)
we conceive of events in 2 different ways - 1. cause X to happen to Y, 2. cause Y to receive X
so we’re “redistributing wealth” versus “confiscating earnings”, “ending pregnancy” versus “killing a fetus”, “invading Iraq” versus “liberating Iraq”
why are so many bribes, threats, requests veiled when both parties know what’s going on?
"language is way of negotiating relationships"
types: a) communality, b) dominance, c) reciprocity, d) sexuality
these mindsets can be stretched (e.g., communality is common w/ family but could be in fraternities)
mismatches can be awkward
language must satisfy 2 conditions:
1. convey information
2. negotiate relationship
thus veiled language as way to negotiate relationship
polite request is conditional, even though content is imperative, but not using imperative/dominant voice, allows you to get message across without using dominance
another example is “plausible deniability”
can be game theoretic
Trying to watch this at 3:13 in the morning was a bad idea. All I've gathered from this was "give a mouse a muffin" hahahah tomorrow perhaps...
Steve Pinker is one of the most fascinating thinkers of our time. He is getting to the root of knowledge via the subtle clues in our language usage. His examples are extremely perceptive. He is helping us all see through the veneer of "words", deeper into "meaning" -- very stimulating!
Language expresses human experience, language has evolved due to our interdependence in the origins of technologies which condition our economic existence, it is emotion and inhibition which limit human literacy.
I love listening to Pinker talk.
wow...i think im gona have to watch that again, ive never read/heard anything about the analysis of language with scientific implications....so many possabilities and ideas have occured in 17mins thanks! to TED
I never thought language could be that much complicated thing. Thank you professor for the insight.
Thought this was going to be one of those chat shows that relies on trivia and curious knownledge. Not dissapointed though! I'm a Modern Languages students and I teach English to Spanish native speakers, most of them adults. This was incredibly helpful!
you mean "native spanish speakers"
There is a simpler rule at 6:00 for English use of transitives with/without a preposition (w/w/out "to"). Giving or doing a thing physicallyrequires a preposition. So, you drive a car to Chicago. Giving or doing a thing indirectly/metaphorically/non-physically can have or not have a preposition. So, you give her a hard time but you give it to herhard, or you give her a headache, and she really hands it to you, but she hands you your head, not "to you," hoping to mean figurative, not murder.
oh shut up
Ugh, totally agree. It blasts my ears out when I listen with headphones...
Does the intro need to be that annoying?
Yes. Buy our cars.
It's less annoying than looking at this person with a sexual identity problem. I find his appearance more annoying than the intro.
@@Steveorino123 What a world, where having curly hair means you have a sexual identity problem...
intresting how this changed from annoying intros to gender identity.
@@dancingecho3864 Annoying intro to Klan rally in 5 years. I'm proud to an American.
Agreed. Hearing it more than once is one too many times.
one of my top 5 fav ted talks....sad that it has so little views
seems like you have good taste, would you mind sharing your orher favs? :)
I think Pinker would like Japanese grammar. Because in Japanese, there's verb constructions that actually add the words "to give", "to go" and "to come" to other verbs, where in English the intent would be invisible.
For example "She taught me" in Japanese: She gave to me that she taught me.
Or "Bring beer!": "Bring beer while coming."
there's no way anyone got through this video voluntarily
watching it for fun before bed
@@wilaustu haha same
Watching this for my video quiz 😂
I'm going to
I did
I like the 'do. Reminds me of my youth in the sixties. Groovy!
His book is out soon. This month I think.
Is this one of the first Ted talks?
The term "black hole" describes a type of singularity. They can be found by making observations on what could possibly be a singularity and then ruling out the other possibilities.
I was sent here for an assignment and I don't think I understood most of what he just said
+Nighthawk10121 I hope there wasn't a quiz on it.
bro same send me the homework, im not even joking
Well, at University you normally differ between natural sciences, that is physics, math, chemics etc, and the humanities, such as linguistics, sociology etc.
Whenever you look at something in order to uncover the structure and facts behind it, you have science. Things don't need to explode to be science.
song is supposed to be the Triumphal March from the opera Aida by Verdi. Cool intro song to me. Pinker is a genius though he missed on Brainerd yes.
