Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
My thoughts exactly.
As populations merge, languages die out. It's been happening for thousands of years. What real value is it to keep Cherokee in use? Are we worse off now that no one speaks Olmec anymore? (I think not).
I bet Apple doesn't give two shakes about the Cherokee language/alphabet/syllabary; they probably did it merely as a technical experiment to demonstrate how adaptable their UI is, with an eye on the good PR it's likely to generate. One shouldn't ascribe too much altruism to it.
So, just to make sure - you don't really think he invented the language do you? He created a syllabry, in order to be able to write stuff in the language. Whaddaya think, we're talking about inventing Elvish and Klingon and Esperanto and Lojban? NO dude. Cherokee had already existed kinda like, ya know, ENGLISH.
Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
I've never cared for this kind of calculus. There isn't a single worthy endeavor that couldn't be dismissed as trivial compared to some other pressing need. The fact is that the world presents us with all manner of opportunities for service, large and small, and it isn't a zero sum game.
Would you sneer at a Christmas toy drive because we haven't conquered childhood obesity? Dismiss efforts to curb childhood obesity because of famine? Reckon that addressing famine should wait until we cure malaria?
Maybe we could identify the Very Worst Thing and agree that there will be no more of these lesser charitable doings until we fix that.
No, I can "donate" - but any donation I could make would be peanuts compared to a multi-million $ corporation's or billionaire's. Mark Zuckerberg's is an example. Comprendez? Not that difficult to comprehend.
There are many better ways to do good than giving money to charity indeed I would go as far as to say that in most cases giving money to charity does very little good and probably more harm. If you want to support executives, major corporations, advertising agencies, lawyers etc give to charity, if you want to support people do something else.
Bono?s anti-poverty ONE foundation received $14,993,873 in donations from philanthropists in 2008, of which just $184,732 was distributed to three charities. (ONE is an ?advocacy organisation? whose main purpose is to change policies, not support charities, it says.) So what happened to the rest? More than $8 million was spent on executive and employee salaries.
Most of the money given to charity is for PR purposes, plays well in the media (corporate owned), rich guys who have made a fortune doing evil buying some feel good factor and better place in history (Zuckerberg started early, must have done a lot ot evil already!). Carnegie is a classic, and I wouldn't support any vaccinations like a Mr Gates is doing:
Recent data presented to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Children's Vaccines has revealed some shocking information about the effects of the H1N1 / swine flu vaccine on pregnant women. According to the report, the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit.
Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
Dunno who you were replying to, but if me, in the language you use, you should get the diff between "archive" and "keep alive."
facebook "archives" more status posts, vids and snapshots filling more storage than it would take to store the vocabulary, rules, audio and visual samples and in most cases the entire literature of most obscure languages every minute. And most languages are already preserved and documented. On the world scale of things, the effort required is trivial.
Your other proposal - to magically mandate a single language for humanity is the one that needs to "get real." Ain't gonna happen. People whose languages have been suppressed have shown repeatedly they will fight - often to the death, often for generations - to keep their tongue alive. Viz., the Basques.
Hebrew's had an amazing Renaissance since the founding of Israel and much of the world's research, not to mention much art and literature is being done/created in this ancient, once almost wiped out tongue. And in Europe, which has expended huge resources in uniting its peoples into a "European identity," even though most urbanites are at least partly multi-lingual, no one has seriously suggested that they all speak one language - because implementing one (even choosing one) could only be done by force. The use of which can be found all over the history of the failed Soviet Union.
Most (or at least a plurality) of people in India did and do speak English, but as soon as Independence was won from England after a long occupation, one of the first actions of the Indian government was to make Hindi the official language - but in a country of hundreds of language variants, it's never been mandated.
And our experience (and the Australians' comparable experience) in trying to force a single language and culture on native American and aboriginal peoples has worked out so well for those folk.
Life's also complicated by the existence of more than one computer programming language. Let's wipe out those problems too by mandating a single coding tool. Sure.
Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
By that logic, nobody should ever do ANY good thing except for THE single best good thing possible in the world. (Who would get to decide the one best good thing that everyone would do?)
I like the idea that lots of different people are doing lots of different good things. Keeping languages and cultures alive is a fine example. People shouldn’t be all alike—it wouldn’t work out as nicely as it sounds!
This is interesting. I question it's value though in view of its opportunity cost.
To paraphrase Ferris Bueller:
I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not a Cherokee. I don't plan on being a Cherokee. So who gives a crap if the iPhone works in Cherokee?
I'm not disparaging it by any means. If people want to spend their time with that, that's their business. Clearly it requires a substantial investment. To what end, is all I wonder.
Indian culture has been subjugated. Is it ever coming back? Incorporating the Cherokee language will preserve things to some degree. In light of the dismal picture (in my opinion) of American Indian life today, it's not clear to me that perpetuation is an intrinsically good thing. For example, I wouldn't think it wise (or kind) to rear a newborn with Cherokee as its first language. Everyone in the world is speaking or learning English.
That state of reality carries a twinge of sadness as so many languages are dying in the process. That's progress.
People have different views of progress. I respect that and I can identify with those who enjoy the simple life. I can Identify with those who might enjoy the Cherokee language for its aesthetic value, like poetry. To me, it's a matter of selectiveness. So, again, I don't have anything against the Cherokee language on the iPhone.
There is just something inherently contradictory about the merging of technology with "old ways" that begs the question. I'm sure a hell of a tipi could be made with fiberglass, brick, or cement.
To the extent that the iPhone incorporation advances the language as a means of communication and tool for cultural preservation, it seems doomed (if only because modernity is contradictory to traditional Indian values). To the extent that it is another means of enjoying a fond language, it seems superfluous.
It's interesting to think of languages as emulators of each other.
My favorite thing is when people who are supposedly liberally tolerant tell those who aren't to "GIT OUT." Apparently real tolerance means intolerance of those who are less tolerant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habañero
[Apple] probably did it merely as a technical experiment to demonstrate how adaptable their UI is, with an eye on the good PR it's likely to generate. One shouldn't ascribe too much altruism to it.
My favorite thing is when people who are supposedly liberally tolerant tell those who aren't to "GIT OUT." Apparently real tolerance means intolerance of those who are less tolerant.
-Clive
Since there aren't actually any examples of that in this thread, I suspect you may have a case of Fox Poisoning-- the main symptom of which is discovering evidence Liberal Hypocrisy everywhere you look.
Since there aren't actually any examples of that in this thread, I suspect you may have a case of Fox Poisoning-- the main symptom of which is discovering evidence Liberal Hypocrisy everywhere you look.
1) LOL. Please see the post directly above my original. He said point blank, "GIT OUT." lol.
2) I lol at you again, sir! I don't watch Fox, or listen to Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity or any other right-wing talk radio host. You must've mistaken my lower-case-"L"-liberal as an attack against capital-"L"-Liberals, over which you got needlessly bent out of shape and went on an idiotic tirade.
1) LOL. Please see the post directly above my original. He said point blank, "GIT OUT." lol.
Yes it does. In what sense does that sentiment does that seem to be a "liberal" perspective? In what sense does that seem to be the sentiment of "people", which makes it "your favorite thing?"
Quote:
2) I lol at you again, sir! I don't watch Fox, or listen to Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity or any other right-wing talk radio host. You must've mistaken my lower-case-"L"-liberal as an attack against capital-"L"-Liberals, over which you got needlessly bent out of shape and went on an idiotic tirade.
{Ad Hom deleted)
Still, I didn't realize that gratingly stupid bullshit was case sensitive, so that might be the source of confusion.
Quote:
Please pay more attention in the future.
Yeah, no thanks-- I get plenty of "lol" level taunting at the middle school where I work.
