How is GigaByte pronounced? [Archive] - The PC Guide Discussion Forums

Sylvander

10-06-2002, 01:27 PM

Hello Paul

What you say is VERY interesting.

It would suggest that Giga is indeed related to Giant and pronounced Guy-ga.

I definitely do NOT agree with the song.

First of all a word should have a well defined MEANING and hopefully all would agree on that meaning. When one person says something to another to try to communicate an idea he must pick his words carefully based upon what he believes his listener would understand those words to mean. That is made MUCH easier if there is agreement upon the meanings of words.

Similarly, it helps if there is standardisation of spelling so that ,in the written form, there is less/no room for misunderstanding the meaning of a sequence of characters. Especially when the reader is reading 1000 years after the writer wrote. If the meanings of words alter with time it becomes very difficult for a reader to determine the meaning intended by the writer. My Etymology tries to show how the meaning of each word has altered with time but unfortunately a word can have many meanings even at one time in history.
Also for pronunciation. Remember the jokes about about two nations divided by a common langu-age [or is it lingo-age]. [Is a restaurant the same as a re-store-ant?]
The scots are renouned for being impossible to understand even though they are supposed to be speaking English. We are actually using pronunciation which harks back to the more ancient form of the English language [I believe].
e.g. "You say ee-ther, I say eye-ther" tells/tolls/tally's/tales the song.
It should be pronounced ee-ther because it is a contraction of:
1."each of ane or ither" meaning 2."each of one or other"
1. contracted gives: "e(ach of ane or)ither" = either [Scots pronunciation]
2. contracted gives: "e(ach of one or)other" = eother [English pronunciation]

neither = "not each of ane or ither".

Robert Burns used changes of meaning and spelling to work wonders.
He'd have two stories running side by side produced by the same set of words because he'd created ambiguity and double meaning. He would take letters out and put in an apostrophe so that the reader could fill the gap to create a coherent meaning that he thought he could see. Rather like an ink blot image. He wrote a letter to someone which included a wonderful string of insults directed at those who mangled and misused language. When you see language used by a master [M(ay-)Aster = Mighty-Star] it is a wondrous thing. Though they speak with the tongues of men and of angels but have not care-it-y they are as a sounding bell or a tinkling symbol. In the beginning was the logos and the logos was "with" good, and the logos "was" good.

Know what I mean?

Budfred

10-06-2002, 03:09 PM

Common usage in the US is gig-a-bite. It is likely to be pronounced differently in different parts of the world however. I suspect if those of us who communicate freely on the Forum were to get together in the same room communication would become much more difficult unless we all used laptops to type to each other.

Budfred;) :D :D

Paul Komski

10-06-2002, 04:46 PM

Sylvander It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I have always found the study of language, be it philology or etymology, so interesting. If you don't already know it, you might well enjoy Fowler (http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?volid=52). As for standardised spelling; on this side of the pond we lie in the shadow of Johnson and across the water it was Webster, who set the trend for the major differences in American -v- English Spelling (http://www.bartleby.com/185/31.html). Without such lexicographers we would have no standards at all. He He :D some would say all the standards have gone to pot nowadays anyway; you only have to look at the tabloids.

Standardised English - now there's a thorny one. (1) It's too late and (2) as a result of the last century or so of industrial and technological revolution there have been (and continue to be) the need for new words. Personally speaking, I find it somewhat whimsical, when an old language like Gaelic tries to "Gaelicise" modern new words. For many centuries there WAS a "common" language in the use of Latin by the "educated". It would have more chance of success, even now, than of trying to teach that protean soup called Esperanto.

For me, the wide variety of brogues, dialects, spellings and pronunciations only enhances my dialogue with others and my enjoyment of the diversity of peoples. I would hate to see a world where everyone only spoke "BBC English". We communicate only be conversation and not by the iteration of statements. It is the interplay of the CONVERSATION associated with tones of voice, gestures (and even icons) that allows us to communicate meaningfully.

Those that desire to communicate and relate to others will find a way, however thick the jungle of words that lies between them is; just ask the deaf. I can get up off my chair a hundred times in a day and my dogs lie totally disinterested - but how do they know, before I have even straightened myself up, that this is the one when we are going out to check on the cattle? - whether I utter anything in English or not. :D

Sylvander

10-07-2002, 07:01 AM

Hello Budfred

I think you're correct. Common usage is Gig-a-bite.
Problem is I don't have a very high opinion of common usage and I'd like to fing out what is meaningful or correct.
I have come to the conclusion that we all commonly mis-pronounce and generally misuse words and in the process we no longer understand what they mean.
EXAMPLE
American spelling : Goodby
English spelling : Goodbye

The word originated as:
"Good be with Ye" [meaning "Good be with You" or "Go(o)d be with you"?]
that became
"Good be wi' Ye"
"Good b(e wi' )Ye"
hence the "e" at the end of goodbye was important.
If you are unaware of that you will drop it without a backward glance.
Generations later your decendants have no idea what it means, but they still use the word. I believe our language is full of meaning of which we are totally unaware.

Here's some speculation:
Is a story a store of information?
Is a history the highest or latest or last story? [hi(gh)story]

I know a Lord is a lo(af-wa)rd or guard.
If a "w" = a "uu" and you pronounce "ward", "oo-ard" then slur it, the sound is rather more like that of:
"guard" = "goo-ard"
By the way, "ard" means "hard" and "art" means "hart" or swift.

A "Lady" is someone who kneads bread. [don't know how that came about]
An "Edward" is an eat-ward or ed(ibles)ward.

Is a Monastery a Mono-Aster-y?
Which is a place where they believe that there is only one God [the mono-star or Aster].
When previously it was believed that the fate of each living thing was governed by its own star [or God] and there were as many of these in the heavens as there were living things. By this logic all living things would be independent agents following their "own lights".
The "Old Lights" and "New Lights" were Scottish religious factions.
The mon(o-a)sters promoted a mono-culture of belief.
The de-mon(o-aster)s opposed them?
Are the Mormons promoters of Mor(e-)mon(o-Aster)s?

Hi Paul.
My education and training was in Mathematics and Engineering.
Rather late in the day I've become interested in language and words. I feel like a child "playing with the pebbles on a shore before an ocean of knowledge".
I too favour diversity [rather than university] but unfortunately, when it comes to communication between peoples, uniformity is what works.
I agree too that there are lots of ways to communicate, some of them subconscious.
When reading Robert Burns I experienced something unique. I became aware that he was not just communicating intellectual ideas. He was conveying a mental and emotional state. I was feeling the emotions and experiencing the mental ambience of someone who had lived 200 years before. Now that's what I CALL communication.

Pianorak

10-07-2002, 08:06 AM

Fascinating thread this.

<<"art" means "hart" or swift. >>
If so, is there a direct connection leading from "hart" (swift) to stag?

Whyzman

10-07-2002, 09:50 AM

Hmmmmm......

Quite an interesting question you've axed Sylvander! Indeed, it seems languages are quite plastic! :D

If our prefix is derived from the Greek then I'll toss in another possibility. Yiyibyte, with the (i) being pronounced as the ea in the word beat.

Have a look (http://www.travlang.com/languages/greek/pronunciation.html). ;)

Classical Latin is much the same way. I was greatly disappointed when I found out that "I came! I saw! I conquered!", "Veni Vidi Vici!" was actually "Weni Widi Wici!" (C pronounced as K) Sounded a bit limp wristed for a conqueror! :p

YiYibyte without the gutteral G seems to lose something....

Nooyawkah

10-07-2002, 10:19 AM

As a member in good standing of MENSA, as well as the world's foremost self-proclaimed authority on everything, I can say with 100% certainty that I don't know!;)

Sylvander

10-07-2002, 12:14 PM

Hello all.

Pianorak
EXACTLY what I thought and still do.
I take it that the Hart was famed for it's swiftness and so if someone was swift to do something, "Hart" [later shortened to "art"] was tagged on the end of the word describing that characteristic.
It appears "Hart" is related to "Horn".
My guess would be:
Har(n')t = Horned = Horn'd = Horn't = Harn't = Hart

Whyzman
"Axed" raises an interesting point.
I've noticed that words are often spelled and pronounced with certain internal letters about-face.
So "asked" becomes "aksed" or "axed". [there are better examples but I can't think of one]
Look out for them. It'll help you make linkages between words.
YIYIBYTE! Oh no, not another possibility!
This suggests it's impossible to make language orderly and coherent.
We can only do our best.
Losing the gutteral "G" definitely would be a loss.
Talking of gutteral:
I became aware of a fundamental difference between the Scots pronunciation and the English pronunciation.
The Scots is closed and tight and hard;
the English is round and open and soft.
The English say "Oh" which is like a soft sigh with a slight exhalation of breath. If supposed to be a complaining sound it is very timid indeed.
The Scots say "Och" with a strangled sound made by pushing the back of the tongue up against the roof of the throat to make it sound as if trying to clear the throat in preparation for a huge spit. They probably did just that originally, and possibly in an enemy's [un-ami-s] face. It sounds like an expression of disgust which is probably what it was intended to be.

This, I think, is an example of how the climate and the lifestyle have an effect upon the way of speaking.

Noowarker/Nuwerker/Neworker/NeoBJORKer/NewJorker/NewYorker
Certainty gives a wonderful feeling of security.
Unfortunately it usually takes you nowhere with the exception of downward.
One of my lecturers said "The man who never made a mistake never made anything".
When once I dropped something on the floor, as an apprentice, my foreman said "don't worry it's safe now, it can't fall any farther".
Anyone who finds he is at rock bottom has the consolation of the certainty that things can't get any worse.
They can only get better, but as they get better, in creeps uncertainty.
No man born of woman knows nothing; no man born of woman knows everything; no matter how much, or how little you know, there is always someone who knows less and someone who knows more.
Make no apologies for how little you know and do not boast of how much you know.
He is more blissed who gives than who receives because who gives has and who receives has not.
It is better to have than to have not.

Pianorak

10-07-2002, 12:36 PM

Quote: "Quite an interesting question you've axed Sylvander!"

I suppose I could be accused of nitpicking - but I honestly do not know whether Whyzman has addressed me or Sylvander.
I would argue that as the sentence stands it should be addressed to me, but if written thus:
. . . axed, Sylvander!
Sylvander would be addressed.
But am I right?

As to "hitting rock bottom". Can anybody ever really know when rock bottom has been hit? As long as there is life there is surely always the possibility of falling just that little bit further.

Sylvander

10-07-2002, 12:48 PM

You hit it again Pianorak

No matter how bad you are there is always someone somewhere who is worse.

It reminds me of Entropy but perhaps we should not go there.

Suffice it to say that the closer you get to this theoretical absolute zero the closer you get to total certainty, changelessness and nothingness.

Whyzman

10-07-2002, 03:27 PM

I wish I had more time right now to go entropy diving but I need to slow down a bit! :rolleyes:

Pianorak, I do believe you are correct...pardon my comma omission! ;)

Sylvander, I can almost hear the Scottish accent...whenever I'm in doubt I replay old memories of Sean Connery...:p

Yeah, let's keep the gutteral G! And definitely let's keep it "Veni Vidi Vici!"