Omg this presentation is Amazing
It reminds me of that sound they used to play in cinemas right before the movie. Just when it got the loudest, a white "THX"(?) - white text, black background - would appear. I guess it's a speaker company. Anyway, this was parodied on an episode of The Simpsons. They have that loud crescendo, a few peoples ear drums pop, and everyone cheers.
anyone else love the epic TED intro?
"I don't need to explain why you are not a polymath.You've explained it yourself."
*smirks incredulously*
Your sole basis for that claim appears to be a comment on my profile in which I say:
"...I have large gaps in my knowledge, especially when it comes to economics."
This kind of statement is true of absolutely anyone. If anything it might be construed as a covert boast.
When you overstate your case so extravagantly, it demonstrates infallibly that you've no confidence in it yourself.
The best advocates or teachers of any subject enable if not inspire others to want to know or learn more about a topic, not put them off.
Understanding words and understanding how people will receive the words are two different skill sets that don’t always reside in the same body.
it is important to build bridges to the general public.
Plus I did not say that I was not "excited by smart people" as u put it.
Please do not make assumptions or misquote.
Have you bothered to read any of his work? He references and metions all ideas used, Lakoff is metioned in the text several times. He is also developing the ideas significantly; ideas do change over time. Also you seem to have missed the fact that Pinker and Chomsky are at loggerheads on most issues, Pinker couldn't be considered a follower. He has taken a new perspective on Lakoff which has put it back in the mainstream.
That's actually exactly what i'm talking about; once einstein's relativity came out they did the math and discovered that something like a singularity (black holes ARE singularities) and then they proceeded to discover them once they knew what to look for and had the proper tools. "It's a simple idea. I hope you start to get it."
If you disagree with the idea that "language is not so much a creator of human nature, but is more a window onto human nature" is your position that language IS a creator of human nature, and/or that it DOESN'T reveal anything about human nature?
If that's the case your example isn't really working for you (more like against you).
And your argumentum ad populum fallacy ("...but it is well known that ...") isn't doing you any favours either.
Pinker is indeed a smart man.
Interesting talk. He should have totally included Japanese in his presentation because it's a language that basically functions off vagueness
6:58 Kant y el pensamiento, ejemplo
continued to seanankerr:
another thing that disturbs me about your comment...
especially when you just watch steven pinker talking about grammar, you should notice that ``bright´´ so far ONLY exists as an adjective. not as a noun. brights do not say ``i am bright´´, they will say ``i am a bright´´ or ``i am part of the brights movement´´. notice the difference?
10:40 Ejemplo de Fargo y el lenguaje indirecto
@goodfellow67216 why not? his voice might not be soothing, but his lecture is quite interesting and stimulating.
"...some overly pompous youth trying to string long words together..."
And yet at first you thought I was fifty-two.
"pompous, 'look at me' language.."
Once again I am told that I've exceeded my allotment of polysyllabic words, and stuck my prose where it doesn't belong.
This is, of course, a backhanded compliment, and I will heed the admonition the first time it comes from one whose wordcraft is not far inferior to mine. Until then I remain flattered.
Eliot Gould? I think his voice is a little deeper than Mr. Pinker's, but I see where's you're coming from. Or should that be... I approximate from the implication of your communication the meaning you intend to communicate and correct it slightly so that it fits better with my understanding, as well as implying that my knowledge is superior to yours in a hierarchal fashion.
@MrPhlux you both have a strong command of the english language
What year was this talk given?
After the end I think TED stand for Tearing Ear Drums
with ted talks the really pointless ones have lots of upvotes while ones with actual information like this pale in comparison.
This is interesting, but useless information.
I find it odd how I never learnt the exact mechanics of English yet I know it so well :p
Lacking any real substantive input about my motivation you had to supply your own -also known as psychological projection. You instinctively realize that if it were you that owned a BMW your own poor self image and insecurities would cause you to feel superior over others due to this external validation. I never said a thing about my income or anything like being cool, lmao, and yet that's what you projected onto me -proving my point.
"Whenever you look at something in order to uncover the structure and facts behind it, you have science."
this is what modern cognitive science and linguistics does (esp syntax). And both are generally contended to be natural sciences. i dont know if thats your point or not.
