Re: unnatural languages
- From: hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin)
- Date: 15 Mar 2007 21:47:41 -0400
In article <877iti83ji.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
LEE Sau Dan <danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Herman" =3D=3D Herman Rubin <hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Herman> One is unlikely to get the technical vocabulary in the
Herman> normal course of learning a language. For example, in a
Herman> paper on efficient methods for multiple precision
Herman> arithmetic, I got hung up on "Einheit". I could reject
Herman> many uses of "oneness"; I did not know that it was used in
Herman> German works on rings for "unit", which has nothing to do
Herman> with "one", despite the English word being based on the
Herman> Latin for "one".
"Einheit" means "unity". You can find this word in things like
national anthems or slogans. (Doesn't the 2-Euro coins from Germany
have this word on the rim?)
This is exactly what I first thought. However, a unit in a
ring is an element which has an inverse, and it was exactly
in this sense that it was used. The actual clause was
und 2=1+1 Einheit ist.
Whatever you are using, "2" certainly does not look right.
Used in the technical mathematical sense, it is correct,
as a unit is not something which is like1, but something
which can divide 1.
And "unity" is just "oneness" expressed with Latin-based roots. It
has everything to do with "one". Poor English speakers, who have to
learn the Latin root "uni" just to speak English, instead of using the
native word "one" in those places. Why would "oneness" look strange,
but "unity" so familiar?
English has no problem with using foreign words, or
words made up from foreign parts.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
- References:
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: unnatural languages
- From: LEE Sau Dan
- Re: unnatural languages
- Prev by Date: Re: Esperanto and Interlingua
- Next by Date: Re: intrinsic advantage of Latin alphabet over bopomofo (for Chinese)??
- Previous by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Next by thread: Re: unnatural languages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|