And I get weak in the knees when I hear "asked" get axed...it's really not that difficult to say it correctly...:(

Pianorak

10-07-2002, 05:48 PM

Quote: "No man born of woman knows nothing; . . ."

This double-negative, much cherished by Spaniards since it is the bedrock of Spanish grammar :rolleyes: , when exactly did it fall out of favour with English grammarians? Was there ever a time when it was correct English usage?

Lucias_Clay

10-07-2002, 07:28 PM

According to Merriam-webster http://www.m-w.com/home.htm it is pronounced jiga-bite also encarta says it from the greek gigga meaning giant. I always learn something new here, thats why I love this place.

Sylvander

10-07-2002, 07:59 PM

Hi Pianorak

I notice you didn't object to the appearent sexism.

Why didn't I say "no woman born of woman".

Because I consider a Womb-Man [or Wame-Man] to be a particular kind of Man. The two different sexes of Hu(mus-)Man or Hu(milis-)Man are both a kind of Man. I'm still trying to figure out if a Female is a Fee-Male or a Fem-Male. I favour the second. My Etymology says this is a suckle man. That's when a baby nips the nipple and sucks to suckle.

The other reason is to achieve the effect of repetition.

I suppose I could have said:
All born of woman know something; none born of woman know everything,
but I prefer the original.

But what's this "born of woman" bit?
Well, some believe that the creator of all DOES know everything, but was not born of woman.
I don't know if Christians believe that the son of the Creator [who was born of woman] was/is all knowing.
I know the Koran says that the Creator has no partners.

HEY LUCIUS
At last we have an authoritative source speaking the word so there is no doubt.
It's pronounced JIGA-BITE!

malcore

10-07-2002, 08:27 PM

Unfortunately with English, as with most languages, there is not always one entirely correct way to pronounce a specific word. This has always been a point of discussion in linguistics. In the end, there are sometimes two or even three "acceptable" pronunciations of a given word. The question becomes, "What is acceptable?"
In the case of "giga", I think either pronunciation is correct, jiga or giga. If,however, one wanted to debate the rules of phonics, then one could say it should be pronounced jiga, with the i being long as in bite.Look at the American pronunciation of a word like vitamin (long i) and the British pronunciation with a short i.
It's a matter of style and personal preference.

A simple example of this in the Chinese language is the word for thank you : xie xie. This is pronounced various ways; shay shay, she-ay she-ay, or shuh shay. (The romanisation of Chinese here, xie xie, is questionable at best, but that is another problem.)

English is much worse than most languages in this respect due to it being a language that is composed of many languages and is continually adapting and adding words from various languages. I have always pronounced giga with a soft g , but have no objection to the use of a hard g .

Here in Taiwan, great stress is put on learning American English (strange term). Many parents will complain when their child is taught by a person with a British, Irish or Australian accent. I have had to adjust my spelling of certain words, such as color. Being Canadian I was taught to spell this word "c-o-l-o-u-r", but must teach my students to spell it and other words like it with just "o-r" at the end.I don't feel either is more correct. Both are "acceptable."

Ain't language great! I love it.;)

Edit- As for Lucius' authoritative source, it also gives BOTH pronunciations of the word. So there it is. It is pronounced jiga .......er...or giga :D

Pianorak

10-08-2002, 05:58 AM

Sylvander quote: "I notice you didn't object to the appearent sexism.
Why didn't I say "no woman born of woman"."

I am glad you say "apparent". In fact it never even crossed my mind. After all, the phrase "Man, born of woman" has always referred to a human being regardless of sex. As an agnostic I don't know my way around the Bible :( , but I believe Matthew contains this phrase. And ever since, writers have been fond of using the phrase, incl. Shakespeare.
And sticking to the religious allusions, Christians believe that ever since the Crucifixion it is Man, born of man who shall reign forever, and thus know everything (ie born again through Jesus Christ).

BTW the double negative could have been avoided with the aid of hyphens:
No-man-born-of-woman knows nothing. :D

Sylvander

10-08-2002, 07:06 PM

But a child is not borne by a man.

It is the woman who bears the child and gives it birth/brith/breath.

So when you celebrate the aniversaries [annual-verse-aries] of your first breath you call it your brithday [oops, sorry, birthday].

I finally came up with a good example of that switch of letters.

kayofcircles

10-09-2002, 12:35 PM

Pardon me for barging into a most entertaining intellectual discussion by asking such an impertinent question, but does it matter how someone pronounces something as long as one knows what they mean? Reminds me of the song from an old musical "You say 'to-may-to', and I say 'to-mah-to', you say 'po-tay-to, and I say 'po-tah-to'" Those of us who get too fussy about pronounciation find ourselves missing the rest of the sentence sometimes...as in a recent speech by our Texan President where I got hung up early in the speech trying to figure out why he was "mispronouncing" a word so badly...lol.

Might actually be one advantage of the Net as a form of communication because the words should be spelled similarly..and I can certainly translate from "color" to "colour" easily enough. And by the by, I will continue with "gig-a-byte"...no one has "corrected" me so far.:)

Sylvander

10-09-2002, 04:54 PM

Hello kay

I too am in favour of the rich tapestry of life.

BUT

When there are two, three or even four ways of pronouncing or spelling and perhaps a word pronounced or spelled [spieled] the same way has two or more meanings, thing begin to get chaotic and difficult.

The language which evolved on these British Islands and was given the name "English", is pronounced here in such a wonderful variety of accents, that a person from one area is liable to be unable to understand what is being said by someone from another area.

e.g. Where I live:
Round is pronounced roun' [the "d" is missed], sounding roon which could be mistaken for rune [a character in the early Germanic Alphabet].

To further illustrate this, what follows is a poem by Robert Burns in lowland Scots, which is basically a separate development from early English.

DEATH AND DOCTOR HORNBOOK
by Robert Burns (died 1793)

Some books are lies from end to end,
And some GREAT lies were never penned:
Even ministers they hae been kenn'd, [have] [known]
In holy rapture,
A rousing whid at times to vend, [tale]
And nail't wi' scripture.

But this that I am gaun to tell, [going]
Which lately on a night befell,
Is Just as true's the Deil's in hell [Devil's]
Or Dublin city:
That e'er he nearer comes oursel’ [ourself]
‘S a muckle pity. [large, great, mighty]

The clachan yill had made me canty, [village ale] [lively, cheerful, chanting, not upright]
I was na’ fu’, but just had plenty; [not] [full]
I stacher'd whiles, but yet took tent aye [staggered][at times] [attention, care] [yes]
To free the ditches;
And hillocks, stones, and bushes, kenn’d aye [knew] [yes]
From ghosts and witches.

The rising moon began to glowre, [stare, ray a look/light/glow from the eyes]
The distant native hills out-ow’r: [over]
To count her horns, wi’ a’ my pow’r, [pow = head, poll; power = the capability of the pow]
I set mysel’; [myself]
But whether she had three or four,
I cou'd na tell. [could][not]

I was come round about the hill,
And sauntering down on Willie’s mill, [wandering musing]
Setting my staff wi’ a’ my skill, [with]
To keep me sicker; [secure]
Tho’ leeward whiles against my will, [at times]
I took a bicker. [short sprint or competitive race (from which comes bickering)]

I there wi’ Something does forgather,
That put me in an eerie swither; [oscillate, vacillate, like a switch in a high wind]
An awfu’ scythe, out owre ae shouther, [awe-full][one][shoulder]
Clear-dangling, hang;
A three-tae'd leister on the ither [toe'd][fish spear][other]
Lay, large an’ lang. [long]

It’s stature seemed lang Scotch ells twa, [long][ells = arms (the elbow is the bow/bend of the arm)]
The queerest shape that e’er I saw, [ever]
For not a wame it had at a’; [womb] [all]
And then its shanks,
They were as thin, as sharp and sma’ [small]
As cheeks o’ branks. [the wooden curbs for horses]

Guid-e’en quo’ I; “Friend! Have ye been mawin’, [good evening] [quoth I] [mowing]
When other folks are busy sawin’!” [sowing]
It seemed to make a kind o’ stan’ [stand]
But nothing spak’; [spoke]
At length, says I, “Friend! Where ye gaun’? [going]
Will ye go back?”

It spoke right howe,--“My name is Death, [hollow]
But be no’ ‘fraid.”—Quoth I, “Good faith,
Ye’re maybe come to stap my breath; [stop]
But tent me billie; [be attentive to me fellow]
I counsel well, take care o’ skaith, [scathe]
See, there’s a gully!” [large knife]

I don't know how easy you'll find this to read but I'm sure if you heard it read today you'd have difficulty in understanding even if all the peculiar words were converted to standard English.

kayofcircles

10-10-2002, 12:13 PM

Think it's one of those "that's just the way it is" things, Sylvander . Language and slang are constantly changing. And you can't very well go "back" and change the words in something like the Burns poem without losing all the "flow." I have to read Shakespeare to decipher his work..we saw Hamlet with Mel Gibson and I spent half the movie trying to figure out what was going on because I couldn't quite understand what was just said.

Sometimes I am convinced there is the "clique" aspect to it. Saw a tv show where the character was speaking in "street language". The words were definitely English, but in "code"..lol. Once you know the "code", it actually makes sense, and is decipherable..but if you don't, it sounds like gibberish. I remember writing backwards, and making up codes to write messages in when I was young..and suspect that's fairly normal. The only time that one would be concerned about that is if our young people cannot write or speak more "common" English.

It does raise some food for speculation, though. Did some early American typesetter drop the "u" in colour, honour, etc to conserve printing space? Why do some slang expressions like "cool" survive for decades when others like "groovy" don't? Where do some expressions even come from in the first place? A friend recently said "wild horses on bended knees can not make me.." Okay, remember the "wild horses couldn't drag me" expression, but can't quite remember where the "bended knees" stuff rings a bell in my head.

Had a southern friend who used this expression a lot, and will close my post with it. "You'd complain if you were hung with a new rope!" :D

Sylvander

10-10-2002, 02:26 PM

Hello Kay.

"All the world's a little queer save thee and me; and even thee's a little queer!"

I don't know if that saying is peculiar to this part of the planet. I hope you catch the nuance. The speaker talks most quaintly so should you experience his 'quaint-ance you would be the one finding HIM rather queer.

By the way, what does the code "lol" or is it "1o1" mean?

Unless we have a standard language in which all can converse, communication get's rather difficult.

Mind you the strange language of Burns conceals a mine of metaphorical gold and diamonds. The deeper you dig, the more treasures are to be found.

Logic for example.
"Some books are lies from end to end"
A piece of string has two ends does it not?
A book has two ends also; the starting end and the finishing end. He could have said:
Some books are lies from start to finish; but he didn't.
Or
Some books are lies from start to start
but he said
Some books are lies from END to END, which is ambiguous.

That could mean they have no lies in them because there is nothing between the [finish] end and the [finish] end.
Of course his readers would well understand that he was alluding to the Bible, which made this dangerous and would make him a target.
Perhaps this was his escape clause.

What did you think of the little piece of the story included?

The changes that America has made to English seem to be designed to simplify and make coherent, which is admirable. However I suspect that in so doing the link with the origins and history of words is severed.

Do you know what a heckler is?
Originally this was a person who used a heckle or hackle to "dress" the raw material used for weaving [flax or hemp]. I wonder if these lowly workers were usually the ones who interrupted agressively at political meetings.