Yes it does. In what sense does that sentiment does that seem to be a "liberal" perspective? In what sense does that seem to be the sentiment of "people", which makes it "your favorite thing?"
Do I have to spoon-feed you everything? His post clearly opines that if you're naysaying the addition Cherokee, you're un-American and need to "GIT OUT." chronster is clearly more liberal (that's a lower-case "l," now - I'll spoon feed to you what that means in a moment) than some of the members here who think the whole thing is idiotic. However, he contradicts his own hyper-acceptance of other cultures by rejecting those who aren't as accepting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Um.. If my few words on the topic struck you as a "tirade" then you're illiterate in addition to being a petulant dick.
Well that's a totally appropriate response!
ti·rade
/ˈtaɪreɪd, taɪˈreɪd/ Show Spelled[tahy-reyd, tahy-reyd]
?noun
1. a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation.
Okay, so it may not have been "prolonged," but I'm not sure how else to describe your opinions of Fox as an outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation.
By the by, I happen to know that chronster is libertarian. He is a slightly different breed of libertarian than I, but he is libertarian nonetheless. I'm sure he knows the difference between "liberal" and "Liberal" and certainly wouldn't take it as an insult, much less fly off the handle in an outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation against Fox News, hahaha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Still, I didn't realize that gratingly stupid bullshit was case sensitive, so that might be the source of confusion.
Maybe your middle-schoolers could teach you something about proper nouns. RE "liberal" and "Liberal." The former is a philosophy and the latter is a political brand of said philosophy. Until you understand this concept, for the sake of this country please don't vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Yeah, no thanks-- I get plenty of "lol" level taunting at the middle school where I work.
Comments
Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
My thoughts exactly.
As populations merge, languages die out. It's been happening for thousands of years. What real value is it to keep Cherokee in use? Are we worse off now that no one speaks Olmec anymore? (I think not).
I bet Apple doesn't give two shakes about the Cherokee language/alphabet/syllabary; they probably did it merely as a technical experiment to demonstrate how adaptable their UI is, with an eye on the good PR it's likely to generate. One shouldn't ascribe too much altruism to it.
Yeah, Sequoyah really had um TREED.
So, just to make sure - you don't really think he invented the language do you? He created a syllabry, in order to be able to write stuff in the language. Whaddaya think, we're talking about inventing Elvish and Klingon and Esperanto and Lojban? NO dude. Cherokee had already existed kinda like, ya know, ENGLISH.
Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
I've never cared for this kind of calculus. There isn't a single worthy endeavor that couldn't be dismissed as trivial compared to some other pressing need. The fact is that the world presents us with all manner of opportunities for service, large and small, and it isn't a zero sum game.
Would you sneer at a Christmas toy drive because we haven't conquered childhood obesity? Dismiss efforts to curb childhood obesity because of famine? Reckon that addressing famine should wait until we cure malaria?
Maybe we could identify the Very Worst Thing and agree that there will be no more of these lesser charitable doings until we fix that.
No, I can "donate" - but any donation I could make would be peanuts compared to a multi-million $ corporation's or billionaire's. Mark Zuckerberg's is an example. Comprendez? Not that difficult to comprehend.
There are many better ways to do good than giving money to charity indeed I would go as far as to say that in most cases giving money to charity does very little good and probably more harm. If you want to support executives, major corporations, advertising agencies, lawyers etc give to charity, if you want to support people do something else.
Bono?s anti-poverty ONE foundation received $14,993,873 in donations from philanthropists in 2008, of which just $184,732 was distributed to three charities. (ONE is an ?advocacy organisation? whose main purpose is to change policies, not support charities, it says.) So what happened to the rest? More than $8 million was spent on executive and employee salaries.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...-bono-history/
Most of the money given to charity is for PR purposes, plays well in the media (corporate owned), rich guys who have made a fortune doing evil buying some feel good factor and better place in history (Zuckerberg started early, must have done a lot ot evil already!). Carnegie is a classic, and I wouldn't support any vaccinations like a Mr Gates is doing:
Recent data presented to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Children's Vaccines has revealed some shocking information about the effects of the H1N1 / swine flu vaccine on pregnant women. According to the report, the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit.
http://www.progressiveconvergence.co...scarriages.htm
Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
Dunno who you were replying to, but if me, in the language you use, you should get the diff between "archive" and "keep alive."
facebook "archives" more status posts, vids and snapshots filling more storage than it would take to store the vocabulary, rules, audio and visual samples and in most cases the entire literature of most obscure languages every minute. And most languages are already preserved and documented. On the world scale of things, the effort required is trivial.
Your other proposal - to magically mandate a single language for humanity is the one that needs to "get real." Ain't gonna happen. People whose languages have been suppressed have shown repeatedly they will fight - often to the death, often for generations - to keep their tongue alive. Viz., the Basques.
Hebrew's had an amazing Renaissance since the founding of Israel and much of the world's research, not to mention much art and literature is being done/created in this ancient, once almost wiped out tongue. And in Europe, which has expended huge resources in uniting its peoples into a "European identity," even though most urbanites are at least partly multi-lingual, no one has seriously suggested that they all speak one language - because implementing one (even choosing one) could only be done by force. The use of which can be found all over the history of the failed Soviet Union.
Most (or at least a plurality) of people in India did and do speak English, but as soon as Independence was won from England after a long occupation, one of the first actions of the Indian government was to make Hindi the official language - but in a country of hundreds of language variants, it's never been mandated.
And our experience (and the Australians' comparable experience) in trying to force a single language and culture on native American and aboriginal peoples has worked out so well for those folk.
Life's also complicated by the existence of more than one computer programming language. Let's wipe out those problems too by mandating a single coding tool. Sure.
Get real? I have. You haven't.
Sorry- not gonna happen.
I'm not a billionaire.
And of course that big black cloud of negativity hanging over your head 24/7 has absolutely nothing to do with that, right? ......
Get real. There are more than 30,000 languages in the world. Should we keep them all alive or devote resources to other goals and have a single language to communicate? Get real.
By that logic, nobody should ever do ANY good thing except for THE single best good thing possible in the world. (Who would get to decide the one best good thing that everyone would do?)
I like the idea that lots of different people are doing lots of different good things. Keeping languages and cultures alive is a fine example. People shouldn’t be all alike—it wouldn’t work out as nicely as it sounds!
(So, is there a download for this?)
To paraphrase Ferris Bueller:
I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not a Cherokee. I don't plan on being a Cherokee. So who gives a crap if the iPhone works in Cherokee?
I'm not disparaging it by any means. If people want to spend their time with that, that's their business. Clearly it requires a substantial investment. To what end, is all I wonder.
Indian culture has been subjugated. Is it ever coming back? Incorporating the Cherokee language will preserve things to some degree. In light of the dismal picture (in my opinion) of American Indian life today, it's not clear to me that perpetuation is an intrinsically good thing. For example, I wouldn't think it wise (or kind) to rear a newborn with Cherokee as its first language. Everyone in the world is speaking or learning English.
That state of reality carries a twinge of sadness as so many languages are dying in the process. That's progress.
People have different views of progress. I respect that and I can identify with those who enjoy the simple life. I can Identify with those who might enjoy the Cherokee language for its aesthetic value, like poetry. To me, it's a matter of selectiveness. So, again, I don't have anything against the Cherokee language on the iPhone.
There is just something inherently contradictory about the merging of technology with "old ways" that begs the question. I'm sure a hell of a tipi could be made with fiberglass, brick, or cement.
To the extent that the iPhone incorporation advances the language as a means of communication and tool for cultural preservation, it seems doomed (if only because modernity is contradictory to traditional Indian values). To the extent that it is another means of enjoying a fond language, it seems superfluous.
It's interesting to think of languages as emulators of each other.
Final thought:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-01/ff_mac
If you don't like it then GIT OUT
My favorite thing is when people who are supposedly liberally tolerant tell those who aren't to "GIT OUT." Apparently real tolerance means intolerance of those who are less tolerant.
[Apple] probably did it merely as a technical experiment to demonstrate how adaptable their UI is, with an eye on the good PR it's likely to generate. One shouldn't ascribe too much altruism to it.
This is most likely accurate.
-Clive
LAME. Let's put on Esperanto while we are at it.
This whole thread is just... "LOL"
My favorite thing is when people who are supposedly liberally tolerant tell those who aren't to "GIT OUT." Apparently real tolerance means intolerance of those who are less tolerant.
-Clive
Since there aren't actually any examples of that in this thread, I suspect you may have a case of Fox Poisoning-- the main symptom of which is discovering evidence Liberal Hypocrisy everywhere you look.
Since there aren't actually any examples of that in this thread, I suspect you may have a case of Fox Poisoning-- the main symptom of which is discovering evidence Liberal Hypocrisy everywhere you look.
1) LOL. Please see the post directly above my original. He said point blank, "GIT OUT." lol.
2) I lol at you again, sir! I don't watch Fox, or listen to Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity or any other right-wing talk radio host. You must've mistaken my lower-case-"L"-liberal as an attack against capital-"L"-Liberals, over which you got needlessly bent out of shape and went on an idiotic tirade.
Congratulations.
Please pay more attention in the future.
Sincerely,
-Clive
1) LOL. Please see the post directly above my original. He said point blank, "GIT OUT." lol.
Yes it does. In what sense does that sentiment does that seem to be a "liberal" perspective? In what sense does that seem to be the sentiment of "people", which makes it "your favorite thing?"
2) I lol at you again, sir! I don't watch Fox, or listen to Beck or Limbaugh or Hannity or any other right-wing talk radio host. You must've mistaken my lower-case-"L"-liberal as an attack against capital-"L"-Liberals, over which you got needlessly bent out of shape and went on an idiotic tirade.
{Ad Hom deleted)
Still, I didn't realize that gratingly stupid bullshit was case sensitive, so that might be the source of confusion.
Please pay more attention in the future.
Yeah, no thanks-- I get plenty of "lol" level taunting at the middle school where I work.
Yes it does. In what sense does that sentiment does that seem to be a "liberal" perspective? In what sense does that seem to be the sentiment of "people", which makes it "your favorite thing?"
Do I have to spoon-feed you everything? His post clearly opines that if you're naysaying the addition Cherokee, you're un-American and need to "GIT OUT." chronster is clearly more liberal (that's a lower-case "l," now - I'll spoon feed to you what that means in a moment) than some of the members here who think the whole thing is idiotic. However, he contradicts his own hyper-acceptance of other cultures by rejecting those who aren't as accepting.
Um.. If my few words on the topic struck you as a "tirade" then you're illiterate in addition to being a petulant dick.
Well that's a totally appropriate response!
ti·rade
/ˈtaɪreɪd, taɪˈreɪd/ Show Spelled[tahy-reyd, tahy-reyd]
?noun
1. a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation.
Okay, so it may not have been "prolonged," but I'm not sure how else to describe your opinions of Fox as an outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation.
By the by, I happen to know that chronster is libertarian. He is a slightly different breed of libertarian than I, but he is libertarian nonetheless. I'm sure he knows the difference between "liberal" and "Liberal" and certainly wouldn't take it as an insult, much less fly off the handle in an outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation against Fox News, hahaha.
Still, I didn't realize that gratingly stupid bullshit was case sensitive, so that might be the source of confusion.
Maybe your middle-schoolers could teach you something about proper nouns. RE "liberal" and "Liberal." The former is a philosophy and the latter is a political brand of said philosophy. Until you understand this concept, for the sake of this country please don't vote.
Yeah, no thanks-- I get plenty of "lol" level taunting at the middle school where I work.
lol. Let's hope you don't teach English...
-Clive