Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Ablating the ablative
Linguists are taking another look at the Whorf Hypothesis dealing with semantic boundaries. If you have names and comparison points for specific ranges of color or smell, you're better able to talk and think about those ranges. It's more or less tautologous if you don't take it too far. Some earlier linguists took it too far, maintaining that we can't even PERCEIVE a distinction unless it has a name.
As Orwell predicted, most of our public noise today is Whorfian. Half of the noise attempts to add new FAKE semantic boxes for concepts that are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, like variable gender and dark matter and renewable energy and autonomous cars and "holding government accountable" and "elections". The other half attempts to DELETE every semantic box that corresponds to plain old observable reality.
Purpose of both is consistent. When ALL words describe NOTHING BUT FICTION, the fiction writers have all the power. Writers can alter ALL of our cognition instantly by switching the Story Of The Day. When words describe NATURE, writers are just clowns.
= = = = =
I'm more interested in the power of grammatical boundaries, which seems to be relatively unexplored. I've noticed that Soros, the ultimate boundary breaker and civilization obliterator, encounters less resistance in countries with caseless nouns.
Time for a reprint.
= = = = = START REPRINT:
Antichrist Bergoglio disses "rigid" youngsters.
Why is Latin more suitable than modern languages to pull you into permanence?
For the same reason that Bach is better than Hillsong, the same reason that the Mass and Rosary are better than Mindfulness. PERMANENT AND MEANINGFUL STRUCTURE.
The rule is repeated in other religions. Eastern Orthodox uses Old Slavonic in its services. Hindus use Sanskrit. Muslims use classical Arabic. Serious Protestants prefer King James. Those differences aren't nearly as stark as Latin vs modern English, but they are always in the same direction.
In simple terms, more God means more grammar. In technical linguistic terms, tradition goes toward 'synthetic' and modernity goes toward 'isolating'.
Modernity is more efficient for damn sure. Measured by Shannon information, you can transfer the same message in a much shorter utterance when you skip the 'redundant' suffixes of Latin. English is unquestionably better for everyday business.
Those 'redundant' suffixes serve a more important formative purpose. Just as a trellis provides a guide and a reinforcement for a tomato vine, the synthetic morphs provide a training force and a supporting force for verbal thinking. When you cling to the immobile orthogonality of the trellis, you can still flex to face the sun, but you can't be torn apart by the wind.
= = = = = END REPRINT.
Linguists are taking another look at the Whorf Hypothesis dealing with semantic boundaries. If you have names and comparison points for specific ranges of color or smell, you're better able to talk and think about those ranges. It's more or less tautologous if you don't take it too far. Some earlier linguists took it too far, maintaining that we can't even PERCEIVE a distinction unless it has a name.
As Orwell predicted, most of our public noise today is Whorfian. Half of the noise attempts to add new FAKE semantic boxes for concepts that are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, like variable gender and dark matter and renewable energy and autonomous cars and "holding government accountable" and "elections". The other half attempts to DELETE every semantic box that corresponds to plain old observable reality.
Purpose of both is consistent. When ALL words describe NOTHING BUT FICTION, the fiction writers have all the power. Writers can alter ALL of our cognition instantly by switching the Story Of The Day. When words describe NATURE, writers are just clowns.
= = = = =
I'm more interested in the power of grammatical boundaries, which seems to be relatively unexplored. I've noticed that Soros, the ultimate boundary breaker and civilization obliterator, encounters less resistance in countries with caseless nouns.
Time for a reprint.
= = = = = START REPRINT:
Antichrist Bergoglio disses "rigid" youngsters.
Juventutem ("youth" in Latin), an international federation of young people who attend and promote the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, has chapters around the world.It's always helpful when Satan speaks on a subject. He lets us know which end is good. In this case it was already obvious. The Latin-loving youngsters are magnetized by the PERMANENT force field of Natural Law. They are repelled from the Satanic chaos of SorosBergoglio, attracted to PERMANENT AND MEANINGFUL STRUCTURE.
"We are a group of Catholic young adults who seek to implement Summorum Pontificum in the Archdiocese of Washington," Juventutem's Washington, DC chapter explains. "We love the traditional Roman liturgy and seek to share it with the Church and the world. Come pray with us!"
....
Pope[sic] Francis criticized the "rigidity" of young people who are attached to the Traditional Latin Mass. "I always try to understand what's behind people who are too young to have experienced the pre-conciliar liturgy and yet still they want it," the pontiff[sic] said. "Sometimes I found myself confronted with a very strict person, with an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."
Why is Latin more suitable than modern languages to pull you into permanence?
For the same reason that Bach is better than Hillsong, the same reason that the Mass and Rosary are better than Mindfulness. PERMANENT AND MEANINGFUL STRUCTURE.
The rule is repeated in other religions. Eastern Orthodox uses Old Slavonic in its services. Hindus use Sanskrit. Muslims use classical Arabic. Serious Protestants prefer King James. Those differences aren't nearly as stark as Latin vs modern English, but they are always in the same direction.
In simple terms, more God means more grammar. In technical linguistic terms, tradition goes toward 'synthetic' and modernity goes toward 'isolating'.
Modernity is more efficient for damn sure. Measured by Shannon information, you can transfer the same message in a much shorter utterance when you skip the 'redundant' suffixes of Latin. English is unquestionably better for everyday business.
Those 'redundant' suffixes serve a more important formative purpose. Just as a trellis provides a guide and a reinforcement for a tomato vine, the synthetic morphs provide a training force and a supporting force for verbal thinking. When you cling to the immobile orthogonality of the trellis, you can still flex to face the sun, but you can't be torn apart by the wind.
= = = = = END REPRINT.
Labels: defensible cases, Metrology
¶ 1:12 AM