I may be wrong but some of this sounds more about the nature of the english language, rather than about language in general. I'm not sure either that some of the observations there are ground breaking. I mean, the opposition between "to be", "to do" and "to have"... Since these are the most basic verbal constructs, one expects these to represent building-block concepts of reason, but Pinker doesn't connect these to kantian a priori. I generally like Pinker but not everything he says is hugely insightful: Here I heard a lot of descriptive exposition (a catalogue of categorised speech examples, all of which is commonly known) and very little synthesis (uncovering generative or unifying mechanisms, bringing insight into the nature of cognition).
Phil Pan he's not a linguist, so it's expected he doesn't know what he's talking about
Well, thats nice to say, and yes it may not be how it really is, but most of the concepts that I use to analyse you people are at least in parts consistent with his description.
And as a child I couldnt even get, that someone wanted to talk to me and reassure me of our social state, when wished a nice day and talked about the weather. So forgive my slight predisposition on this issue. But this kind of toolset is the best working for now. Sure there are better and truer.
How does the veiled ganster threat about the store fit in the game theoratical explanation?
Other genii*. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, though if it was then you may very well count yourself among their ranks...
6:20 Conclusiones de Pinker
The dangers of stereotyping. When you present some people's story as a single and only story of their lives. You may see this as "Academic mentality", but for some this is actually a passion of their lives.
I did not use "put off" to mean that the speaker should dumb down his speech for viewers, so I did not say that the speaker's speech should be anti-intellectual. As a layman viewer who stumbled onto this site, I was simply not stimulated to continue watching the video. Why should I have to explain anti-intellectualism to you?
I simply expressed that I was not excited by the lecture in the video and smart people in general. I did not know who Pinker was, so I don't have any hidden agenda.
Thanks for posting this. He's great. (and "go brights!")
9:02 Segunda Conclusión de Pinker
"It's clear you are not polymath"
This might not be so summarily brushed off, nor with such unalloyed insouciance, were it not so blatantly premature and transparently preemptive.
True, polymaths are rare and the motive to boast obvious.
If you're assuming I'm no polymath as a matter sheer probability, very well; but if you think anything I've said actively belies my implied self-assessment, I hope you'll not deny me the amusement of your attempt to demonstrate why, in lucid and specific terms.
Why is the resolution that low? :/
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call tactical ambiguity a feature of language?
For one there are other ways of being purposely ambiguous outside of language, think of the moment before a shoot-out where people are hovering their hands over their pistols, or slowely backing away before making a run for it.
8:17 ejemplo
Just because cosmology is less advanced a science than particle physics doesn't make it less valid. our ability to look back in time and see how galaxies and stars develope answers plenty of questions. it's hardly shot-in-the-dark guesses.
17:19 Resumen
Quebec uses "courriel" all the time, much more commonly than "e-mail."
2007 had significantly lower video quality in general. RUclips is only around since 2005. Two years into the platform, it didn't have that amazing qualities.
Some of the TED conferences from back then qualitatively also were much worse than the rather consistently high standards they have by now. TED Talks of this form only exist since spring '06. A LOT changed since then.
He says the constructs are found in all languages, though he only gives examples in English, if that is your concern.
Pinker is excellent. This kind of lecture would probably require that the audience is familiar with the topics he's discussing.
Ah, the days when TED was still a mark of quality!
And when Pinker was still doing good science.
I always thought that TED talk was actually directed at a broader more "layman" adience. I am a what he calls a "layman" yet I rarely if ever have a problem following most TED talks. On top of that english is not my native language which adds a bit of extra difficulty.
3:00 am, dark room, headphones, that intro... creepy O___o
I think Trump gave this talk an A+
blindly betting against theories in ANY field only slows down progress. what's imporant is to put the facts before the theory; the big bang theory is considered because it fits all the facts, and as new facts are discovered the theory itself changes to fit them. That's how all science is done.
@shantih433 Is there ANY kind of agreement between them at all?
Pinker is brilliant. The problem is, he's analyzing what language speakers all do intuitively. Thus it seems boring. The same would be true for a physiological explanation of the sex act. No more passion.
Usually it's instinctual rejection based on your original prime. It sounds wrong because you didn't learn it that way, and you hate it because your mind has to spend extra time trying to recognize it. Or not. :3
"And like Newtonian gravity of mass..."
This is absolutely nothing more than a metaphor, and you bandy them about with a careless imprecision that would make Bergson blush.
