Updates from hardie karges Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:58 am on November 20, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    The chop suey kitchens of the American west are slowly disappearing, 

    replaced by more modern-styled eateries, whether fast food or more up-scale Chinese. They date to the days of the Old West, when foreign labor was needed, and so were cooks to feed them. One thing Chinese can do is cook, and do it fast. The menus are not only a relic of the past, but are almost identical in every place, from Northwest to Southwest. Most of the remaining original locations are in small towns, particularly those served by railroad. They are even quite numerous in Latin America, with some linguistic crossover. Fried rice in Spanish America is frequently arroz chaufa rather than arroz frito, chaufa itself being a corruption of the Chinese term for ‘fried rice’, so slightly redundant but quaint. In South America, Chinese restaurants are universally known as chifas, a corruption of the Chinese term for ‘eat rice’. Indonesia even gets in on the act. Some well-known ‘Indonesian’ dishes are cap cay (pronounced ‘chop chai’) and fu yung hai, essentially Asian versions of chop suey and egg fu yung, using a sweet and sour sauce instead of the more American-style brown gravy. In all of these places, Chinese people themselves remain essentially unmixed with the original inhabitants. In Thailand, where they are mixed, these phenomena are unknown, as they are in China itself. In Thailand an omelet is called kai jieow, simply a fritata, like a Spanish tortilla, not to be confused with a Mexican tortilla. Got it? Archaeological evidence has led some theorists to conclude that food was first cooked some ten thousand years ago in what is now Southern China. Could be. Those people were likely the progenitors of both modern Tai and Cantonese.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 9:28 am on November 19, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Chinese characters were ahead the time. 

    In an evolutionary quirk Chinese pictograms never became alphabetic letters, but letters quickly held hands and formed pictures. If left to their own devices, vowels might only form verbs and consonants likewise with nouns, but because of love or the sheer thrill of excitement, consonants and vowels like male and female meet in mid-air, sniff each other, make love, and produce babies running wild with inspiration. Usually pictures gradually become symbolic characters until they become letters, like the alpha beta gamma, aleph beth gimmel, ox house and camel of Semitic origin, twisting and turning and doing flips until they find a comfortable position and retire as the president of the ABC of the future. Ironically, though, it seems that once a word is known, the original phonetic code is superfluous and letters become essentially the same as the brush strokes of Chinese calligraphy. They form a word/picture that is grasped immediately in its entirety, without the necessity of considering the phonetic information involved, even though the word might be silently pronounced in the mind’s vocal chords. Is it possible to read silently without ‘hearing’ the words in the mind’s inner ear? Is it possible to think without language? The definition of thought makes much mention of pictures, none of language. Yet the component quarks of alphabetic script are definitely waves, not the particles of Chinese ideograms. The Chinese characters hanging out in a thousand chop suey kitchens in the Great American west are another story.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:34 am on November 18, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: alphabet,   

    Written language certainly started as representations of the things themselves, 


    gradually reduced to abbreviations used for their phonetic value, three figures necessary for the main consonants in the typical Semitic word, vowels inherent if defined at all. Only the Chinese failed to get hooked on phonics, thus allowing the mutually unintelligible Chinese ‘dialects’ to share a common written language to this day, as if all Romance languages still had to be written in classical Latin regardless of their contemporary pronunciations. This probably was the case for several hundred years, and certainly Old Church Slavonic was still considered the correct literary language for much of the Slavic world until modern times. Could Europe have foregone two World Wars if they felt bound to Roman tradition? Certainly both the Church itself and the Holy Roman Empire paid at least lip service to just such a concept, but would we be surfing the Internet and shuttling through Space if we’d played it that safe? Evolution, both biological and cultural, reaches many dead ends, but the choice made is always the inevitable one.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:21 pm on November 16, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    If Chomsky’s winning the debate over psycho- vs. socio-linguistics, 

    then I’d say it’s because the world is slowly but surely becoming a cultural, if not linguistic, unity, chocked to the gills with gadgets and thingamajigs and the materialistic culture that produces it, promotes it, and ultimately explains it away. Most languages tend to simplify over time, dropping dual number and sexual inflection and unnecessary tenses and aspects, opting for the simple analytic isolating style of Chinese, and increasingly, English. Nothing may seem more obvious than a S-V-O system in which subjects go around verbing the Hell out of objects, but that is merely convention, without any prior or inherent logic. Despite conscious efforts on the part of editors and schoolmarms to iron out the historical kinks, sentences in the passive voice, like this one, are still being written by educated speakers of the English language. Furthermore, if I have anything to do with it, they will continue to be, notwithstanding the green lines crawling through my text like geckos through my house here in Thailand. Vestiges of archaic speech remain in all languages. We like it that way. Even in the analytic no-tense no-nonsense Asian languages, the ages of speaker and person spoken to are in constant reference. I doubt that Romance languages will ever lose the gender of a noun needing modification, as if there were something intrinsically feminine about a coffeepot. Europeans are hung up on sex; Asians are hung up on age. No matter how many sentences you diagram, language and logic are not the same, and cultural magic will be lost when and if we all speak the same language, whether or not with different words. I prefer linguistic heterosis, hybrid vigor, languages mating and mutating through cultural necessity to create the cultural reality that will eventually explain it. I’m ready to get out of my rut and get into a groove. That’s the beauty of language. It allows you to do that.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 1:51 pm on November 15, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Do I really think in complete sentences 

    or does my shining the light of observation only make it seem that way, like getting your act together when you see a police car in the rear-view mirror? Do nouns really need verbs to make sense? I doubt they did in the remote beginning when a name was probably a highly ritualized symbol for the thing itself for religious purposes. Nouns needed verbs no more than consonants needed vowels to sweeten the harsh sounds of males creating civilizations to replace the nature worship of all things female. I suspect that language started as a shaman’s tool, a magical sound to represent the real thing in stories and incantations back when hand motions served as verbs. Shamans created language in all its wonder till businessmen came along and stole its thunder, putting language down on paper in the service of commerce. And the rest is history. To this root word were gradually affixed the verbs, adjectives, and adverbs necessary to put this subject through the motions and drama of life and death. These affixed sounds might be bound to the particular subject as prefixes or suffixes or it might be a free form able to interact with any other form.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 7:16 am on November 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Do tonal languages yield tonal emotions? 