Now, I wonder why a SOUTHERNER would use an expression of THAT sort?

Paul Komski

10-10-2002, 07:05 PM

Did some early American typesetter drop the "u" in colour, honour, etc
I think all the major spelling differences between the UK and US date back to a 19th century American Lexicographer called Webster. There also exists a "Spell as you speak movement".

Pronunciation is a different kettle of fish and seeing that this thread has persisted I had a read-up on Fowler, from which I paraphrase:-

The “Received Pronunciation” (in England can, with limitations, be considered as the system of pronunciation that is regarded as correct for an educated Englishman) has always been to some extent conventional; the spelling of a word is not necessarily a safe guide to its sound. If, for instance, the conventional pronunciation of forehead is fó’red, and of knowledge nó’líj, precisians who try to restore the supposed true sounds of those words expose themselves to an imputation of either ignorance or pedantry; the right rule is to speak as our neighbours do, not better. But pronunciation is never static, and there are forces at work today that make it more than usually subject to change.

One of the forces is a movement towards speaking words as they are spelt. This is a natural result of the growth of popular education, of words being visible and not merely audible symbols to far more people than they used to be, of the formal teaching of “correct” speech and of precise enunciation cultivated by some professional broadcasters.

Modern dictionaries afford plenty of evidence that the speak-as-you-spell movement is encroaching on many conventional pronunciations. Those who say fort’yoon instead of for’choon (for fortune) or cloe’thes instead of cloze (for clothes) may sound as odd as the once correct awspitl (for hospital) and obleeged (for obliged) do to us now.

The other force that can hardly fail to have its effect is American pronunciation, now an easy second to the “Received Pronunciation” over the air in Britain. American influence no doubt accounts for the fact that Englishmen seem to be taking to saying ree’search and dee’fect instead of putting all the emphasis on the second syllable with hardly a perceptible vowel sound in the first.

One other trend, deprecated by Fowler, is the greater tendency to give foreign values to the vowels in any word, however well acclimatized in England, that has any foreign look, however slight. He also makes the point that a display of superior knowledge is as great a vulgarity as a display of superior wealth and that to pronounce foreign words as if you were one of the select few to whom that language was second nature is both inconsiderate and rude.

Sylvander

10-11-2002, 10:50 AM

Hello Paul

The "Spell as you speak movement" sounds interesting.
I think speaking came first then writing would be invented.
Even when most were illiterate all could speak their language.
I am into making my family tree and subscribe to a forum at
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scots-origins/".
One of the things that shows up there is that when Births, Marriages and Deaths were being recorded by the Cleric [or Clerk/Clark] their names were being spelled as they were being pronounced. The Clerk would ask for a name and spell what he heard. This is wonderful because it tells us hundreds of years later how they [your ancestors] pronounced words and so it would tell their origins.
A certain lady in Salt Lake City was looking for information on an ancestor whose surname in America was either McLeamont or McCleamont.
She submitted details of Marion McLeamont to the Mormon database.
But that cannot be the way her ancestors spelled their name because there are no descendants with this spelling and the person she submitted is the ONLY one recorded throughout history.
The name is commonly spelled McClymont.
Now if you knew the accent spoken in certain areas of Northern Ireland [of Scottish origin] and Scotland it would be clear why someone in America who didn't know the local spelling of the name would hear M'CleeMont and record what they heard as McLeamont/McLeemont/McCleamont.

Another example is:
Swine-y, Swiney, Swaney, Sweeney,
or
Boat-Swine, Boatswain, Bosun.

Having made a family tree I discovered that my father had 3 brothers, 3 sisters, 2 half brothers & 2 half sisters, of whose existence I knew nothing. They lived only 30 miles away on the opposite side of Edinburgh. I managed to make contact and visited some cousins and some others I’d never met. They told me about an aunt whose name was pronounced “Meenie” locally, but generally pronounced and spelt “Minnie”. Her name was “Wilhelmina” [after Kaiser Wilhelm I presume], she was born about 1901. They lived so near and yet pronounced words [in the local manner], which were so foreign to me that I did not understand. Here is a fishing community where they speak significantly differently from the city folk just 15 miles away.
How does that fit with “the right rule is to speak as our neighbours do”?
If one neighbour speaks badly and another, slightly further away, speaks well, who should I emulate?
If the Lemmings are all rushing over the cliff should I follow them?

To change topic.
Something that annoys me is when words are pronounced with no regard to their meaning or how they are constructed.
I can't think of any good examples off the top of my head but:
recognise, pronounced wreck-og-nise instead of re-cogn-ise which comes from re-gno-ise or re-know-ise. "gno" comes from"gnosis". I wonder how it got from gno to cogn?

Here are some words which have the prefix "re" put before them;
like
act and re-act;
call and re-call;
collect and re-collect;
count and re-count;
others are:
search, bound, but, capitulate, cast, cede, cite, claim, cognise, create, deem, double, dress, duplicate, fine, flex, form, fresh, fuse, generate, hearse.

I could speculate on:
Reign, Re-gin, Re-kin, Re-gene.
A King is a Kin(-in)g. He should be a perfect ex(-s)ample of his kind.

I hear spokespeople and newsreaders pronounce words in such a way that suggests they have no idea of how the words they speak were constructed as well as not knowing what they mean.
You will hear the adjective “massive” applied to things that have NO mass, like a massive VOLUME of something or a massive idea or speed.

I don’t expect perfection of myself or others but it would be nice if we all tried our best, found out the way to go and kept heading there.

kayofcircles

10-11-2002, 12:57 PM

You nailed me..Sylvander ! "lol" is "laughing out loud" and I admit, I use it far too freely. It is easier to type, and I find it less "cute-sy" than a smile or grin smilie to indicate when I am tongue in cheek. I think that "reading" is very preferable in some cases here, especially where the question posed is by a person for whom English is not their native tongue..because one can read and re-read and puzzle out the question..but, as always, a big downside to the Internet is the inability to "read" the other person's body language and facial expression so as to tell when they are kidding or quite serious..or in some cases, getting ticked off! And I never quite mastered the shorthand thingies..like the ":" followed by ")" ..to indicate the "feel" of a sentence rather than just the dry content.

I understand your concern, and agree, but also think that most of us are doing our best to communicate..and trying to do so in such a way as to be understood by those we're speaking to. And let us say that a majority of English speaking people decided it would be nice and helpful to have a standard for spelling and pronounciation. As a contrary American, my first question would be "Who decides what the standard is?"

Haven't heard it much, but think the expression here is "everyone here is crazy except thee and me..and I am not too sure about thee!"

Paul : Your post has me remembering the Mandarin Chinese and whatever the common speech is called..and realizing that we may do similar in the sense of just what we're talking about here. Putting aside the "snobbish" vs "common" aspect..I think most people do tend to write/type differently than they talk, especially when trying to communicate with those in other countries. So possibly we've already accepted an unconscious "standard" in English usage? There are some advantages to "spell as you speak" but then some rather obvious disadvantages as well..and you'd lose the "standard" altogether when taking into account regional accents.

I just want to say "Hurrah for the English" who spread their language far and wide long ago...China, India, Australia, Canada, etc..because I am one of the fortunate ones who speak English as a native tongue. I had neighbors from Mexico once who spoke little English, and I tried my high school Spanish on them many times. They laughed a lot!

Budfred

10-11-2002, 08:39 PM

Sylvander,

I believe "recognize" comes from the same root as cognition as in "cognito ergo sum", rather than from gnostic.

Budfred

Whyzman

10-11-2002, 10:23 PM

Sylvander is correct in this instance. Cogito comes from the Latin "cogitatus," meaning to think.

One has to do with thinking, the other with knowing....;)

Budfred

10-11-2002, 11:07 PM

Yep, apparently more that than cogito:

[Middle English recognisen, to resume possession of land, alteration (influenced by Medieval Latin recognizre, to recognize), of Old French reconoistre, reconoiss-,
to know again from Latin recognscere : re-, re- + cognscere, to get to know; see gn- in Indo-European Roots.]

Budfred

jabarnutcase

10-11-2002, 11:11 PM

Can't think of anything useful that I could add to this amazing and informative thread.....But I am curious KAY.

Wasn't it: "You'd kick if they hung you with a new rope"? :D

Paul Komski

10-11-2002, 11:28 PM

He He He ;) You pays your money and you takes your choice but the Shorter OED disagrees with both of those etymologies for recognise.
(1) Old French v. 1531 recon(n)iss pr stem of reconnaistre (mod reconnaissance)
(2) Archaic English v. 1533 recognosce (To recognise or acknowledge).
(3) Latin recognoscere.

Cognosce v. Chiefly Scl Law 1583 [L. cognoscere]
1. intr. To make inquiry; to take cognizance of a cause, etc.
2. trans. To take judicial cognizance of; to investigare, try 1807.
3. Judicially to examine and pronounce to be of a certain status; esp. to pronounce to be an idiot or lunatic 1670.
4. = Cognize.

Cognize, -ise v. 1658
To take cognizance of, notice, observe and (Philos) to make (anything) an object of cognition.

Gnosis (from the Greek) is defined as a special knowledge of spiritual mysteries.

Time I think to cognosce myself insane and welcome you all to join me in Bedlam, where there is bound to be a big library of dictionaries! :D

Sylvander

10-12-2002, 04:41 AM

Hello all

Glad you’re finding the topic interesting.

BUDFRED
Wouldn’t the “cog” in cognito be related to the “gno” in gnosis?
That’s what I’m thinking. That they all relate to each other or link up; that languages did not develop in isolation; that there was communication, even way back then.

WHYZMAN
“Cogitatus” = To think.
Now that adds a new piece to the puzzle.
First you think [I think therefore I am] then you know. [see PAUL which follows]

PAUL
Things whose purpose is TO COME TO KNOW are:
to make enquiry; to investigate; to examine; to notice; to observe; and then to think.

HOWS THIS FOR A NEW TOPIC
The “sci” in sci-ence.
Or is it the “see” in see-ence.
I see, I think, I come to know.
Also as in con-sci-ence, viva-sci-ous & pre-co-sci-ous.
That is conscience, vivacious & precocious.
My Etymology says:
Science = knowledge, especially of a technical kind.
Stem of “scire” = know.

Also consider:
“videre” = see
as in “evident” = “making itself seen
and “evidence” = something seen; a significant appearance; ground for belief.
As in I see, I come to know, I come to believe something.
I read of a noted Mormon scholar who spoke of “THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN” as the basis of belief!!!!
Now how’s that for the misuse of the meanings of words!

jabarnutcase

10-12-2002, 07:45 AM

After doing a bit of research, I think the following article may help to shed some light on this topic:

ÀÄÀÌ È ÅÂÀ ÌÎÃËÈ ÃÎÂÎÐÈÒÜ ÏÎ-ÊÈÐÃÈÇÑÊÈ?

