<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRon%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
mso-font-alt:宋体;
mso-font-charset:134;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;
mso-font-charset:134;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
span.hccdpe
{mso-style-name:hccdpe;}
span.ep8xu
{mso-style-name:ep8xu;}
span.ldacoc
{mso-style-name:ldacoc;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">===========================================<br>
L O W L A N D S - L - 10 January 2009 - Volume 05<span style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102);"><br>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).<br>
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on<br>
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page <br>
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.</span><br>
===========================================</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"><br>
From: <span class="ep8xu"><span><span style="color: rgb(91, 16, 148);">Sandy Fleming</span></span></span><span class="hccdpe"> </span><span class="ldacoc"><<a href="mailto:sandy@scotstext.org">sandy@scotstext.org</a>></span><br>
Subject: <span class="hccdpe">LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.10
(01) [E]</span><br>
<br>
> From: Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong <<a href="mailto:Dutchmatters@comcast.net">Dutchmatters@comcast.net</a>><br>
> Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.09 (09) [E]<br>
><br>
> give his telephone number as: 053 – 57 – 21 – 8, 3, 9. Go figure! Does<br>
> this have anything to do with whether we say "zevenenvijftig" or<br>
> "fifty seven"? How do people in other countries solve this? Is
there<br>
> anything known about how we arrive at the rythm for large numbers. I<br>
> am not even speaking about the 16 digit credit cards that we are<br>
> schlepping around with us.<br>
><br>
> Does anybody have an answer to that question?<br>
<br>
> From: R. F. Hahn <<a href="mailto:sassisch@yahoo.com">sassisch@yahoo.com</a>><br>
> Subject: Language programming<br>
><br>
> Jacqueline, Heather and the rest of you Lowlands lot,<br>
><br>
> I may be way off here, but when it comes to memorizing and saying (and<br>
> dialing) strings of numbers it seems to me that I use the same<br>
> mechanisms I use when I memorize and recite poems and songs. It seems<br>
> to be a matter of the combination of rhythm and sounds, probably<br>
> specifically rhythm and vowels.<br>
><br>
> Am I just weird or does anyone else share this perception?<br>
<br>
Jacqueline and Ron,<br>
<br>
A good way of seeing how other people deal with this is to search for<br>
sites or forums run by people who memorise pi to thousands of decimal<br>
places. They do seem to depend to a great extent on just reciting it<br>
with some sort of rhythm.<br>
<br>
Personally I have a tendency to visualise numbers to find them in my<br>
memory, then I use the rhythm and sound to complete the number. For<br>
example, the phone code for my area in Scotland is greenish-brown, which<br>
makes me think of 7 and 8, from which I can use the rhythm to get 01875.<br>
<br>
I tend to think of 7 as green, 5 as blue, 2 as yellow, 9 as black, 8 as<br>
brown, 3 as red, 6 as grey and 4 as light brown. Zero seems light or<br>
soft somehow, while 1 seems heavy or indents the background. This isn't<br>
a deliberate scheme devised for memory, it's just how I've come to think<br>
of these things.<br>
<br>
In my work, we often use forms or database records with reference<br>
numbers for engineering error logs and suchlike. If a problem is<br>
persistent, it's not unusual for people to start naturally referring to<br>
it by its number rather than it's title. Thus there may be a discussion<br>
about "Observation 24963" and "24740", so that my
interpreter has no<br>
clue what everybody's talking about! But it does show that if a long<br>
number is associated with a meaning and used frequently in conversation,<br>
it "sinks in" quite easily, almost as if it had become a word.
"24963"<br>
becomes as easy as Raxacoricofallapatorius :)<br>
<br>
Apart from those that sink in naturally, I find I almost never bother to<br>
memorise numbers at all. If I know a long number, it's because I've used<br>
it so much it's just sunk in.<br>
<span style="color: rgb(136, 136, 136);"><br>
Sandy Fleming<br>
<a href="http://scotstext.org/" target="_blank">http://scotstext.org/</a></span><br>
<br>
----------<br>
<br>
From: <span class="ep8xu"><span><span style="color: rgb(91, 16, 148);">Sandy Fleming</span></span></span><span class="hccdpe"> </span><span class="ldacoc"><<a href="mailto:sandy@scotstext.org">sandy@scotstext.org</a>></span><br>
Subject: <span class="hccdpe">LL-L "Numeralia" 2009.01.10 (02) [E]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">> From: Luc Hellinckx <<a href="mailto:luc.hellinckx@gmail.com">luc.hellinckx@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Subject: LL-L "Numeralia"</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">> Re Bushmen, I was somewhat wrong, they happen to count
to four (not<br>
> three) and then say many. Maybe their system matches the five fingers<br>
> of one hand, with which they may want to sign those numbers. Btw, the<br>
> Chinese use the fingers of one hand to show numbers from one to ten.<br>
> With five fingers you could theoretically code 2^5 (= 32) numbers in<br>
> one go; with both your hands even 1024.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;">Yes, I wonder what's really behind this though? I doubt if
I'd try to<br>
steal a cow from an owner of nine cows just because he uses this<br>
counting system: my guess is that he knows how many cows he's got and<br>
probably there is a way of expressing "nine cows" in his language!<br>
<br>
Really, we need someone who knows the language properly to answer these<br>
questions. I wonder if it's like in English where you can say "once",<br>