    This would be the true deciding factor in the Whorf/Sapirian vs. Chomsky debate, if such things could indeed be measured. Why do polytonal primary languages yield to such monotonal secondary languages? When tone becomes a function of grammar, it ceases to be a function of emotional expression. Asians in general speak the most boring English imaginable, while Farangs speaking Thai butcher tones with a ball-peen hammer when they can speak them at all. To me tones seem a lousy way to build a language, or maybe just a lazy way. Thais seem to prefer to use as few syllables as possible most of the time, yet fill their speech with euphonic couplets analogous to “creepy-crawly”, “razzle-dazzle”, etc. whenever possible. In fact, pronunciation, including tone, is extremely precise at the risk of miscomprehension, while meaning tends to be rather vague even when grammar-perfect. Tonality has never been successfully reconstructed in any proto-language, indicating that it is a patchwork system at best. Thai and Lao, in fact, differ greatly in tone, even though they are essentially the same language and mutually comprehensible with only minor modifications. Nevertheless, tonal languages are widespread throughout the world, and not only in Chinese-related cultures. All African Bantu languages are tonal except one, the most widespread one, Swahili. That modern Mandarin, the most widely spoken language in the world, is simpler than the more archaic Cantonese, like English and German, seems to confirm that languages seem to simplify themselves in proportion to the spread of their use.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:27 am on November 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    If only it were possible to view the evolution of language 

    in compressed actual time, that would truly be one of the greatest stories ever told. Unfortunately, language leaves no traces in DNA, or does it? Conversely, language is itself like the DNA of culture, mutating and multiplying, giving rise to new offspring in a way almost spookily more than analogous. Sounds themselves seem more indigenous and racially significant, language being the far-ranging conqueror capable of crossing borders and subduing the weak, whether linguistically or militarily. From whatever source primordial language emerged, they have multiplied and divided to the point that any return to uniligualism is unlikely, in spite of English’s smart-ass lure, despite extreme Mandarin conservatism.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 10:22 am on November 13, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: instinct,   

    Instinct is a rather vague concept, 

    it universally accepted that somehow animals are somehow born with certain habits, without explaining in the least how this actually happens. Ants crawl on power lines without the slightest trace of self-consciousness or irony, following the paths of their ancestors that never knew house nor barn, much less transformers nor transformation. Ants exhibit a degree of complexity and social organization unknown to humans except in possibly some of the more densely populated areas of China, each carrying more than its own weight, yet readily joining efforts with others when necessary, following complex paths that frequently involve short cuts through my house. They do all this with obviously extremely limited mental capacity, and I doubt seriously that the species would go extinct if suddenly all the power lines in the world were to disappear. I think they’d adapt. I think they’d make new plans, with or without legalistic sanctions for enforcement. I think they’d update old plans for new situations. I think they’d elect new officers and keep right on going into the future.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:45 am on November 10, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    Much has also been made of the inherent propensities for language 

    which seem to be specific only to humans, without ever stating exactly what these properties are, much less how they are transmitted. I’d probably estimate that language is more of an invention that an inheritance, but that something is likely inherited that underlies language, probably the logic or causality of it. In Asian languages ‘here’ and ‘now’ are frequently variations of the same word, sound, morpheme, phoneme, whatever, as are ‘then’ and ‘there’, so maybe that sort of equivalence and general space-time coordination is inherent. Maybe the sentence structure of subject-verb-object is the ‘innate idea’ of language that’s inherited, regardless of how long it’s taken some languages to make that explicit. The central idea of an ‘I’ acting on ‘them’ is easily intuited, but the idea of a ‘they’ acting on ‘them’, rather than a ‘them’ somehow attracting the attentions of another, may be equally inherent, at least in this expansive phase of the Big Bang universe. During the Big Squeeze, if everything we experience happens all over again except in reverse order, then logic may indeed be similarly reversed, and guns may indeed suck the bullets out of bodies, with no apparent violation of causality. Nevertheless, all this may very well be the first thing a child learns in this world, even before speech, but not inherited. Language is an invention. Though perhaps bound to happen, hominids were nevertheless without it for most of their history, as they proceeded to tame fire, use tools, and bury their dead.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 7:55 am on November 9, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    The history of language is a family tree that maybe began with a single stalk. 

    They say that 5% of any two languages will show similarities, as if that proves the insignificance of any similarities when in fact it may show just the opposite. They may well have all derived from just a very few, maybe just one. Don’t be surprised if that evolution parallels the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens themselves, if not directly, then by analogy. Whether there is any direct connection between language and DNA or not, they seem to function similarly in how they evolve over time. Much is made of the fact that homos are the only species that can speak, then going into elaborate explanations of the human vocal chords having worked their way deep into the throat for proper enunciation of modern languages. All this seems a bit anthropocentric to me, diminishing if not outright ignoring or rejecting the fact that communication can be equally, if not more, effective in other ways. If anything, humans’ own writing systems are more articulate than the speech they represent, but which may never actually be vocalized, particularly in the case of mathematical equations. Beyond the human sphere, other animals convey rather complex information, which, while it cannot be properly regarded as speech, is certainly a form of communication, i.e. transfer of information.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel