[rollei_list] Re: OT Kodak out of Digital? --Phonetic
- From: Peter J Nebergall <iusar4s@xxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:49:25 -0500
The reduction in # of symbols that is part of switching from ideographic
to syllabic and alphabetic script substantially altered the experience of
"education," and directly led to the development of a Middle Class -- and
to democracy.
P.J. Nebergall, PhD
author of FROM PICTOGRAPHIC TO COMPUGRAPHIC: WRITING FROM THE STONE AGE
TO THE INFORMATION AGE
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 08:43:24 -0700 "Richard Knoppow"
<dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Frazier" <kennybod@xxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:25 AM
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: OT Kodak out of Digital?
>
>
> >
> > On Aug 2, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >
> >> How can you divest requirements?
> >>
> >> What a pack of daft.
> >>
> >
> > My late brother-in-law, CPA and economist who worked on
> > the development of the Euro, talked like that.... I
> > never could understand him...
> >
> > Ken
>
> OTOH, a court can require divestment.
>
> It is a conceit of mine that the way someone uses
> language, especially in formal writing, is a reflection of
> how they think. Granted some people have non-verbal minds.
> For instance, mathematics is non-verbal. Also, I think the
> kind of written language someone learns has a strong effect
> on they way they think. For instance, "Western" languages
> are phonetic, that is, the characters used for writing are
> symbols for the sounds of the speech. Asian languages, like
> Chinese or Japanese, are pictographic, the written language
> directly symbolizing objects, and indirectly, concepts
> including action. This is, in a sense, more direct, since
> the phonetic language requires double decoding of symbols,
> i.e, one to decode the written symbols to the sounds of
> speech, and a second decoding to translate those sounds into
> objects or concepts. It is sometimes argued that a phonetic
> written language is more efficient because it has fewer
> symbols, but I think that the overall efficiency may be an
> illusion. To understand a written pictographic language one
> must have a memorzied look-up table of the meanings of the
> visual symbols. To understand a phonetic language one must
> have two look-up tables, one for converting the visual
> symbols to auditory symbols (words) and a second to convert
> the words to either visual objects or actions or concepts.
> The advantage of the phonetic language is that a limited
> set of symbols can represent an extremely large class of
> word symbols. In a pictographic language a new symbol or
> symbols must be added for each new concept. In a phonetic
> language there is still a new symbol or set of symbols
> needed, i.e., words, but the new words can be represented
> with the existing phonetic symbol set.
>
> I repeat I have a tooth ache, soon to be a wallet ache.
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
- » [rollei_list] Re: OT Kodak out of Digital? --Phonetic