Íûíåøíèé ãîä â Êèðãèçèè, êàê èçâåñòíî, îáúÿâëåí Ãîäîì ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè. Ñâÿçàíî ýòî â çíà÷èòåëüíî ìåðå ñ òåì, ÷òî ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ îòìå÷àåòñÿ âñå âîçðàñòàþùèé èíòåðåñ ãðàæäàí ðåñïóáëèêè ê îòå÷åñòâåííîé èñòîðèè. Ëþäè âñå ÷àùå çàäóìûâàþòñÿ íàä òåì, êàê çàðîæäàëîñü è ñêëàäûâàëîñü ãîñóäàðñòâî, êîòîðîå ñîõðàíèëî â âåêàõ íàöèîíàëüíóþ ñàìîáûòíîñòü íàðîäà. È êàê âûÿñíèëîñü â õîäå íàó÷íûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, êîðíè ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè êèðãèçîâ óõîäÿò äàëåêî â ãëóáü âåêîâ. Âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå, ïî äàííûì ó÷åíûõ, íàéäåíû óáåäèòåëüíûå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà òîãî, ÷òî ïåðâîå ãîñóäàðñòâî êèðãèçîâ áûëî îáðàçîâàíî åùå 2200 ëåò íàçàä. À òåïåðü âîò ïîÿâèëàñü âåðñèÿ, ÷òî è ÿçûê ýòîãî íàðîäà ñëåäóåò ñ÷èòàòü îäíèì èç ñàìûõ äðåâíèõ íà íàøåé çåìëå.
Àâòîðû ýòîé ãèïîòåçû, îïóáëèêîâàííîé â ìåñòíîé ãàçåòå «Ìîÿ ñòîëèöà», âûñòðàèâàþò òàêóþ ëîãè÷åñêóþ öåïî÷êó. Â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ óæå ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ïðèçíàííûì íàó÷íûì ôàêòîì, ÷òî òþðêñêèå ÿçûêè — êûðãûçñêèé, òóðåöêèé, êàçàõñêèé, óçáåêñêèé, óéãóðñêèé è äðóãèå — ïðîèñõîäÿò îò äðåâíåéøåãî ÿçûêà ïëàíåòû — øóìåðñêîãî. Êàê ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò Áèáëèÿ, èìåííî îí áûë åäèíñòâåííûì ñðåäñòâîì îáùåíèÿ â Ðàþ è â ïåðâûå âåêà ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà ïîñëå ãðåõîïàäåíèÿ. Äî òîãî ñàìîãî âðåìåíè, êîãäà Ñîçäàòåëü, â íàêàçàíèå çà ïîïûòêó ïîñòðîèòü â Âàâèëîíå áàøíþ äî íåáà, äàë êàæäîìó íàðîäó ñâîé ÿçûê.
Îäíèì èç ïåðâûõ ãëóáîêîå ðîäñòâî òþðêñêîãî è øóìåðñêîãî ÿçûêîâ îòêðûë, êàê èçâåñòíî, âûäàþùèéñÿ êàçàõñêèé ïîýò è ëèíãâèñò Îëæàñ Ñóëåéìåíîâ â ñâîåé çíàìåíèòîé êíèãå “Àç è ÿ”, âûøåäøåé â ñâåò â íà÷àëå ñåìèäåñÿòûõ ãîäîâ ïðîøëîãî ñòîëåòèÿ. À ñïóñòÿ òðèäöàòü ëåò òóðåöêèé ëèíãâèñò è øóìåðîëîã Ïîëàò Êîéà ðàçâèë è ðàñøèðèë ýòè èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Îí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî øóìåðñêèé è òþðêñêèé ÿçûêè — ýòî, ïî ñóòè, îäèí è òîò æå ÿçûê, íà êîòîðîì ìíîãî ëåò íàçàä ãîâîðèëè æèòåëè çíà÷èòåëüíîé ÷àñòè Åâðîïû è Àçèè.
Èäåþ ýòó ïîäõâàòèë ìîëîäîé êèðãèçñêèé ôèëîëîã Ñàïàð Íàðêååâ. Íî â ñâîåì ïàòðèîòèçìå îí ïîøåë åùå äàëüøå. Ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, íå òîëüêî ÿçûê ïðåäêîâ-êèðãèçîâ áûë îäíèì èç ñàìûõ äðåâíèõ. Ññûëàÿñü íà àâòîðèòåò àêàäåìèêà Áàðòîëüäà, îí óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî øóìåðû ýòî è åñòü êèðãèçû. À îòñþäà óæå íåòðóäíî âûâåñòè âåðñèþ, ÷òî è ñàì ðàé çåìíîé áûë íå â ìåæäóðå÷üå Òèãðà è Åâôðàòà, à íà áåðåãó ãîëóáîãî Èññûê-Êóëÿ.
Åñëè ãîâîðèòü òîëüêî î ïðèðîäíûõ óñëîâèÿõ ýòîãî áëàãîäàòíîãî êðàÿ, òî íå òðóäíî ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ñ òåì, ÷òî Áîã âïîëíå ìîã âûáðàòü äëÿ ïåðâûõ ëþäåé èìåííî ýòîò óãîëîê Çåìëè. Íî äðóãèõ äîêàçàòåëüñòâ ýòîé ãèïîòåçû, ê ñîæàëåíèþ, íåò. Åñòü òîëüêî íåóäåðæèìîå æåëàíèå ó÷åíûõ ìîëîäîé ñòðàíû, âñåãî îäèííàäöàòü ëåò íàçàä âîññòàíîâèâøåé ñâîþ äðåâíþþ ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòü, ëþáûìè ñðåäñòâàìè óòâåðæäàòü ñâîè ïðèîðèòåòû, ñâîå ìåñòî â îãðîìíîì ìèðå.
Ñþäà æå ìîæíî îòíåñòè è øóìíûå ïîèñêè íà òîì æå Èññûê-Êóëå çàõîðîíåíèÿ áèáëåéñêîãî àïîñòîëà Ìàòôåÿ. Ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî àìåðèêàíñêàÿ ýêñïåäèöèÿ âî ãëàâå ñ ðóññêèì îïåðàòîðîì Ñåðãååì Ìåëüíèêîâûì (Ìåëüíèêîôô, êàê íàçûâàåò îí ñåáÿ íà àìåðèêàíñêèé ìàíåð) óæå ÷òî-òî íàøëà â ïðèáðåæíûõ âîäàõ. Îäíàêî ñåðüåçíûå ó÷åíûå ïîêà ìîë÷àò.
Ìîæíî, êîí÷åíî, ñìåÿòüñÿ íàä ýòèìè ïîïûòêàìè â Ãîä ãîñóäàðñòâåííîñòè ñâåñòè âñþ ìèðîâóþ èñòîðèþ ê ìàëåíüêîé Êèðãèçèè. Áåçóäåðæíûé ïàòðèîòèçì äåëàë åùå è íå òàêèå îòêðûòèÿ. Òàê âåäü õî÷åòñÿ áûòü ïåðâûì è ñàìûì-ñàìûì. Íî ìîæíî óâèäåòü â ýòèõ ñìåøíûõ ïîïûòêàõ è ðàöèîíàëüíîå çåðíî. Õîòÿ áû òî, ÷òî ìíîãèå ìåñòíûå ðåáÿòà, óâëå÷åííûå äóòûìè ñåíñàöèÿìè, çàèíòåðåñóþòñÿ èñòîðèåé, íà÷íóò èçó÷àòü åå è ñòàíóò íàñòîÿùèìè ó÷åíûìè. Òàê âåäü â íàøåé æèçíè óæå áûâàëî. È íå îäèí ðàç.

If only they hadn't insisted on building that high tower in babylon. :(

(Edit) Sorry, I misspelled the seventh word in the second paragraph...I think it's correct now.

Pianorak

10-12-2002, 11:57 AM

Paul <<. . . just ask the deaf. >>

Yes, indeed - assuming you know sign-language. (Only kidding, they are pretty good at lip-reading)
But seriously, at one time I was learning BSL (British Sign Language) with a view to working as a sign language interpreter. What put me off in the end were the politics and factionalizing (ie cochlea implant good v. bad, etc. etc.). And don't the Deaf just know how to argue! ;)
But the really interesting thing is that sign language (and hence ALL spoken languages) will evolve spontaneously, as was discovered when investigating a deaf community in a remote region of Central America. Language apparently is one of the "hard-wired" (against soft-wired) areas in the brain.
PS.
And who is to blame for one of my pet peeves: "draw(r)ing", "the law(r)"? :mad: Essex-person, Estuary?

Sorry, this is somewhat off-topic.

kayofcircles

10-12-2002, 12:31 PM

Whoa..I suddenly feel like a third grader who has stumbled into a discussion among college professors!:) But I was thinking yesterday about what had been posted here in this thread and have a couple less learned thoughts.

I have been so thrilled that the Internet makes it possible for a ordinary woman in a dinky town in New Mexico to interact with people in foreign countries that it never occurred to me that we might not be able to understand each other, Sylvander, if we were actually speaking to each other. May be another plus to the Internet? Although Michael Crichton makes an argument in a novel that the Internet will mean the end of diversity..that interaction among so many peoples will lead to what I believe my English friend referred to as "too much of a muchness." Crichton's argument was that groups in isolation evolve better and faster than large groups..and that as the Internet encompasses the globe, we will lose the ability to evolve at all...becoming all the "same."

Paul: Your "He also makes the point that a display of superior knowledge is as great a vulgarity as a display of superior wealth and that to pronounce foreign words as if you were one of the select few to whom that language was second nature is both inconsiderate and rude." has me thinking too. While I would be among the first to disdain a "caste" system, I think there is a real danger in lowering to the least common denominator. All you have to do in our country to observe that "lowering to the least common denominator" is observe our television offerings. Or our classrooms. Not leaving any child "behind" has translated to "holding the brighter children back". And more on the actual subject of your quote..I rather like the way "faux pas" is pronounced..and use it!

Pianorak: Could you expand on "But the really interesting thing is that sign language (and hence ALL spoken languages) will evolve spontaneously, as was discovered when investigating a deaf community in a remote region of Central America."? Are you saying that words show up in different areas of the globe without media interaction?

jabar: No, was "complain" in the version my friend used, but kick and complain carry similar connotations. Might be because of regional differences..much as Sylvander's saying has been changed over here because we have an unfortunate connotation on the word "queer."

Pianorak

10-12-2002, 01:56 PM

Kay I think that is what I am saying. HOWEVER, this does not mean a spontaneous eruption of English, Spanish, French, German - mastered by all and sundry to perfection. But scientists (some!) seem to think there is a predisposition in human beings to language acquisition. X number of years ago our ancestors would presumably have begun with some basic grunts, gestures, (I know, not much change there) and the verbal classification of gestures, emotions and objects.

The following is a half-digested recollection of something I read recently: neuroscientists believe that what I referred to as "predisposition" should be subdivided into "hard-wired" and "soft-wired" areas in the brain, the hard-wire area being stuff we learn whether we want to or not, including language acquisition, and the soft-wire area being part of the nature/nurture argument.
Prof. Steven Pinker has written extensively on this subject, wondering whether instinct (the hard-wire area) or our cultural environment is responsible for language acquisition. I really should get his books and investigate this more thoroughly. Alas, the piano still takes precedence. :rolleyes:

Budfred

10-12-2002, 03:41 PM

Sylvander,

Actually, I misspelled "cogito" as "cognito". It probably is true that there is a connection between cogito and gnosis though, especially given that Latin derived many words from Greek.

