if we can only ask what god is, what more do we really want to know? what type of questions can we even ask, and therefore what answers can we even get? what dimension of "question-asking" are we at, or how much/what can one infer another is asking through a particular question? will advancement in human communication create a different dimension of asking questions? will natural language play a part in this? can we breed a language, or languages (naturally, of course), to be able to ask the RIGHT questions? is this where simply intrigue (or perhaps intelligence) plays a part in the types of question we ask? beyond the realm of culture/society, why do speakers of certain languages, talking about the same topic, ask different questions and (hence?) arrive at different conclusions regarding the same questions?
if we found Him (that's the only time i'm ever capitalizing this), would there be a need, desire, interest (, obligation?) for the guy who created us to talk to us? from how blindly human i am, i wouldn't give a shit about those things i made that one day in my m u l t i v e r s e (the megaverse of universes).
do humans even know what questions we are to be asking? but isn't that always the question: questioning our methods(?)... how can we enhance the whole questioning process? does our 'creator' or reason for way of living have anything to do with what we should do, how we should live, what we should want to know?
LET ME KNOW !
Michio Kaku on God - YouTube
Showing posts with label semantics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label semantics. Show all posts
this, that & how they interact
Syntax, semantics and pragmatics: There's order, there's meaning, and there's meaning to order.
tweet
tweet
Puerto Rrrrrrico! (language)
from (Puerto Rico):
"The Spanish was really fun to listen to. After reading about dialectal variation in my Spanish phonology class, it was cool to actually hear Caribbean Spanish in real life contexts. If I were to walk by a few lower or middle class speakers just having an everyday conversation, it was a little difficult to pick up things, but when I communicated with them, it was very doable. Even Andrés, the Colombian who speaks a similar Caribbean dialect of Spanish, as well, said he had problems with the locals sometimes. Almost all /s/ were dropped in syllable final positions ("los dos buhos" --> /loh doh buhoh/, or "es que estamos especiales" --> /e ke eh-ta-moh e-pe-sia-leh/), were either replaced with a aspiration of /h/ or just completely dropped altogher. A majority of the /r/ in syllable and even in syllable initial positions became /l/ (ayeL, mujeL, amoL, pueLto Lico, all verbs in infinitive form, etc...).
It was also interesting listening to the radio. I loved this phrase: "tú pidiendo, yo poniendo, pa' ka!" (you asking, me playing, right here!).... it just sounded so intense that I loved hearing it! I also remember one instance where it was the radio announcer's birthday and the callers were telling him Happy Birthday. One caller said "¿Cuántos años tiene?" (how old are you) and his response was "Soy treinta y ocho... ¡Que pasanme!" (I'm 38, what's happening to me!) This structure is completely a translation from English, something that I would presume a Spanish 101 student would make, but probably not a student in 102. It was so odd to hear that! It was also common to hear full paragraphs of Spanish with English words inserted every sentence of two."
;;-p
;;-8
i typed whacked on justiv.tv, then typed this symbol. they are all valid characters of language(s), including English and I have created a meaning for it. whacked. it's there. it's out there in society, and it's wave can be picked up and taken into our general brains. call it, our mind. but,. how do we say this.... "whacked"? i mean, /ku-ku-'chI'baettu/? i mean, wtf?!? is at least one letter required?
a;;-p
omg.
i typed whacked on justiv.tv, then typed this symbol. they are all valid characters of language(s), including English and I have created a meaning for it. whacked. it's there. it's out there in society, and it's wave can be picked up and taken into our general brains. call it, our mind. but,. how do we say this.... "whacked"? i mean, /ku-ku-'chI'baettu/? i mean, wtf?!? is at least one letter required?
a;;-p
omg.
recent thoughts/notes/_____
recent thoughts in all mental states. from random times since mid-February. Many misspells, a few tangents, but definitely beneficial thinking...
:
(pardon the typing about 12 feet away from the screen, and completely can’t see the screen hahaa!! but it sucks.. hope it's gettable)
:
*been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. surfin the web in a new way recently… it’s super intriguing
:
seinfeld episode: Season __ Episode __, talking about turn-taking, husband has rights to the first “God Bless You” wwhen his wife sneezes, George said it first, that was, and that was socially the wrong thing to do. Elain says “Gazumtight|!”to acknowledge the situation occured previously.
:
is the hhhuh (chi-symbol in IPA) still present in only certain spainish dialects because of residue from arabic? mozaarabic?
:
every interaction is a transaction: success or failure. look at this conversation:
-Person A do I sense sum hostility? seems like we got snakes slitherin around. oh wait.. I BEEN sayin that. u aint foolin nobody mayn
-Person B ?!
-Person A whas good
was there success? no. Person A can clarify, change the subject (which he did), or (because we’re on the internet) not respond at all (for a number of reasons, here).
when u speak about something, that createds a context you can refer to later, with or without confusion. speaking to people on different social networks and different means (text, email fb, twitter), you can create many more contexts that are referrable later. This might lead for some confusion of referendce later, but still this creates maximum opportunities for closer bonds with others.
