|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 14, 2020 2:17:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 15, 2020 6:38:15 GMT
So far, this forum has mostly managed to avoid the new C-word, for which I have been very grateful but my attention has been drawn to this which lightens the gloom a little. www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMBh-eo3tvE
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 15, 2020 7:35:15 GMT
So far, this forum has mostly managed to avoid the new C-word, for which I have been very grateful but my attention has been drawn to this which lightens the gloom a little. www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMBh-eo3tvELJH: That is one of a multitude of C~ based ditties that have arisen from the p~, some cleverer than others. Even my muso son made a couple and posted them. One went viral before it was taken down. Entertainers are seriously inconvenienced by the lockdown because for some their only income came from singing, performing, whatever they did … . They often have no backup, no safety net, no second string to their bows so, like the Armageddon-spouting evangelical churches, they've taken to the internet to stay connected and relevant (where possible). One of the cleverest (though far from easiest on the ears) was a rendition by a choir of sampled animals suitably arranged to resemble Erik Satie's Gymnopedie. Note: A far less painful and much earlier attempt (2007) was made by this mob.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 17, 2020 14:50:45 GMT
Some fresh lockdown reading …
I’ve been perusing today’s post delivery: a book (no surprise there). Its title is Gurgun Mibinyah: A dictionary and grammar of Mibiny language varieties from the Logan to the Tweed rivers (that’s just north of me – effectively the northern half of the Wollumbin / Mt Warning caldera, west–northwest of Cape Byron / Byron Bay). Nearly 300 pages with many sections, subsections, lists, appendices … a veritable verbivore / philologist’s feast! Now my only other Oz Indigenous “dictionary” (it barely qualifies) will have some heavy company on the shelf.
Glancing through the lists I found animal names and should not have been as surprised as I was to find nine unrelated words (plus regional variants) for as many descriptions of kangaroo. I suppose it’s a bit like Eskimos (Inuit, or what are they called this month?) having many words for what a subtropical such as I would just call snow.
Here’s some geeky useless information from the book: some nine+ Mibiny* words for what we Oz commoners just call Skippy:
mani – kangaroo (generic), wallaby galagay – (grey) kangaroo rat bahy / barul / baruhl – kangaroo rat / rufous rat kangaroo yimar – eastern grey female kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) guruhman – eastern grey kangaroo, ‘old man kangaroo’, the law-giver (Macropus giganteus) gamaw – female kangaroo guruhman / guruman – grey male kangaroo walgulbun – weaner (i.e. young) kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) julin / julehn – young kangaroo (i.e. joey), in and out of pouch
I suppose there’s a parallel between those people’s ability to use specific names for such varieties of macropods and, say, mine to name many motor cars that might all look the same to some folk. (Except I never get to eat the cars.) But such a lexically nuanced language hints at a more developed mindset and skillset than we colonisers have given our Indigenes credit for. They were not a “simple people”. They just didn't have written language.
* Mibiny language varieties include the Yugambeh, Ngarahngwal, and Ngahnduwal.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 17, 2020 17:53:49 GMT
I am often fascinated by Aboriginal matters but I find the tribal names so alien to my ear that I seldom manage to remember what I have read. An exception was a book, presented to me by my Aussie daughter-in-law, called “Dark Emu” which has apparently been well-received in Oz. It is fascinating but I thought some of the conclusions didn’t follow the evidence and, in particular, I thought that the usages of terms like agriculture and, especially, of aquaculture were somewhat different from those I recognise. I was, as usual, prompted to do a bit of research into the book on Google. Because of the widespread approval of the book, I was surprised to discover some highly critical comments, especially in the website www.dark-emu-exposed.org and the book Bitter Harvest by Peter O’Brien both of which call into question much of what Bruce Pascoe says. I can’t adjudicate. Sky News host Andrew Bolt says aboriginal representatives have made “stunning allegations” about Pascoe’s claimed Indigenous ancestry which they apparently dispute www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bk-5ACZ7P0. I think Pascoe’s ancestry is irrelevant in regard to his analysis but it might say something about his academic credentials — I can’t judge. Maybe it has to be judged in an Australian politico-social context — and Dark Emu seems to me to be written for an Australian readership; there were many references which I only understood after Googling them.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Apr 17, 2020 18:33:42 GMT
I’m not sure whether all those names for kangaroo were from one language, or across a variety of languages, but it’s often easy to forget - or just not notice - how many words for one thing (in its various forms) we have in English. Consider “horse”:
Nag Mare Bronco Stallion Colt Filly Foal Gelding Mustang Pony Steed
And no doubt more. To us, there’s a different meaning to each, sufficient to justify each word, but I can imagine someone of a different language being told that English has that list of words for horse, and wondering why.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 17, 2020 23:02:01 GMT
[…] “Dark Emu” ]...] Andrew Bolt [...] I know of the book but haven't read it – or any commentary. However, when Andrew Bolt speaks I automatically discredit his blatherings. He's a reactionary, very right-wing, and thoroughly nasty jerk (IM[H]O of course).