Budfred

And I still say gig-a-bite.:)

Whyzman

10-12-2002, 04:13 PM

And, I still say "Yiyibyte!" ;) Just to be a bit queer....:rolleyes: hehe

Budfred

10-12-2002, 04:15 PM

Whyzman,

That must get you some strange looks!!!

Budfred:D :D

Sylvander

10-13-2002, 08:12 AM

I've been pronouncing it guy-ga-bite ever since 1970 when I was learning the "FPS", "CGS", "MKS", and finally "SI" systems of units.
I would recite:
"Kilo, Mega, Giga, Terra; Milli, Micro, Nano Pico."
"Kilo, Mega, Giga, Terra; Milli, Micro, Nano Pico."
"Kilo, Mega, Giga, Terra; Milli, Micro, Nano Pico."

Now, 30 plus years later I find I've been pronouncing it wrong.
I'd love to find the correct pronunciation is Jie-ga-bite and that it's related to Gigantic.

KAYOFCIRCLES
You raised the discussion to a higher level.

EVOLUTION
The religious believers have hijacked our language.
We are generally called creatures, which means we were created.
I believe we evolved. We should be called “Evolvates” or something like it.
They try to produce uniformity of belief.
How does the song go?

ONE VISION – by Queen

One man, one goal, one mission;
One heart, one soul, just one solution;
one flash of light, one God, one mission.

One flesh, one bone, one true religion;
One voice, one hope, one real decision.

No wrong, no right, I’m gonna tell you there’s no black and no white;
no blood, no stain, all we need is one world-wide vision.

I
Had a dream, when I was young;
[A dream of sweet illusion; That; with some hope and unity; and visions,]
of "one sweet union".

And it grows and grows,
And it doubly flows,
That in my heart it shows.

LOOK WHAT THEY’VE DONE TO MY DREAM!

Give me your hand;
Give me your heart;
There’s only one direction.

ONE WORLD, ONE MISSION, ONE VISION.

Gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme,---------------------------FRIED CHICKEN!

It’s seductive , is it not?
But even they could not treat it seriously. Hence the fried chicken.

Another one is:

All we need is a great gig melting pot;
Big enough to take the world and all it’s got;
Keep it stirring for a hundred years or more;
And turn out coffee coloured people by the score.

WRONG!
I bought this for a time but gradually became aware that it took many millions of years to produce the various forms of humankind. We should be glad of that variety and celebrate, protect, preserve & promote it; the same with languages and cultures.

I believe:
1. Diversity is necessary for evolution to occur.
2. This tends to increase conflicts of interests, whose resolution is a necessary part of evolution.
3. Uniformity reduces conflict but subverts evolution.
4. We were made [not by creation but] by evolution, therefore we differ, therefore we continue to evolve.

I am worried by the fact that state supported organisations [like the religions] promote a belief system which denies the very existence of evolution and therefore fails to support and promote it.
Whole species are dying out every day and some might say “that’s just part of the evolutionary process”.
I don’t believe so.
One animal [us] has cheated and gained an advantage over all the others and is taking over the planet and wiping out the other life forms. If we continue down this route we will end up living on a biological desert.
Hence illogical belief leads to the destruction of those natural systems over which it has any control or effect.

Whew! This is getting rather serious. I think I’ll go listen to some comedy. Bill Hicks perhaps?
On second thoughts, that would be dangerous to my health.

Whyzman

10-13-2002, 10:43 AM

Fascinating! By definition, Evolution clearly fits the criteria for being a religion (i.e., "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.")

Faith being the operative word here, as Evolution's tenets are founded on theory. Theories, that can no more be proofed or duplicated in the lab than can Creation. Theories, based on Evolutionary voids which require an admirable amount of faith. A faith, that somewhere "out there," or "yet to be dug up here," the link exists that will pull everything together into a continuous line.

This isn't directed at you Sylvander. I'm just fascinated that in forums of public opinion, how Evolution can be set forth as fact and discussed with impunity. Yet, we're always reminded to avoid discussions concerning Politics or Religion! :rolleyes:

Paul Komski

10-13-2002, 12:13 PM

Well put Whyzman. I hope philosophy and metaphysics can transcend mere politics and religion.

In view of the subject matter of this thread I can't help but see the fun or irony in the first line of St.John 1:1 "In the begining was the word....! ;) ;)

kayofcircles

10-13-2002, 01:40 PM

Many scientists are still not sold on the evolution theory. Not that they like "creationism" any better. We get a bit arrogant as a species sometimes...in my opinion..thinking that we can "know" how some of this stuff works or even understand it if we can somehow measure it. I watched a special this summer on PBS where they found ONE bone..a partial leg bone, not even the entire femur. And from that, they said the former owner of the leg bone walked upright, and had the flexing knee we have..and a whole train of speculation based on one lousy partial bone! I could postulate that the leg bone belonged to a time traveler from the future who got killed on an expedition hunting prehistoric animals..and that's why characteristics of bone are similar to modern man. Not to sound too arrogant myself, but who is to say that my theory isn't just as good as theirs?

Another possibly ignorant question is..do we "know" how Latin was pronounced/spoken? If we're going to pronounce words based on the ancient Latin (or Greek), then it seems to me this is relevent question. I know that the Catholic church has used Latin in their rituals for hundreds of years..is that what we're basing our current pronounciations on?

A rather mundane example of loss of diversity going on is another PBS thing I saw recently on the new genetically enhanced corn. They said that most corn grown here in the States (some 70 per cent) is the new stuff. Mexico has had many different varieties of corn..lots!...but some woman farmer recently planted some of the genetic stuff down there and they're very concerned as the genetic stuff tends to "take over" and overwhelm the native corns. They made a good argument, I think, when they said that if one has many varieties, then it is unlikely for one particular insect or disease to arise and take out all of the varieties..but if you only have ONE variety, then the chances of wiping out most of the corn production increase dramatically.

I agree whole heartedly, Sylvander. "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." Our problem now is not diversity, it is intolerance for such, and I think possibly some of it is inherent in our very nature for we see young children very cruel to anyone "different."

Sylvander

10-14-2002, 08:51 AM

Hello all,

I believe that the sky is blue.
Does this mean it’s my religion and this is based purely on faith because a blue sky cannot be reproduced in a laboratory? Isn’t the universe a giant laboratory?

I remember explaining to someone how an insect pollinates a flower and that they have a symbiotic relationship and the size, form, and structure of the flower is matched to the insect. In fact the colour and pattern on the flower tells us something of the insects ability to see.
[let he who has ears listen]
I explained that the insect would need to be exactly the correct size to fit the flower or there would be no successful pollination and she said:
“so how does the flower know what is the size of the insect so it can match it?”
I never did get to the part about how that plant would not spread and multiply it’s kind unless it was made correctly and the insects that pollinates it had not been wiped out by some catastrophe [like a farmer spraying insecticide]. I never did bother to explain how a flower, which does fit the insect and does get pollinated and does reproduce, multiplies and inherits the earth, so it fits naturally.

A Biologist who does not believe that the laws of Physics are true is just as sad a situation as a Physicist who does not believe that the founding principles of Biology are true. I was formally educated in Physics and Engineering but I’ve learned enough about Biology to be convinced that they are not talking nonsense.

Diversity is the safe way to go. Diversity has survived and inherited the earth.
Man can only alter that, and maintain that alteration, by the input of work.
Nature will keep trying to restore the natural scheme and is powered by the sun.
Beat that for an input of work if you can! [energy is defined as the ability to do work]

I agree with you kayofcircles.
Humans try to maintain the characteristics of their kind, which they find desirable, and will attack those who differ. Nature is red in tooth and claw and rather vicious; but it’s what has survived.
When animals gather into larger social groups. They have to make friends and gain influence to survive and thrive. But they still need to have desirable characteristics to be accepted.
Have you noticed how in the wild there are many varieties of kinds but within one kind there is little variety. They all look identical and superbly made too.

The predator/pray relationship plays an important part in this.
The two groups are normally in balance.
Slow or unhealthy [un-whole-eth-y] prey animals get caught so the herd tends to be quick [or dead].
Slow predators starve so they must be fast enough to catch prey and survive.
It’s dynamic and continually evolving.

We as humans have broken that system as it applies to us.
We put our prey in pens so we don’t need to be fast to survive as a predator.
We artificially evolve special breeds that can only just waddle. They wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a lion’s hunting ground.
The native Americans were rightly proud that they worked with nature and thrived as hunters.
If we intend to change and turn from natures way so that
“the lion shall lie down with the lamb”
We should think it through and be aware of where it will lead.

Whyzman

10-15-2002, 02:10 AM

Hmmmm....interesting question. ;) Yes, indeed, the Earth's atmosphere is a giant laboratory. Blue skies are reproduced daily. And, we do have the scientific pieces in place to explain the blue sky phenomenon.

As far as how ones belief in a blue sky might be considered a religion, it would depend upon the framework within which this belief is couched...proof of naturalism.

Better than I could hope to address the link...http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm

malcore

10-15-2002, 01:35 PM

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

Very humorous Whyzman. Is this link for real or a joke?

I wanted to remain a bystander once this topic went away from language, but your curious and hilarious link brought me in. I am not arguing in favour of Evlolution or Creation here. I just abhor arguments such as those put forth in Dr. Morris' article.(As I also abhor the obsession that Evolutionists have with discarding and disproving Creation instead of proving their own argument.)

This article held not one ounce of science. It was filled with he-saids she-saids. Laughable, at best. What was even more astounding was this following line as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, .

Buddhism and Hinduism are MODERN world religions?
This man has a Ph.D.??

Both sides are guilty of these spurious reasonings, and seem too concerned with dicrediting each other, that any true advancement and understanding gets buried in rancour and rhetoric.

Budfred

10-15-2002, 03:43 PM

malcore,

While I will agree that the arguments in that article are worthless due to their self referential validity, it is also true that Buddhism and Hinduism are modern religions in the sense that they are practiced in modern times by a substantial part of the world population. This is in contrast to ancient religions like belief in Greek gods. While there may still be some believers, they are not in sufficient numbers or organization to qualify as a modern religion.

Budfred

malcore

10-15-2002, 05:00 PM

Too right, Budfred!

In my impatience with the article, perhaps I too am guilty of searching for and latching onto the first thing I could find to discredit the author.
And I understand that Whyzman's point was not to disprove Evolution but rather to show how it may be considered a "belief" and not science.

Herein lies the one major drawback of any "belief". The possibility of completely denying another's belief. The result being mud-slinging and fingerpointing in an effort to discredit.

Life would be dull though, without theories and beliefs.

Budfred

10-15-2002, 09:47 PM

"Herein lies the one major drawback of any "belief". The possibility of completely denying another's belief. The result being mud-slinging and fingerpointing in an effort to discredit."

Exactly the problem with that article. The author is accusing those that adhere to the theory of evolution of being part of an atheistic religion because they exclude other beliefs, such as creationism. In fact, many evolution theorists are quite theistic and some have even proposed that evolution is one of God's most significant creations. The whole premise is based on selected opinions expanded to try to discredit the whole field as some type of oxymoron.

Budfred

Sylvander

10-16-2002, 06:54 AM

Exactly!