(pardon the typing about 12 feet away from the screen, and completely can’t see the screen hahaa!! but it sucks.. hope it's gettable)
:
*been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. surfin the web in a new way recently… it’s super intriguing
:
seinfeld episode: Season __ Episode __, talking about turn-taking, husband has rights to the first “God Bless You” wwhen his wife sneezes, George said it first, that was, and that was socially the wrong thing to do. Elain says “Gazumtight|!”to acknowledge the situation occured previously.
:
is the hhhuh (chi-symbol in IPA) still present in only certain spainish dialects because of residue from arabic? mozaarabic?
:
every interaction is a transaction: success or failure. look at this conversation:
-Person A do I sense sum hostility? seems like we got snakes slitherin around. oh wait.. I BEEN sayin that. u aint foolin nobody mayn
-Person B ?!
-Person A whas good
was there success? no. Person A can clarify, change the subject (which he did), or (because we’re on the internet) not respond at all (for a number of reasons, here).
when u speak about something, that createds a context you can refer to later, with or without confusion. speaking to people on different social networks and different means (text, email fb, twitter), you can create many more contexts that are referrable later. This might lead for some confusion of referendce later, but still this creates maximum opportunities for closer bonds with others.
:
uk office-
“is there a nbame for this? what you’re doing?” he uses two questions to specify exactly what he means. almost a 1.5x emphasis on the semantics of what he was saying. “what the hell are you saying?” is what he was really saying, but he said does there exist a thing of what you are doing?”. is there some beauty mto this? or is it a way of avoiding what you are saying by asking it differently? and so, does your style of saying it actually change the message? stylistics? i think so.
or does this style of speech just soudn culturally different to me? is it his lower middle class inner suburb (?) english ? pragmatics? where is the line between pragmatics and stylistics?
:
glasses (skymall?) that have a camera in the middle of the eyes, tha tsees perfectly while u smoke hookah. and with an internet connectino u could stremam that view
:
onda: agarrar la onda. loc. Entender. || buena onda. loc. Bueno, amable, divertido, interesante. || estaralguien en la onda. loc. Estar en consonancia con los demás. || írsele a alguien la onda. loc. Distraerse, olvidársele lo que iba a decir o lo que tenía que hacer. || ¿qué onda? loc. ¿Qué pasa, qué hacemos? ||sacar a alguien de onda. loc. Distraerlo, hacerle olvidar lo que iba a decir o a hacer.
:
uk office-
“is there a nbame for this? what you’re doing?” he uses two questions to specify exactly what he means. almost a 1.5x emphasis on the semantics of what he was saying. “what the hell are you saying?” is what he was really saying, but he said does there exist a thing of what you are doing?”. is there some beauty mto this? or is it a way of avoiding what you are saying by asking it differently? and so, does your style of saying it actually change the message? stylistics? i think so.
or does this style of speech just soudn culturally different to me? is it his lower middle class inner suburb (?) english ? pragmatics? where is the line between pragmatics and stylistics?
:
glasses (skymall?) that have a camera in the middle of the eyes, tha tsees perfectly while u smoke hookah. and with an internet connectino u could stremam that view
:
onda: agarrar la onda. loc. Entender. || buena onda. loc. Bueno, amable, divertido, interesante. || estaralguien en la onda. loc. Estar en consonancia con los demás. || írsele a alguien la onda. loc. Distraerse, olvidársele lo que iba a decir o lo que tenía que hacer. || ¿qué onda? loc. ¿Qué pasa, qué hacemos? ||sacar a alguien de onda. loc. Distraerlo, hacerle olvidar lo que iba a decir o a hacer.
:
relative linguistics - einsten “if u put ur hand on a hot place for a second it seems like an hourm, if u see a pretty girl for an hour it seems like a second” . a branch of linguistics that takes into acccount all contexts, factor, rules, and contextual axioms/variables.
:
can we not predict the pragmatic state of societies in the past, creating a new realm of sociolinguistics and typology? the pragmatic development of speech, or pragmatic evolution of a language? how much speculation would be involved in this?
linguistics changes due to pragmatic variation and societal measures/issues in current society can attest for (possibly) the same types of changes in the past. been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. would these reflect the same changes that will happen in our future?
:
We know:
-past societies’ culture, history, location, and most importantly, language
-we can try and predict their pragmatics
-the linguistic changes of past languages
We also know
-present-day societies’ pragmatics
-hence, can we predict the linguistic changes?
:
The President used to be “THE Commander in Chief” and now he is “OUR Commander in Chief”. He can now declare war and is the only one who can do so. Hmm..... Have we defied our leader?
:
can we not predict the pragmatic state of societies in the past, creating a new realm of sociolinguistics and typology? the pragmatic development of speech, or pragmatic evolution of a language? how much speculation would be involved in this?
linguistics changes due to pragmatic variation and societal measures/issues in current society can attest for (possibly) the same types of changes in the past. been smokin a bit. quite the hermit, yet stellar new input. would these reflect the same changes that will happen in our future?
:
We know:
-past societies’ culture, history, location, and most importantly, language
-we can try and predict their pragmatics
-the linguistic changes of past languages
We also know
-present-day societies’ pragmatics
-hence, can we predict the linguistic changes?
:
The President used to be “THE Commander in Chief” and now he is “OUR Commander in Chief”. He can now declare war and is the only one who can do so. Hmm..... Have we defied our leader?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)