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 17, 2020 23:04:43 GMT
I’m not sure whether all those names for kangaroo were from one language, or across a variety of languages […] All the one language but with its three variants (apparently not quite dialects). Thanks for all the horse words, Dave – point taken.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 18, 2020 1:10:36 GMT
Wrong passed (past?) Although in the item's body the expression is "grandmothers are past their …", passed doesn't work in that headline. And another
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 18, 2020 2:53:18 GMT
My, this lockdown is rich in supplying me with new words! Today’s is scofflaw. OED: one who treats the law with contempt, esp. a person who avoids various kinds of not easily enforceable laws.
It was in a news item on people who were flouting the current lockdowns, claiming their "constitutional rights" of assembly and movement (and spouting victim-conspiracy theories – ho-hum) – the type who often earn a Darwin Award for their stupidity or pig-headedness*.
* Declension of adjective firm: 1. I am firm 2. You are stubborn 3. He / she / it is pig-headed.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Apr 18, 2020 7:07:11 GMT
Few is less correct.
In a report somewhere on the transmission rate of the coronavirus: .. where R is now below 1, so that each infected person passes it on to fewer than one people.
Yes, people are countable, but an average number of people is not! I was surprised at how strongly the use of “fewer” made me think “so, no people at all, then”.
And, somehow, it just has to be “less than one person” , doesn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 18, 2020 11:29:29 GMT
Few is less correct. In a report somewhere on the transmission rate of the coronavirus: .. where R is now below 1, so that each infected person passes it on to fewer than one people.Yes, people are countable, but an average number of people is not! I was surprised at how strongly the use of “fewer” made me think “so, no people at all, then”. And, somehow, it just has to be “less than one person” , doesn’t it?That's always been my stance, Dave, even though less goes against my usual practice with countables.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 18, 2020 13:53:06 GMT
“each infected person passes it on to fewer than one people.”
Whether it is fewer than or less than, surely in this context one can’t have “one people”. It must be “one person”. And whether less than, or fewer than, one person must be zero persons (or, just maybe, zero people). And each infected person can only pass on the infection to no-one or two persons or more than two persons. Each infected person cannot pass it on to an average (number of persons). I am becoming confused. There is a constellation of problems here arising from “each” person and whether the plural of person is persons or people and whether “fewer” or “less than” is grammatically correct – and which sits more comfortably in the mind.
How about: an infected person will pass it on to fewer people”? That sounds comfortable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Apr 18, 2020 17:04:01 GMT
> How about: an infected person will pass it on to fewer people”? That sounds comfortable to me. <
I don’t think that captures the point being made about R. Without the social distancing, etc, R was about 2.5 to 3. At 1.0, we’d be maintaining the same number of infected people (just different ones, over time). It’s when R drops BELOW 1 that we’re gaining - and where the difficulty with few/less comes in.
At R of 0.7, on average each infected person is infecting another 0.7 people. I’m somehow fine with “people”, there. 0.7 people is definitely less than one person. Not fewer. Complex, isn’t it!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 18, 2020 23:20:37 GMT
|
|