I once read a book on psychology [by Carl Gustav Jung, I was only skimming; this was not a serious study] and one of the concepts I gained from it was as follows:

Imagine representing systems of belief as circles.
There is a circle representing “collective belief”.
This is composed of all those things on which everyone in this collection can agree.
Like the fact that the sky is blue and the grass is green and “the grasses grow and the rivers flow”.

[Those words were used in the agreement the American government made with the native Indians guaranteeing perpetual ownership of [a piece of their own land as occupied by their ancestors for millenia] the Black Hills. Perhaps they’d altered Robert Burns’ “Till all the seas run dry and the rocks melt in the sun”].

The belief system of each individual is represented by his own circle.
Where the circles overlap, the individual is in agreement with the collective or some other individuals.
Where the individual’s circle is outside all others represents the self.
The self is that which is unique to the individual. [I hope I haven’t got this wrong].
If we were to have no beliefs which only we held we would have no “self”.
Where our beliefs conform to the collective belief there is no conflict.
This is what brings about that warm, joyous feeling of security felt by those who join a religious group and wholeheartedly accept their belief system. Those joining the Fascists felt the same I’m sure.
Where they still have beliefs, which are theirs alone, there is conflict with the collective.
Some groups often try to eliminate these.

Those who have beliefs, which are mostly in disagreement, [like the Jews and Palestinians] would need to use those areas of agreement to build upon and try to accept the fact that we all differ to some degree.
Man and wife often find themselves in this situation.
As the number of individuals involved increases and the closeness of contact increases the conflict increases. That is why we should keep population density down. When density goes above a certain level trouble starts.
Religions and other large groups increase [apparent] agreement and reduce overt conflict between members and this works well so long as the various groups remain isolated from each other. When they are forced into closer contact you have large, powerful groups in conflict with each other so the conflicts are really disastrous. The Fascist and Democrats in the Second World War; Protestants and Catholics in Ireland; Muslims and Hindus in Pakistan are examples.
If you didn’t have large groups, arguments would be on a small scale. People would be punching each other instead of dropping atom bombs.

I'm sure the religious believers think that they have the answer [I'm sure the fascists thought so too].
All thats needed is ["ONE WORLD, ONE MISSION, ONE VISION"] one belief system. [Sad to say, the self would have to go.] But that would eliminate any evolution of the human race including its systems of belief. If successful the species' development would come to grinding halt [at least as far as natural development is concerned]. Any further development would perhaps be decided by committee and handed DOWN as a directive to the believers, who would then conform and apply it.

Whyzman

10-18-2002, 07:45 AM

Malcore, happy to provide a little humor. ;) Your observation regarding the import of my link to the Institute for Creation Research is right on. I wanted to point out that Evolution, as per the intelligencia teaching and promoting it, is not theistic but rather atheistic by their own admission. And, that it is theory and not science.

Yet, it is taught as though it were science and to the exclusion of alternative "theories." In that its underpinnings are to exclude a creative diety, it is thus atheistic. My point was that we are "allowed" the freedom in public forums to introduce Evolutionary theories with impunity, as though they were fact, and not "allowed" the discussion of alternative theistic models.

As mentioned, beliefs tend to be exlusive. I personally don't have a problem if we'd offer both models/beliefs up for inspection. What happens is Creationism is discredited because it is theistic/religious and not a science, yet Evolution meets the same criteria in that it is atheistic/religious and also not a science.

I'm just looking for an equal playing field!

I suspect that most Creationists would welcome a "healthy debate!" The current system in play denies this exchange of ideas in the educational process.

[aside] I have wondered if the creative process included "age," or whether the trees in the garden had a single concentric ring? Budfred, I realize that there is an attempt by some to harmonize the Creative Process with Evolution. This position, however, is still open for debate as the Evolutionary voids still remain unaccounted.

Pointing out inconsistencies in "belief" systems need not be contentious, it can be healthy dialogue. I suspect I'd prefer if and individual would be encouraged to respect my "right to life," albeit in lockstep fashion with others, rather than behave as a "self-actualized" cannibal. :rolleyes:

Personalities being as they are, most who naturally migrate to positions of leadership, for example CEOs of major corporations or religious leaders, perceive the world and respond primarily through their belief systems. As such, the tendency in relation to beliefs is to see things quite black and white with no gray areas. Since for these individuals beliefs become the guiding principles for life, any perceived assault on said beliefs easily translates into being told one is living a misguided life, or one based on "lies." Now them's "fightin' words!" :D

The model introduced seems to suggest that the "self" is lost whenever there is any corporate sense of consciousness (the rings overlap). I would disagree that the sense of "true self" can only be maintained outside of accepted norms or rules of conduct. I submit that we are always at choice, perhaps genetically predispositioned in some instances, but always free to chose. And, that all thoughts and behaviors are "opt in" and reflective of the individual self. Evolution would suggest that our commonality is predetermined and aberrant thoughts and behaviors (outside the overlap) are part of the evolutionary process, potential for growth if you will. Hmmm.......perhaps a reflection on the current state of affairs in our court systems. "I couldn't help myself!" "They made me so angry!" :D

Budfred

10-18-2002, 12:18 PM

Whyzman,

You are discussing evolutionary theory as though it is a coherent body of belief when it is actually a range of theories that take a number of different paths to try to explain how the biosphere evolved into the current form and to predict future developments. To say that it is atheistic is similar to saying that calculus is atheistic. It is theory and theism is irrelevant. There are those who espouse evolutionary theory with religious zeal, but they tend to not be the theorists who actually work with it. The debate in the schools has more to do with the creationist camp trying to claim an equal scientific footing with the evolutionary theory. If creationism were presented as a theory with substantiating data not based on faith, it would be scientific. However, it is simply that, faith based beleif, not theory. I have no problem with churchs anywhere teaching that a god created the heaven and earth, whether that be God, Yahweh, Buddha or whatever. I do have a problem with creationists trying to discredit scientific theory with faith based arguments. I may not want to belief that an infinite number of lines can pass through a single point in Euclidean geometry, but that reluctance to believe does not negate the theory.

Budfred

YODA74

10-18-2002, 12:28 PM

Thats why this is america you can beleive what you wish, But don't be surprised if one day you turn over a rock and it say's "made by GOD"

kayofcircles

10-18-2002, 01:06 PM

I rather liked the "circles" analogy...:D ..for obvious reasons. And I also agree, Sylvander, that tolerance for diversity and difference is effected strongly by how much the other viewpoint is "in your face." There are groups in our country that frankly scare me, but I can afford to be much more tolerant and understanding because none of those groups are in my everyday existence.

I agree, Whyzman, that evolution theory is just that..a theory. And one that, to me, doesn't hold up very well in many instances. But, and it pains me as one who tries to be a Christian to say this..there is more "scientific" evidence to support it..bones, fossils, etc and etc. I also have a reservation about offering Creationism as an alternate theory in schools...UNLESS we also include other creation motifs. What I am feebly trying to say is that many religions have their own creation scenario..and because we are a "melting pot" of religions, it just doesn't seem to me to be proper to teach only the Christian one, if we're going to include religious beliefs/theories.

I had a friend long ago..someone I knew well and trusted..who walked over burning coals at a ceremony in San Antonio. He actually did that..so, my point is..what does that do to my belief/learned "fact" that "fire is hot and fire burns"? Like Budfred's example from Euclidean geometry, it is something that I have to accept, but do try not to think about too often because it blows holes in my security "facts" of life. :D

We might need to wander back to "how to pronounce gigabyte"..might be safer.:) The ones who do see things in black and white often get very upset when presented with shades of gray.

Paul Komski

10-18-2002, 04:12 PM

The philosopher Bertrand Russel's personal answer to the role of philosophy in the science/theology debate put things this way.

"Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where as in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it."

It is philosophy, in this regard, that addresses those shades of grey.

PS
Budha is not a deity. Buddhism, which can co-oexist with many religions, can be problematic if it is to be categorised "as a religion" because of this.

hawk7771us

10-18-2002, 08:07 PM

Religion or Creation or Evolution. Whether there is a god or not doesn't really matter. What matters or not is what you believe. On one hand you have the good book written down by a few people. Which God told them what to write down. If everyone just followed the Ten Commandments, we would all be better off today. There are so many religions today, claiming they are the only one that's right. Who right or wrong doesn't really matter. As long as they follow there own beliefs and not force it onto someone. Every religion in the world today has something in common with each other. Faith is one thing that they all have or it would not survive. Now evolution you have so many scientists that they cannot agree on anything. How old is this bone? Or what continent we all came from. It doesn't really matter. Take the pyramids some say it three thousand years old. And some say it ten thousands years or more. They cannot even say how it was made. Or take the meteor rock that was found in the Antarctica or was it the artic? It doesn't really matter but it came from Mars. How do they know this? The angle that it fell to earth, and the composition of the meteor, and how deep it was in the ice. Lets say it came from another direction it hit another meteor and landed on earth. When Antarctica or the artic was in a different position. Because they are constantly moving . Just like all the plates do. Mars rock it doesn't really matter. Who's right or wrong. You just got to have Faith. Well I hate tell you. We all came from another planet twenty-five thousand years ago. And we been going nuts ever since. It doesn't really matter. You just got to have Faith.

Whyzman

10-18-2002, 08:15 PM

Budfred,

It would probably be helpful to define the terms as I am using them. From the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

Atheism: a: a disbelief in the existence of a diety: b: the doctrine that there is no diety.

My original reference by means of the previous link was to the well known scholarly proponents of Evolution who realize the implications of introducing a diety into their equation. And, as pointed out by Dr. Morris, by their own admission they realize that a creator in the primordial mix is simply untenable.

To say that it is atheistic is similar to saying that calculus is atheistic. It is theory and theism is irrelevant.
I realize that all analogies "limp," as the saying goes, but the foundations of calculus do not reside on the proof or disproof of a diety. Evolution decries the existence of a diety and therefore falls with in the definition of being a-theistic.

Granted, as you pointed out earlier, there are those who attempt to blend the two theories. However, that alternative is also not being taught in our schools, as that would again necessitate the acknowledgement of a diety.
...creationists trying to discredit scientific theory with faith based arguments.

My original point was calling into question the scientific validity of Evolution. And, that the Evolutionary voids indeed require "faith based arguments" on behalf of the Evolutionist. It's foundation resides upon the theory that if we keep digging, we will eventually discover the presently incomplete fossil records. Where we should have millions, yeah billions of intermediary life forms no such finds exist. This requires an admirable amount of faith!

I submit that the scientific hypotheses of Creationism do lend alternative plausible explanations for the current fossil records. Again, since they involve recognition of a diety...they are by necessity excluded from being taught as an alternative.

Kay, I would disagree that there is more "scientific" evidence in support of Evolution. We have been so bombarded with it's "apparent truth" and its exclusionary position in nearly every facet of education, that it certainly does appear to be fact. Every day on the Learning Channel and Discovery Channel I continually hear references to Evolution and the "billions of years ago" indoctrination, that my knees buckle from the sheer weight and volume.

BTW, the walking on coals phenomenon has been explained "scientifically" on the Learning or Discovery Channel...so at least they're somewhat openminded. [rolleyes]

YODA74

10-18-2002, 08:40 PM

Religion or Creation or Evolution. Whether there is a "god" or not doesn't really matter. What matters or not is what you believe.

