Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)

From: Richard Herring (junk_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 03/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:28:39 +0000

In message <1110413276.695879.91400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
phippsmartin@hotmail.com writes
>Richard Herring wrote:
>> In message
><nsanders.DIE.SPAM-BFA7F7.11342409032005@news.verizon.net>,
>> Nathan Sanders <nsanders.DIE.SPAM@wso.williams.edu> writes
>>
>> [...]
>> >
>> >I wish physicists had to deal with innumerable kooks arguing from
>> >their authority as physical beings:
>>
>> You think they don't? Just step next door to sci.physics :-(
>
>You don't have to go that far. Really. Layman CAN make contributions
>to the humanities: does anybody argue that Comm's point that Nomadic
>people develop an impressive ability to pick up languages (probably
>because they get exposed to different languages at a young age) was not
>a good one and relevent to the discussion that was taking place?

Certainly. There's no evidence that nomads are any better than anyone
else at language acquisition.

> But
>her analogies making reference to physics are just... embarrassing.
>(I'm trying to picture how someone can "put" phonons in a box. Maybe
>with a set of speakers.)
>
>Just speaking for physicists, I would say that it is ultimately our own
>fault if laymen don't understand us. People in education do try to get
>people to understand: that's the job. So concepts have to be explained
>in the simplest yet clearest terms possible. If we used the words
>"sun" and "moon" to refer to elementary particles and people thought we
>were taking about astronomy then who would be at fault? Yep, us.

No, them, if they didn't hang around for long enough to work out the
topic before jumping in.

> As
>far as I know, there has never been ANY physicist who has EVER
>criticized a layman for not understanding terminology in physics.

You evidently don't read sci.physics. It happens all the time. But
mostly, as with linguistics, the laymen aren't criticised for not
understanding the terminology, but for wilfully misunderstanding after
it has been explained to them.

> That
>would be both rude and ignorant. That's the point I was trying to make
>before.

If you say so. 

-- 
Richard Herring

Relevant Pages
Quantcast