Re: deepfriedmars.com

From: alexV (alexV7623_at_comcast.net)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:36:31 -0500

"Joseph W. Murphy" <jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:E2Pod.11577$Qh3.10158@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "alexV" <alexV7623@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MdednUa6Fbt6Aj7cRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Joseph W. Murphy" <jwmurphy700@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:cFyod.10240$Qh3.1689@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > "alexV" <alexV7623@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:z-SdncDJ9t4gNT_cRVn-og@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > Unbeknown to you there is a problem with the way the Russian
> language handles objects and how they interact. It is much more ambiguous
in
> all its expressions as a rule. I am not talking about idioms.
>
> > > And Joe Murphy responded:
> > >
> Could you give some examples? I know some Russian so I'll be able to
follow
> what you say.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > And alexV wrote:
> > >
> It would mainly concern scientific discourse. The gap is wide and
> palpable.On the ground level when very familiar things are discussed
between
> close acquaintances no ambiguities arise. In more specific areas, however,
> where quick and sharp definitions are a must it becomes painfully clear
that
> the Russian language is pitifully deficient.
> > >
>
> And Joe Murphy wrote:
>
> > > Well, in various areas of science (where I would imagine quick and
sharp
> definitions are important), Russian-speakers are certainly not without
their
> achievements. I was looking at a list of Nobel prize winners in the last
> century and the Russians (or, better, Soviets) have certainly managed to
do
> good work in some very esoteric and arcane areas of science, their
language
> notwithstanding. :
> >
>
> And alexV responded:
>
> > The list of Russian Nobel Prize winners is very very short. It's brevity
> may not be exclusively language related. The Soviet mismanagement of
> everything including science facilitated the Russian scientists falling
> behind the Western.
> >
>
> Joe Murphy writes:
>
> I don't disagree with your statement that Stalin's stupidities hindered
> Russian science. But I still haven't heard any concrete examples from you
> tending to support your contention that the Russian language is inherently
> "ambiguous" or incapable of making "quick and sharp definitions".
>
> > > See:
>
> > > http://www.ucgf.ca/English/NewsletterStories/Twomorerussiannobel.htm
> > >
> > > Mendeleev, Lomonosov, Euler (I think he was Russian, wasn't he?) come
to
> mind.
> >
>
> and alexV responded:
>
> > Leonard Euler was born in Germany, spent most of his professional life
in
> Russia, never probably learned a word in Russian. It was simply
unnecessary.
> Most of the Russians around him could not speak Russian. They spoke French
> and German. Many of them were not Russians at all, they were all imported
by
> Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. Eurler also spoke Latin, I
presume,
> and it was another way to get around in scientific cercles.
>
> And Joe Murphy writes:
>
> Euler was probably a poor choice on my part since, as you point out, he
> wasn't a native Russian. It isn't my intent to get into a big
disquisition
> on Euler. But just for clarification, and as Jacques Guy already
observed,
> he was actually born in Switzerland (Basel), and not Germany.
>
> I haven't been able to find out whether Euler learned Russian or not. My
> suspicion is that he did, since, among his other achievements, he wrote
> textbooks for Russian schools.

I am not sure about it. It is a new fact to me. Given the attention to the
Russian language in his time I strongly doubt that they were in Russian.
Pushkin lived about 50 years later and as far as I remember the only reason
that he became familiar with the Russian speech AT ALL was a very talented
"native" nanny, who in their feudal system was a domestic slave as a matter
of fact, and who fed him with fascinating stories many of which later found
their place in his poems. His entire education was in foreign languages as
far as I can tell. He was exposed to the poetry of Derzhavin, the most
prominent poet of that time, and they met at his graduation exam when he
read a poem in his honor. So, there must have been a smudge of Russian
language at his school for highly privileged but I do not think it was a
lot. Besides I doubt they had any math at school although who knows.

>See:
> http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Euler.html I'm quite certain Euler spoke
> German and French, as you mention. He also seems to have known Hebrew.
As
> for Latin, who knows? My guess is that you are correct in thinking he
also
> knew Latin.
>
> I'm glad that you mentioned the fact that Latin was formerly used as a
> vehicle for getting around in scientific circles. With its many cases and
> declensions, Latin is in many ways like Russian. Arguably it is more
> complex. Indeed, having had some Latin in high school was of great use to
> me when I studied Russian. If Latin, with all its complexities, for years
> proved a serviceable vehicle for scientific communication, why, then is
> Russian, with its similar complexity, not equally serviceable?
>
> Joe Murphy
> Boy Linguist

Because we have a QUANTITATIVELY DIFFERENT SCIENCE NOW than at the time of
Euler. Things are evolving. Even in his time it was already on the way out.
Besides scholastic, medieval Latin was a far cry from classical Latin, I
presume. I may be wrong on it. 2 years of Latin did not get me very far.
Most of it has been forgotten.

Quantcast