Yup agree!! Religion and politics two ruff subjects

Two things I have found true in life, There is a GOD and I'm NOT him

Oh ya and Hillary Clinton isn't him either. Contrary to her belief

Paul Komski

10-18-2002, 09:01 PM

Funny one! Yoda Very droll. LOL :D

Most religions, faiths and even political systems are fine. What corrupts them all are the priests and the politicians - particularly when they have real power.

I'm off to join the Flat Earth Society and watch the sun go round the earth! ;)

Whyzman

10-18-2002, 09:20 PM

Paul,

That sounds like a group really living on the edge.....:rolleyes:

Budfred

10-18-2002, 09:45 PM

Whyzman,

The point that I am trying to make is that evolutionary theory is not atheistic nor theistic. It simply doesn't address the issue of a diety, it focusses on trying to explain how biology developed without relying on a faith of any kind. As long as you insist on saying that evolutionary theorists are disbelieving or denying the existence of a god, your argument makes some sense, but if you acknowledge that evolution is simply not about theistic beliefs, the argument is gone. Evolutionary theory is not a faith in that it does not claim to be right, simply a theory. All theories are subject to change when new evidence arises, as evolution has changed tremendously since Darwin's time.

Religion posits that it knows what is right and that other arguments are not valid in the face of that rightness. Unfortunately, since there a many theistic systems, it is not possible to say which one is the true right without saying the others are wrong. Creationism tries to insist that evolutionary theory is wrong because the theistic belief is the only right answer. People fight against creationism being taught for many reasons, but to me the most valid is that it is not a counter-theory, it is dogma. To teach it in philosophy makes sense, but not in science.

I also agree with kayofcircles point that it would mean presenting one system of theism as the correct one and that is not consistent with the principles of the USA system of government.

Budfred

Paul Komski

10-18-2002, 09:50 PM

I'm so near the edge I'm getting vertigo! :D

malcore

10-18-2002, 11:04 PM

Grab my thumb Paul, I'll pull you back from the abyss.

Er...Ummm.... d-e-i-t-y,
unless the topic has now moved to eating disorders.:D ;)

Budfred

10-18-2002, 11:12 PM

Malcore,

Its my fingers fault, they're dsylexic, they even believe in Dog.:D :D

Budfred

Whyzman

10-19-2002, 02:34 AM

Had enough of my continual diet of deity? :D

Let's see, how does that go...I before E except after....???

Talk about deep subjects...Abyssmal spelling.....hehe

EpoxEd

10-19-2002, 03:10 AM

"irregardless".... as in no such thang
"axed"... as in ax yo mama

I believe that we Americans have more coloquialisms (colonies) than the Brits do in the UK, and that accounts for more "standardization" in grammar. I surmise that if you find a culture without any common tribal ancestry you will find quite a strong standardized language. As the French say "vive la diffrance"! I have traveled extensively (retired airline pilot) and enjoy immensely the different flavors each culture adds to the world. Reductionism is responsible for the attempt to make everything standardised. Don't take technology too seriously!
:D

Budfred

10-19-2002, 03:33 AM

One of the most irritating developments in language to me is the use of "self titled" to indicate that the artist named something after him/herself. Self titled means that they titled it themselves, not that they named it after themselves. It has gotten to be the norm, so I have to adjust my ears to it.

Locally, in Minnesota people will ask to "borrow me" whatever. This means they want you to lend them something. I still have trouble with that.

One more: orientated for oriented....

Budfred:eek: :D

EpoxEd

10-19-2002, 03:43 AM

I agree with your disdain for the phrase "borrow me"... I was taught that this careless use of the words revealed a level of illiteracy. The same with the words in my earlier post. Yet, look at how popular the word "ain't" has become! (Not to mention irregardless) Actually, I was irritated at the pronunciation of oriented (as in "orientated") until I discovered that it was "officially" accepted in Webster's, et al. As time had a way of mellowing me, I began to enjoy the different way people spoke (although I have a very difficult time with hip-hop, because it smacks of anti-intellectualism).

Whyzman

10-19-2002, 03:47 AM

Budfred,

In our discussion the soft belly of Evolution has been exposed...indeed, it is merely a theory. In educational circles, however, I submit that it is not presented as theory. Other than whether matter always existed, or variants of the Big Bang, the only theorizing has to do with the nature of the missing links and their inevitable discovery. Again, Evolution presents all life as a natural phenomemon sans deity.

I beg to differ with your view point that the issue of deity is moot in the evolutionary hypothesis. As pointed out by the proponents of Evolution themselves, there is no place in the theory for a Creative deity.

Its tenets are not allowed to be questioned or alternatives suggested. I see your biggest concerns coming to life (couldn't pass the opportunity for a pun!) ;) as one position is presented as dogma. And, if anything is presented as dogma it certainly is Evolution.

Creationists obviously believe in their position just as Evolutionists believe in theirs. Evolutionits posit that their answers to the universe are the correct ones and are quite dogmatic about it. I'm not understanding the problem with the possibility that one position might be wrong.

Based on Evolution as a theory, then it would also make sense to teach it in philosophy, and not in science.

Budfred, I'll let you have the last word....

Seems as though we're back to language. The one the floors me is prostrate for prostate! :p

EpoxEd

10-19-2002, 04:01 AM

I expected someone to point out the word "standardize" is not standardised!:D

Budfred

10-19-2002, 04:05 AM

People who believe in the scientific validity of evolution often also have a profound belief in a god and are open to creation models.

People who believe that a god create the heavens and earth usually fervently deny the validity of evolution.

There are some people who believe in the scientific validity of evolution who are rabid about it, but they do not represent the majority.

Evolution may be presented as fact by those that don't know enough science to know the difference between science and fact, but that does not mean that it they represent the view of the majority in the science community.

Believing in the validity of a scientific theory does not constitute religion.

Believing in the existance of a god that created heaven and earth does not consitute a scientific theory.

These are two different things. To equate acceptance of scientific theory of any kind with religious belief is an unnatural stretch of logic used only to justify an argument that creationism should be taught in schools. If I can't establish that creationism is science, maybe I can establish that evolutionary theory is religion. It simply isn't true, no matter how many theologists say it is, anymore than saying that physics is religious because people fervently accept the validity of the concept of gravity.

I suspect that we will not reach consensus on this issue since we are approaching it from very different frames of reference, so I will leave this as my last word on the subject. I learned long ago that religious arguments have no end, but I allowed myself to get caught up in this one. Oh well.....

Budfred

Paul Komski

10-19-2002, 07:14 AM

There seems, to the human mind, to be only two possibilities; either there has always been "stuff" around or there was a time when there was no "stuff" and then some "stuff" arrived on the scene.

The same all or none dilemma relates to a "God the creator". Either God has always been there or there was a time when there was nothing and then God appeared. The OT is dogmatic that it is the latter if you believe that this is the correct interpretation of "I am the alpha and the omega".

At the heart of such irreconcilibles lies time; a thing which we seem to be able to measure the passage-of, but the nature of which we have not the slightest notion. Time, which most just take for granted, is the great paradox.

On Science and its methods.
Scientific theory starts with hypothesis. From such hypotheses, experiments may be constructed. If such reproducable experiments "prove" the hypotheses they then become "scientific facts". BUT; such facts are not (unlike dogma) written in stone.

It was such pre-Einstein scientific facts that stated that light could only travel in straight lines and that time could not be altered. Einstein hypothesised, from his theories, that light could be bent and time contracted by gravity (yet another imponderable). Once experiments proved that his theories were correct these became new scientific facts. The old ones remain true, however, for the parameters that apply to them; they have merely been updated or upgraded like a M$ SP; they, for all we know, will be updated again!

So all facts need to be regarded with cautious and healthy suspicion. The basis of some so-called facts may be based on probabilities; but statistics is something I intend to leave asleep in bed.

jabarnutcase

10-19-2002, 08:00 AM

Don't mean to interrupt here.......But does anyone know how "Gigabyte" is pronounced? :confused:

HeHe- THANK GOD the original subject wasn't "why do we exist?".

This thread may have gone on forever! :rolleyes: :D

Paul Komski

10-19-2002, 08:29 AM

How long is forever? :D jaba.. or is it gaba.. :rolleyes:

jabarnutcase

10-19-2002, 08:52 AM

Good question Paul!
I guess "in theory", forever may be just until I die. Since everything around me is just my personal perception...When I'm gone, everything else will cease to exist!

Oh, and it's pronounced Yaba :D

kayofcircles

10-19-2002, 11:45 AM

Yoda: : You do have a way with words! :D

"Two things I have found true in life, There is a GOD and I'm NOT Him."

Yep..in complete agreement with that! :)

Whyzman

10-19-2002, 01:07 PM

Budfred,

Thanks for the lively and civil exchange of thoughts and opinions.

It's been a treat to come to a point of disagreement without having to clean the mud off! ;)

Actually, thanks to all who participated! As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to personalities opining who perceive reality first through values and beliefs, things can and most often do get pretty...ah, spirited shall we say?! :rolleyes:

Kay, I'm with Yoda on this one too! Although I've been accused of it a couple of times it definitely ain't me! And, I'll keep looking under the rocks for the place of manufacture! :D

Oh, and if you're ever in the MicroCenter here in Minneapolis and overhear someone using the word Yiyibyte that'd be me! It'll be quite obvious, because all the sales folk will be looking my direction with those..."He really needs help!" looks.

Thanks folks,

Whyzman

Sylvander

10-19-2002, 08:34 PM

Oh yeh!

I just remembered that key phrase.

TRUTH

IS THE ARMOUR

OF THE WILL

TO POWER.

Whyzman

10-20-2002, 01:54 PM

Wow, almost 800 views on this baby...

Had we kept the Creation-Evolution debate going I bet we could have been around a thousand...

Any threads make it that far yet? :p

kayofcircles

10-20-2002, 02:35 PM

My problem yesterday was that I agreed with "part" of all the new posts, so chose Yoda's as the most succinct. This is probably not a "fact", but I think that women have an easier time reconciling totally different viewpoints simultaneously. I have no conflict within myself accepting some things from the evolution theory as "fact" but believing with all my heart that God "did it." Don't really accept the 7 day thing, but very much believe God did it in His own way and His own "time."

What I would really like is a better word. I don't think of God as a "He" but that's the way we refer to God in Christian texts. I don't think it sounds quite right to refer to God as a "she" or an "it" or a "being"...so????? I find myself writing sometimes about a "higher power" but that seems feeble somehow too, so if anyone has a better way/word..I would appreciate knowing it.

malcore

10-20-2002, 02:53 PM

As Whyzman probably pronounces God as "Yod", let's go the one step further ..... "Yoda" :p :D

Or The Yoda

YODA74

10-20-2002, 03:01 PM

This is why i try and stay out of politicale and religious disscussions.
And try to make lite of the subject,people try to make tooooooooo big a deal out of either.

So I guess we could just call Him/Her/It And i know this is not spelled right.

....The Iatolla of Rock and Rolla! .... That ought to make someones day

malcore

10-20-2002, 03:05 PM

I thought I was making light of it all...?

