Latest Activity

Davy left a comment for abdulrahman aliyu
1 hour ago
Davy left a comment for Mario Pinard
1 hour ago
Davy left a comment for Michael McCoy
1 hour ago
doone commented on Michel's group Internet
2 hours ago
doone commented on Michel's group Our Climate
2 hours ago
Michael McCoy and Neal are now friends
3 hours ago
Onyango Makagutu left a comment for Mario Pinard
4 hours ago
Onyango Makagutu left a comment for Michael McCoy
4 hours ago
Neal left a comment for Michael McCoy
5 hours ago
Neal replied to Bo Fowler's discussion A new argument against God?
5 hours ago
doone commented on Michel's group Our Climate
6 hours ago
doone commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion
6 hours ago
Ali posted a video

Isolated: The Zo'é tribe (full documentary)

This series (Amazonia: Last Call) travels across Brazilian landscapes by way of one of the main links still binding the essence of humanity with the Earth: t...
6 hours ago
Profile IconMichael McCoy and Mario Pinard joined Atheist Universe
6 hours ago
Onyango Makagutu replied to Neal's discussion The Planet - June 13, 2013
7 hours ago
Dallas the Phallus replied to Dallas the Phallus's discussion Beautiful Photographs of Animals & Nature in the group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral
8 hours ago

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Information

A World of Words

This is a place for lexiophiles  and linguaphiles! We are an international site, we communicate in English as lingua franca; many of us know more than one language and we love the word. Let's talk about language!

Location: #culture
Members: 45
Latest Activity: Jun 4

Many thinkers have proposed that language is what makes us unique, what makes us human. We come equipped with a very powerful, instinctual language module in our brains, a universal grammar. Nevertheless, there are thousands of languages in the world and it's fascinating to think about how they all came to be, how languages evolve, and what makes some endure and spread and some disappear.

 

This is a place to discuss everything that has to do with language, any language, dead or alive. Topics can include the origin of language, linguistics, history of languages, words that we love, world literature, and even neuroscience or evolutionary studies if they have to do specifically with language.

Discussion Forum

The New Words Thread: Things you ran across, remembered, or had to look up

Started by Dallas the Phallus. Last reply by Marianne Jun 4. 91 Replies

As the title implies, this is a thread to add the new words you come across from time to time, or words that you had to look up, or words you found intersting and wanted to share. I'll start with…Continue

Tags: adjectives, adverbs, verbs, nouns, language

Sex Symbols

Started by Dallas the Phallus. Last reply by Marianne May 30. 9 Replies

From the Grammarphobia blog.Q: In a recent radio appearance, you said the idea that “he” can refer to any human being – man or woman – was introduced in the 18th century by a female grammarian. I…Continue

Tags: singular, plural, pronouns, language, male

A Man of Many Words

Started by Dallas the Phallus May 7. 0 Replies

Another interesting book to add to the list. -- DallasA Man of Many WordsFor more than 150 years, writers of all stripes have relied on Roget’s Thesaurus of English Words and Phrasesas an elegant,…Continue

Tags: linguistics, vocabulary, language, Roget, thesaurus

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of A World of Words to add comments!

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on May 22, 2013 at 11:25pm
Comment by doone on May 14, 2013 at 6:42pm

Conquering Vocab

MAY 14 2013 @ 5:46PM

The Economist‘s language blog considers the linguistic legacy of the 1066 Norman invasion:

When the Normans, who spoke a dialect of Old French, ruled over England, they changed the face of English. Over the ensuing two centuries, thousands of Old French words entered English. Because the ruling class spoke Old French, that set of vocabulary became synonymous with the elite. Everyone else used Old English. During this period, England’s society was diglossic: one community, two language sets with distinct social spheres.

Today, English-speakers pick and choose from the different word sets—Latinate (largely Old French borrowings) and Germanic (mostly Old English-derived words)—depending on the occasion. … In informal chat, for example, we might go on to ask something, but in formal speech we’d proceed to inquire. There are hundreds of such pairs: match/correspondmean/intendsee/perceive,speak/converse. Most of us choose one or the other without even thinking about the history behind the split. Germanic words are often described as earthier, simpler, and friendlier. Latinate vocabulary, on the other hand, is lofty and elite. It’s amazing that nine hundred years later, the social and political structure of 12th-century England still affects how we think about and use English.

Comment by doone on May 7, 2013 at 1:47pm

Linguists identify 15,000-year-old ‘ultraconserved words’

Graphic: Hear and see the pronunciation of words from their ancient language families

You, hear me! Give this fire to that old man. Pull the black worm off the bark and give it to the mother. And no spitting in the ashes!

It’s an odd little speech. But if you went back 15,000 years and spoke these words to hunter-gatherers in Asia in any one of hundreds of modern languages, there is a chance they would understand at least some of what you were saying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/linguists-ide...


Comment by doone on April 15, 2013 at 11:20am

The Advantages Of Uh

APR 15 2013 @ 10:24AM

Research suggests that “filler” words may be more necessary than we realize:

One study had people sit in front of an array of objects, then grab and manipulate a specific sequence of objects, as directed by a computer voice. Sometimes the computer voice said things like, “Move the box.” Other times it added a filler word, saying, “Move the, uh, box.” The task wasn’t complex, and people had no trouble following the directions. Still, they were quicker to follow directions that involved objects they hadn’t yet manipulated when their instructions included an “uh.” To listeners, “uh” indicates that something new, which requires more mental processing on the part of the speaker, is about to be introduced. This helped the study participants put themselves in the right mindset of choosing from the as-yet unfamiliar objects.