"twice", "thrice" and then you're stuck? But you can still
say "four<br>
times", "five times" and so on. Not having a word for something
doesn't<br>
mean you can't say it.<br>
<br>
In English you can say, with one word:<br>
<br>
one, two, three, four... (until the numeration system splits into<br>
separate words).<br>
<br>
once, twice, thrice, four times... nine times.<br>
<br>
first, second, third, fourth... (until the numeration system splits into<br>
separate words).<br>
<br>
In British Sign Language you can sign, with one sign:<br>
<br>
one, two, three, four... (until the numeration system splits into<br>
separate words).<br>
<br>
once, twice, thrice, fourth... tenth (or so, depending on dialect).<br>
<br>
one more, two more, three more... nine more.<br>
<br>
one year old, two years old, three years old... (until the numeration<br>
system splits into separate words).<br>
<br>
one pound sterling, two pounds sterling, three pounds sterling... (until<br>
the numeration system splits into separate words).<br>
<br>
yesterday, two days ago, three days ago, four days ago.<br>
<br>
tomorrow, in two days time, in three days time, in four days time.<br>
<br>
last year, two years ago, three years ago... ten years ago.<br>
<br>
next year, in a years time, in two years time... in ten years time.<br>
<br>
----------<br>
<br>
From: <span class="ep8xu"><span><span style="color: rgb(121, 6, 25);">M.-L.
Lessing</span></span></span><span class="hccdpe"> </span><span class="ldacoc"><<a href="mailto:marless@gmx.de">marless@gmx.de</a>></span><br>
Subject: <span class="hccdpe">LL-L "Grammar" 2009.01.09 (07) [E]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">From:
Sandy Fleming <<a href="mailto:sandy@scotstext.org" target="_blank">sandy@scotstext.org</a>><br>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2009.01.09 (01) [E]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">When I was a habitual observer I could also tell
people where planets<br>
and stars were by full daylight. It's not that I could actually see them<br>
(except for the moon), it's that I was so used to the rhythms in the sky<br>
I just knew where they were whether I could see them or not.<br>
<br>
I suspect therefore that this is yet another case of "the natives"<br>
playing tricks on unsuspecting anthropologists :)<br></span></p>
<p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">This is a
fine idea, Sandy!
It may have been astronomy rather than perception! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">Yes, it's possible. Anyone who studies maths to
university level will<br>
tell you that all sorts of new ideas can be learned: imaginary numbers,<br>
countable and uncountable infinities, topological spaces and so on,<br>
although there's nothing in any natural language to describe many of the<br>
features that you learn in mathematics. In physics you ultimately get<br>
that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics seem to make sense,<br>
despite the more difficult bits being not actually well understood by<br>
anybody yet.</span></p>
<p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;" class="MsoNormal">So human thinking *is* limited because of language, or is it
the other way round? What is "well understood"? That
which is pictured, brought into our tangible reach. By analogy, by
metaphor, by "model". I studied physics, being anything but a natural
talent. I found several concepts of math and physics hard to imagine, and at
some point I just said to myself: "Come on, this is abstract. Just do not
try to visualize it. You know how it works, you can work with it. That's
enough." I felt that at that moment I somehow lost interest in the
phenomenon. A stimulus was gone. Likewise, it was an almost physical joy to
really comprehend (german: begreifen = touch!) a phenomenon, bring it into my
"world of objects". </p>
<p style="font-family: times new roman,serif;" class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">Even that joy of comprehension can be learned, I know;
mathematicians feel it when the find solutions in their abstract world. For me
it was always difficult to let go of the figurative. I felt limited by this
stone age heritage very much and often grew impatient with myself. -- By the
way, my finest moment was when I really succeeded in seeing a 3D cube as a
projection of a 4D cube into 3D :-)) I "saw" the 4D cube. It lasted
ca. 20 seconds and never returned. But my brain could do it at that time,
thanks to training.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">I think there's also too much importance assigned
to the power of<br>
natural language. Much of the power comes not from the words or grammar<br>
of the language but from metaphor. Natural languages often don't<br>
describe abstract concepts directly, but use metaphor to talk about<br>
abstractions in terms of something more concrete. Generally, if your<br>
language doesn't have a way of talking about a thing and people really<br>
need to talk about it, a metaphor will be created rather than new syntax<br>
or grammar.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: times new roman,serif;">This idea comforts me a little. So you think humans can
perceive abstract things in principle independently of language, and language
is dragged behind? So there is more reality in things than in language? -- And
a metaphor is just a projection of strange (not necessarily abstract) things
into the known world of objects, hm? To see the 4D cube... (oh, this is a
metaphor here...)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">I think that this means that ultimately it
doesn't matter what tools<br>
your language provides you with, there are other ways of putting across<br>
you want to say.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hmmmm... everything?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hartlich!</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Marlou<span style=""></span></p>