Forums | MacLife

Egress · 2005-12-31 5:38 pm

Soccer. I'm telling you, it's true.

Call it "futbol", if you must, but bring a soccer ball on your next trip abroad, and you're welcome everywhere.

lord funk · 2005-12-31 6:15 pm

Macskeeball wrote:
What about tone of voice?

Again, no. I know some Hispanic people that sound like they are furiously arguing with each other, but it's just their normal discussion tone. I misinterpreted it as hostility, since if an American was speaking that way it would be out of anger. It took me a while to get used to it.

Tallgeese · 2005-12-31 6:19 pm

Macskeeball wrote:
What about tone of voice?

To emphasize what was said above, have you heard Russian or German?

Macskeeball · 2005-12-31 6:42 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
Macskeeball wrote:
What about tone of voice?
To emphasize what was said above, have you heard Russian or German?

Never.

F041 · 2006-01-04 4:42 pm

Which is better: Ido or Esperanto? Ido calls itself the improved Esperanto, and that it was based on a progression of Esperanto. I want to go for that because it has no irregulars, although so few people speak it compared to Esperanto.

F041 · 2006-01-25 12:36 pm

Bump. I want to order and Ido or Esperanto textbook tomorrow. Your opinions will be wicked awesome!

Lew · 2006-01-25 2:17 pm

"Bonvolu alsendi la pordiston - la??ajne estas rano en mia bideo"

Last edited by Lew (2006-01-25 2:18 pm)

Greywolf · 2006-01-25 4:37 pm

TheConfuzed1 wrote:
NoExit wrote:
you want to learn math ? ;)
Damn it, I was going to say that! It would figure that the last poster in the thread would be me to the punch. ;)

Math is the only universal language. And Science. Science is the other only universal language. :p

Science is mearly the purpose, or reason behind the statements of math.
Math is what you use to construct the statement, Science is the purpose of that statement.
To convey science, you need to speak the language of math.

Same goes for music and everything else. Music/Emotion is what you want to convey, precise sounds and timing using the language of math allows you to construct it.

Last edited by Greywolf (2006-01-25 4:39 pm)

jeff-o · 2006-01-25 4:48 pm

Why bother, when the two languages spoken in the entire world will eventually be English and Mandarin?

VegasACF · 2006-01-25 5:30 pm

I thought HTML was the universal language.

appletool · 2006-01-25 6:22 pm

Have you thought about Sign Language? It's universal as well; unfortunately, not everyone knows how to use it.

Tria · 2006-01-25 6:27 pm

American sign language?

Egress · 2006-01-25 6:45 pm

Soccer, dammit. You can even proposition someone with proper use of a soccer ball, and no spoken words.

Tallgeese · 2006-01-25 7:06 pm

Tria wrote:
American sign language?

lol

justine · 2006-01-25 8:32 pm

appletool wrote:
Have you thought about Sign Language? It's universal as well; unfortunately, not everyone knows how to use it.

It isn't universal, and from what i've heard, ASL lacks essential signs or something. I was going to take a course in it, but when i mentioned that recently to someone that that signs, i THINK they said English sign language is more universal than American. I can't be sure about that though.

soulcrusher · 2006-01-25 11:20 pm

Greywolf wrote:
TheConfuzed1 wrote:
NoExit wrote:
you want to learn math ?
Damn it, I was going to say that! It would figure that the last poster in the thread would be me to the punch.

Math is the only universal language. And Science. Science is the other only universal language.
Science is mearly the purpose, or reason behind the statements of math.
Math is what you use to construct the statement, Science is the purpose of that statement.
To convey science, you need to speak the language of math.

Same goes for music and everything else. Music/Emotion is what you want to convey, precise sounds and timing using the language of math allows you to construct it.

Disagree. You do not need math to do science. Math is useful, but not necessary, for science.

akb825 · 2006-01-26 12:17 am

Sign language, despite what many think, is not a universal language. Most sign languages are natural languages. American Sign Language (ASL) is one such sign language. Most sign languages are as much of a natural language as spoken languages are. They even have language family trees like spoken language does. For example, ASL evolved from French Sign Language, as did many other sign languages. French Sign Language was invented by the deaf in Paris. Nicaraguan Sign Language was invented by deaf in Nicaragua. There have been other sign languages that are invented languages, such as SEE2. (or Signing Exact English 2) It was made to make deaf people easier to understand by hearing people, but it utterly failed. Since it wasn't a natural language, deaf people couldn't use it perfectly. You may think that since English is a natural language, SEE2 should be, but since our language is based on sounds, and deaf people obviously can't hear, our language rules would make no sense to them. Certain suffixes and things such as a vs. an are completely incomprehensible without sound.