So even a word that’s no more than a grunt is helpful. Which is good, because all languages have verbal filler. American Sigh Language has a sign for “um,” and most languages have some monosyllable that has no meaning but indicates a pause.

Comment by Davy on March 16, 2013 at 4:03pm

@ Dallas, try Shaggin' waggon 

Comment by doone on March 16, 2013 at 9:41am

William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
Comment by Dallas the Phallus on March 9, 2013 at 9:02pm

Doone, I've actually heard groak before. Pussyvan made me lol. Spermologer does not mean what I thought it might mean, and Englishable was funny, too. And who's ever heard of tyromancy? Lol. 

Comment by doone on March 9, 2013 at 3:47pm

Show Us Your Tittles

MAR 9 2013 @ 1:29PM

And other obscure words you probably don’t know:

Relatedly, Carmel Lobello compiled a list of “uncommon or obsolete words that we think may have died early.” For example:

Lunting: Walking while smoking a pipe

Groak: To silently watch someone while they are eating, hoping to be invited to join them

Jirble: To pour out (a liquid) with an unsteady hand: as, he jirbles out a dram

Comment by doone on March 5, 2013 at 8:47am

ENCAPSULATED UNIVERSES: A CONVERSATION WITH LERA BORODITSKY

Leraboroditsky_0

Over at Edge:

I'm interested in how the languages we speak shape the way we think. The reason I got interested in this question is that languages differ from one another so much. There are about 7,000 languages around the world, and each one differs from the next in innumerable ways. Obviously, languages have different words, but they also require very different things from their speakers grammatically.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you want to say even the simplest thing, like "Humpty Dumpty sat on a …" Well, even with a snippet of a nursery rhyme, if you try to translate it to other languages, you'd immediately run into trouble. Let's focus on the verb for a moment. Sat. To say this in English, if this was something that happened in the past, then you'd have to say "sat." You wouldn’t say, "will sit" or "sitting." You have to mark tense. In some languages like in Indonesian you couldn't change the verb. The verb would always stay the same regardless of whether this is a past or future event. In some languages, like in Russian, my native language, you would have to change the verb for tense, but you would also have to include gender. So if this was Mrs. Dumpty that sat on the wall, you'd use a different form of the verb than if it was Mr. Dumpty. 

In Russian, quite inconveniently, you have to mark the verb for whether the event was completed or not. So if Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall for the entire amount of time that he was meant to sit on it, that would be one form of the verb. But if he were to say "have a great fall" that would be a different form of the verb.

In Turkish, and this is one of my favorite examples, you have to change the verb depending on how you came to know this information. If you actually witnessed this event with your own eyes, you were walking along and you saw this chubby, ovoid character sitting on a wall, that would be one form of the verb. But if this was something you just heard about, or you inferred, from say broken Humpty Dumpty pieces, then you would have to use a different form of the verb.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 08:34 AM | Permalink

Comment by doone on March 4, 2013 at 7:56am

WINNING AT ARGUMENT

by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse

Lo Cole ArgumentWe’re currently finishing work on the manuscript for our forthcoming book, Why We Argue (And How We Should), so we’ve been thinking a lot recently about argumentation.  We’ve been especially concerned with how arguments can go wrong.  When evaluating an argument, one of the central questions to ask is whether the stated premises support the proposed conclusion. When the premises fail to provide the right kind of support for the conclusion, we often call the argument (and its form) fallacious.  Fallacies are so pervasive precisely because they are cases in which it looks as if the stated premises provide propose support for a proposed conclusion, but in fact they don’t.  Take, for example, a simple textbook fallacy, that of asserting the consequent

If Bill’s a bachelor, Bill is male.

Bill is male, therefore Bill is a bachelor. 

The trouble with an argument of this form is that it presents an invalid inference -- the premises, if true, don’t guarantee the truth of the conclusion.  So even were the premises and the conclusion true, the proposed argument fails.  Note that the failure is a matter of the proposed argument’s form rather than its content.  The objective of fallacy detection in the formal mode is to reveal cases in which the truth of the stated premises fail to provide the proper kind of support for the conclusion.  

In the formal mode, we also can identify different degrees in which premises provide support for a conclusion.  The highest degree of support that premises can provide for a conclusion is the guarantee of its truth, given the truth of the premises.  Arguments that manifest that feature are called deductivelyvalid.  But note that deductive validity does not depend on the stated premises actually being true.  That is, with a valid argument, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true, if the premises are true.  Accordingly, an argument can be deductively valid even if every one of its stated premises is false. 

Thus we require an additional metric of formal success.  It would seem that an argument that is both deductively valid and has premises that in fact are all true would be bombproof.  Such arguments are called deductively sound.  Notice that deductive soundness encompasses deductive validity in that every sound argument is valid.  A deductively sound argument is a deductively valid argument that has true premises.   Since a deductively valid argument is one that guarantees the truth of its conclusion provided that its premises are in fact true, it should be no surprise that deductive soundness is often considered the gold standard for argumentative success.  Every deductively sound argument actually establishes the truth of its conclusion.  Who could ask for more than that?

Continue reading "Winning at Argument"

Posted by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse at 12:45 AM | Permalink

 

Members (45)

 
 
 

© 2013   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service