You can see the profiles and the vase at the same time if you imagine the profiles are holding the vase up with their faces.
It was hard to enjoy because of the dreadful feedback from the microphone. How can it be that the organisers could not sort that out?
Interesting upload date
@pawsoned I never claimed they were in absolute agreement...
INCREDIBLE hair....I mean, WOW, that thing is good!!!
You are not alone Ozrielos!
"However, as the complexity of meaning as dialed up AI couldn't keep up..."
Yes, yes, how do you know?
I am *quite sincerely* uncertain whether you are at all able to draw a distinction between assertion and argument.
My boyfriend, Stephen, once told me that if I don't omnipotent on the 24 cats in our garage that my heart would turn black. Reviewing if his claim was woordenboek in the city of Bloomington, I found that I wanted to stay classy regardless of the law. So today, March 13th 2017, I have decided to focus on these 24 cats and become a legend
I have a language question: Why do I hate it when people pronounce 'rather' like that?
Six years later, here's your answer: It's anglophobia. Cheers.
TO GET YOU PUMPED FOR INFORMATION!!!!
do yourselves a favor and start around the 12:00 mark
But i was replying to the comment that one language implies that we're on the right path, and I showed a counter example of that.
Miss Yerk3, I have a little time for you.
First, my comment was not about pollution. Its useless to debate that with liberals because its a matter of religious faith to them and not science. So you were wrong there to begin with. My response was to the guy that wrote F**k BMW.
You know nothing about me but what Ive mentioned about driving my BMW across country so you cant possibly be certain whether I was bragging or tweaking the individual who said F**K BMW -just to piss him off.
It is relevant when it is activism over science.
I actuaaly to look up the etching and the guacamole thing :D
TOTALLY AGREE!
I was talking to a professor at Rice U in Houston. I was telling her how we must remain detached as scientist and let the data speak. She said BS on that and that she got into biology so she could make a difference. She is an activist not a scientist.
True, but then again, most language use some sort of "trick" to convey messages. (Ie: English uses sarcasm.)
Great talk, except for my speakers blowing out at the end. %)
I remain unconvinced by the initial conceit of this talk. The Academie clearly has not been successful in imposing its will over all speakers of French, in all circumstances; it has, however, prevented a an unstoppable erosion.
Most French speakers will refer to the time between end-of-business on Friday, and the return to work on Monday, as "le weekend" (as opposed to "la fin de semaine".)
I have found that "courriel" is widely used, instead of "email"... or more simply a "mel", for euphonic comfort.
In the IT sphere, the Academie has scored a winner with "'logiciel" Put that in your pipe.
It's not difficult to understand a permissive POV which advocate that the culture of any People should evolve according to whichever way the wind blows. Conversely, one can also argue in favor of social, collective, self-defense. Alienation of our connections to our past ...because we become estranged to the replaced vocabulary of our forebears: that is NOT acceptable.
Sir, your culture acquired the use of "laissez-faire". "Let [them] do." Goody goody. But please bear in mind that societies other than you own,
which has adopted a rather extreme position /among western societies\ along in these matters, are not Masada-like resistant to guidance from their Government of the People, by the Peeps... you're getting it, I hope.
Jingoist. @@SuperTonyony
Wow, five years and I just gave you your first like. Dommage.
@Scorpymhk He doesn't do "answering questions". He just moves on to the next video! ;)
I saw him at Caltech!
You don't have to be present during an event to study what caused it, make a theory and then test it. Also, towards the implication that the big bang is supposedly supernatural, no big bang theorist would be satisfied with the explanation that "it just happened". But due to the nature of the event, it'd be difficult to find evidence for how it happened.
@naturalpreservation Here's something I remember distinctly answering though, when you asked me before whether I was "quite finished"..."just a little after you are" doll. :)
Of course character counts, but its not only that, the usage of the # sign ... perhaps technospeak would be more appropriate, it might not reduce *your* capacity to express real thought, but for most it is, much like text-speak... are you really implying it produces true expression? It reduces , for most, attention spans
i see.. the PIXELS
Steven Pinker isn't real; he's a robot made entirely of Legos. Fact. o___O
i see one pixel. these pixels are too big to be seen multiple at time
You can proceed to watching 17th minute right away.
Brilliant.