Meant no offense.:(

hawk7771us

10-20-2002, 03:24 PM

kayofcircles you could just say my Redeemer

YODA74

10-20-2002, 03:53 PM

You were malcore, I took no offence. :D ;)

Whyzman

10-20-2002, 03:57 PM

Yoda,

What have you done with your Signature? Is there a picture that's supposed to appear that's not in the space below the print?

YODA74

10-20-2002, 08:48 PM

Don't know mjc and i were trying to figure this out?? can't make a post in testing area either?? Really annoying to isn't it :D sure does eat up some space.

Whyzman

10-21-2002, 02:07 AM

Yep, looks about as blank as the look on my face as I waited with bated breath for something to appear! :p

Sylvander

10-21-2002, 05:42 AM

Perhaps it's occupied by spaces or carriage returns, [or did you type a secret message in white text on a white background so it's invisible].

kayofcircles

10-21-2002, 11:31 AM

As it appears this thread is winding down, I want to echo Whyman's comment on "thank you" for a civil, interesting discussion. You guys have given me much to think about over the last week or so, and an opportunity to re-examine my position on some things...which I think is a healthy thing for "grown ups" to do from time to time. I await the next discussion with eager anticipation.

Yoda : Yeah, in this election year, we should definitely stay away from politics!:D I am so thoroughly disgusted that I doubt seriously I could be objective at this point. And, I have wondered about your "Location: Thats some more yur buisness." Did you intend for that to be in the Location box?

"There is a God, and I am not Him" is actually very "deep" when you think on it some.:D

YODA74

10-21-2002, 02:01 PM

I know Kay politics I just about give up on it samo samo every election mud slinging etc etc. I don't think they actually realize people are just tired of the rederac "same old Army just a different coming"

Personally don't think I'll fall for it this time around.Heck it just encourages them to run for office anywho.

as far as the location "Thats some more yur buisness" we used to have a young trainee that always asked question about anything and everything I think she just liked to hear her self speak, thats why when a question was asked I would reply "Thats some more yur buisness"

You know how much of a smartass I am.:eek:

Whyzman

10-21-2002, 02:19 PM

Kay,
an opportunity to re-examine my position on some things

The "opportunity" to present an alternate view was actually my main point in all of this Creation-Evolution exchange. It's been an Evolution monopoly in our educational systems.

If ever allowed, I'm not quite sure how to address Budfred's concerns regarding which Creation model to use, however, I think only the Genesis account directly addresses extent fossil data as it is presented by the scientific community.

A recent poll determined that the majority of folk do believe in a god of some sort. What relationship their Supreme Being has in the creation scenario also appears to follow with the majority, i.e., that the universe was created.

I suspect that once beyond Sunday School or Catechism, and the monopolistic Evolutionary hypothesis is formally introduced into education, along with the constant references to millions and billions of years ago, most Creation believing folk are simply out of their element. For most it would be like challenging Hebrew or Greek scholars at the univeristy level with but a cursory knowledge of the languages. Not a good idea! And so, the "molecule to man" theory remains pretty much unchallenged.

Challenging the "scientific community" with the Creation model/hypothesis is beyond the ken of most religious leaders/teachers. Answers to carbon dating, dinosaurs, fossil records, etc., are not addressed from the pulpit. And so, a Creation alternative is silenced both out of ignorance and legally.

I don't think it would be infringing on separation of Church and State to introduce an alternative model. Understanding that I'm not talking about trying to introduce a church/state religion. I enjoy our freedom of religious choice. We've all seen what happened in the past and currently with Church/State religions...

In many ways, it's the same clausterphobic feeling I get when searching for an operating system for my computer. Or, in a similar vein, as Henry Ford was quoted as saying, "You can have any color you want as long as it is black!"

The most enlightening times in my formal education and beyond were as I was challenged to look at other venues, even the opposition. As you point out Kay, sometimes long held positions need to be "re-examined." ;)

Whyzman

10-21-2002, 03:48 PM

ARGH, another thought, but after my previous posting time allotment! :(

How about this scenario...the teachers presenting the Evolution model wouldn't need to address any other religious belief system, just a "hypothetical Creator".

When they get to the part of the lack of intermediate fossils to support the Evolution model they introduce the two hypotheticals side by side.

One: We still are looking and hope to find them to support our theory.

Two: Some hold that "a god" (kinda like the moment of silence instead of a prayer) created life forms as they are and intermediate stages therefore do not exist.

Simple, to the point...non offensive :rolleyes:, just an alternative...What say ye??

Eutychus

10-21-2002, 05:39 PM

So, the general consensus is that it is pronounced:
"G" as in golf
"IG" as in igloo
"A" as in amazing
"BY" as in biplane (+ "T").

That was simple enough. But to follow this discussion this far required that I reconfigure my workstation:
http://www.consultwebs.com/images/executivechair.jpg

jabarnutcase

10-21-2002, 06:22 PM

Personally, I thank God every day.....So far It hasn't done me any harm.

Some of the crap my kids came home with from school when they were young on the other hand, didn't do them a whole lot of good.

....Thank God they're either through college or still attending, and have enough of a head on their shoulders to keep an open mind...And always question what some people claim as fact and where their "statistics" and research came from to back up these "facts".

Other than that....Nice workstation Eutychus !!! :D

PS: I will continue to pronounce Gigabyte as described above....I don't even care if it's correct or not. I kind of like the Hard G ! ;)

Whyzman

10-22-2002, 11:04 AM

Eutychus, I bit close to combining electricity and water! Could provide a cheap curly perm though. Although, it appears as though the seat is insulated...

Definitely regal!

I'm still pushing the Classical Greek:

"Y" as in Yipee
"I" as in Beat
The rest, what you said!

Just saw My Big Fat Greek Wedding on Sunday and I learned that every word we use has a Greek derivation...even "Kimono!" :D See, I was paying attention and didn't fall asleep...again! :rolleyes:

kayofcircles

10-22-2002, 12:40 PM

Like that, Eutychus , and will snag it for my husband to see.

A little frazzled now..was composing a Reply and went back a page to check on something, and then couldn't get back to my Reply window. Not in History, either. Argh..so now attempting to re-do my post.:(

Whyzman : I think the underlying problem is this..we teach our children "facts" like "the sky is blue" even though there is a possibility that we are not all seeing the same color, but we have a broad consensus on it regardless. A few hundred years ago, they taught their children that the earth was flat. Almost everyone agreed on that..and it's pretty obvious to the eye that the earth is flat, right? If we were completely honest with our kids, we would have to tell them that what we teach as "facts" now could very easily turn out to be bogus in a few years, decades, or centuries. But that would not be psychologically "good" for our kids. Kids need security systems, facts, and authority figures who have a clue. So we reach a certain amount of consensus on the facts of our day..2 plus 2 is always 4, and "what goes up, must come down"..that sort of thing, and that's what we teach. I think I understand what you're saying..that teaching evolution as "fact" is not quite right; it hasn't reached universal consensus even among scientists, but I also agree with what I understand Budfred to be saying about apples and oranges.."scientific facts" as opposed to "beliefs." We're having enough trouble with "facts" without having to do "beliefs" too. I believe that we are mind, body, and spirit..and the things of the mind do not always translate well to the spirit, and vice versa.

You will just have to trust me in that I stated this better in the first post!:)

Pianorak

10-22-2002, 04:44 PM

Quoting Kay: <"Scientific facts" as opposed to "beliefs". We're having enough trouble with "facts" without having to do "beliefs" too.">

Actually it is virtually impossible not "to do beliefs". ;)

Scientific fact: Sally ran out of the building. Why? She believed it was on fire.
Scientific fact: She saw smoke. (or She heard the fire alarm, or She was phoned to leave the building).

But, she would NOT have left if she knew that the smoke was from a malfunctioning toaster (or the fire alarm was being tested by an electrician, or the phone call was a prank).

Sally's behaviour depends on whether she BELIEVES herself to be in danger, as well as on whether she WANTS to escape the danger.
For instance, if she were a volunteer firefighter, or suicidal, or a zealot who wanted to immolate herself to draw attention to a cause, you can bet she would not have run out of the building.
(abstracted from Steven Pinker's How The Mind Works)

Rather reassuringly Pinker adds that "To predict the vast majority of human acts - going to the refrigerator, getting on the bus, reaching into one's wallet - you don't need to crank through a mathematical model, run a computer simulation of a neural network, or hire a professional psychologist; you can just ask your grandmother."

hawk7771us

10-23-2002, 12:36 AM

The origins of the big bang theory, with life on this planet have been increasingly debated for almost a hundred years. We are just a tiny part of this universe. There are about fifteen hundred planets like earth that we know off. I for one do not think we are the only ones in the universe. Did life and the universe though spontaneous combustion created itself naturally? Or did the lord do it in six days? As the bible says it did. Now I do not believe that the six days were twenty-four hour days. It just says six days and on the seventh day he rested. Man first thought that his world was the center of the universe. Every planet revolved around the earth. He even thought it was flat. Then you have to take into account for the Roman Church who was in charge back then. They dictated religion and political doctrine. If you did not follow what they said, you were put to death. How much of the bible is stored in their vaults? That nobody out side of the church will ever read. What books did they leave out? And said it was not needed in the New Testament who knows. Liked the rabbis did with the Old Testament. They also said they were not needed. Are these books lost forever? You bet they are. Would these books that both religions took out of the bible, would have helped us understand how it all started? Most likely it would have. Then again maybe not, but at least we could have decided for our self. Back then the church controlled the minds of the people. And it is still trying to do it today. It’s called power. Now the bible is the greatest book I ever read. It has sex, violence, and intrigue. Some even say a space ship shooting across the sky. Yes brother killing brother also.” It’s The Greatest Story Ever Told” Now only if I could find My Favorite Martian? You know the one with the antennas. Always coming out of the back of his head. I think I left him on Venus with all those women.

kenz

10-29-2002, 12:20 AM

Bring back the slugs, dynes, bushels, pecks, chains and ergs. You can keep all this kilo giga terra stuff. Those damn French have a lot to answer for. SI units - humbug !

Sylvander

10-29-2002, 03:57 AM

So what was the workrate of your average Clydesdale horse [one horsepower]?

33,000 foot pounds per minute if I remember.

No, to be serious, the SI system is a BIG improvement so far as the manipulation [man-i-pull-ate-ion] of units is concerned.

The good thing about the old system was the way all the units were related to human dimensions.

An inch is the distance along the last part of the thumb.
Six inches is the span from thumb to little finger.
One foot is the length of the male foot [steady!!!].
One yard is the distance from the nose to end of the thumb when the arm is outstretched. Cloth was quickly and easily measured this way.

By the way, if I remember aright, there is a subtle [sub-till-ia = beneath the tilth] difference between the mass of one cubic decimetre of water at standard temperature and pressure and one kilogram.

The SI system is not the French system. That was the MKS [metre, kilogram,second] system. The SI system was a modified version of the French MKS system. They started with the system generally aknowledged to be the best/most logical and improved it to the satisfaction/general agreement of those involved.

You'd only fully appreciate [ad-pre-sci-ate] the improvement if you'd had to do calculations in the old system. That was horrendous and in stark contrast to the simplicity [simple/sample/same-i-cit/sit/site-y] of the SI system.