F041 · 2006-02-14 3:23 pm

Well soon I will decide which to study. Can anyone show me some good Ido and/or Esperanto resources and I'll choose which language to study based on the study material available. Thanks!

mostlyharmless · 2006-02-14 7:30 pm

http://www.lernu.net/

KeilwerthSX90 · 2006-02-15 3:18 am

Glad to see this got bumped, I'd wanted to reply to a couple of things, but by the time I got to it this thread was already dead.

Tallgeese wrote:
KeilwerthSX90 wrote:
Aren't all languages artificial?
No, and I'm not sure why you'd say that.

Punnery.

Merriam-Webster wrote:
Main Entry: ar�ti�fi�cial
Pronunciation: "�r-t&-'fi-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : humanly contrived often on a natural model : MAN-MADE

Artificial can simply mean "made by humans", which all human languages are.

lord funk wrote:
Macskeeball wrote:
What about music?
Can you decifer the sounds of an early morning raga from an afternoon raga?

No, but neither can trained raga musicians from different regions or even villages, from what I've read.

Last edited by KeilwerthSX90 (2006-02-15 3:19 am)

KeilwerthSX90 · 2006-02-15 3:24 am

lord funk wrote:
Macskeeball wrote:
What about tone of voice?
Again, no. I know some Hispanic people that sound like they are furiously arguing with each other, but it's just their normal discussion tone. I misinterpreted it as hostility, since if an American was speaking that way it would be out of anger. It took me a while to get used to it.

I do believe there are some constants. Granted, few, but some, such as a question phrase rising at the end.

Termy · 2006-03-23 10:43 am

jhota wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
Artificial languages are doomed to failure. Learning another natural language is a much better way to understand language in general.
except for Quenya, Sindarin and Klingon.

I've downloaded stuff about Quenya, but I never got around to learning it.

titok16 · 2006-03-23 11:14 am

the Genome
tito

Connemara · 2006-03-23 12:07 pm

Learning Latin definitely makes learning any other of the Romance languages easier, as the roots in those languages are based on Latin.

FYI: There is a 1965 movie called "The Incubus" starring William Shatner that was done entirely in Esperanto, even the credits.

sturner · 2006-03-23 1:38 pm

Klingon is listed in the ISO codes of languages. Nice isn't it?

Last edited by sturner (2006-03-23 1:40 pm)

Forums | MacLife

#26 2005-12-31 5:38 pm

Re: Universal languages

#27 2005-12-31 6:15 pm

Re: Universal languages

Macskeeball wrote:

#28 2005-12-31 6:19 pm

Re: Universal languages

Macskeeball wrote:

#29 2005-12-31 6:42 pm

Re: Universal languages

Tallgeese wrote:

Macskeeball wrote:

#30 2006-01-04 4:42 pm

Re: Universal languages

#31 2006-01-25 12:36 pm

Re: Universal languages

#32 2006-01-25 2:17 pm

Re: Universal languages

#33 2006-01-25 4:37 pm

Re: Universal languages

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

NoExit wrote:

#34 2006-01-25 4:48 pm

Re: Universal languages

#35 2006-01-25 5:30 pm

Re: Universal languages

#36 2006-01-25 6:22 pm

Re: Universal languages

#37 2006-01-25 6:27 pm

Re: Universal languages

#38 2006-01-25 6:45 pm

Re: Universal languages

#39 2006-01-25 7:06 pm

Re: Universal languages

Tria wrote:

#40 2006-01-25 8:32 pm

Re: Universal languages

appletool wrote:

#41 2006-01-25 11:20 pm

Re: Universal languages

Greywolf wrote:

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

NoExit wrote:

#42 2006-01-26 12:17 am

Re: Universal languages

#43 2006-02-14 3:23 pm

Re: Universal languages

#44 2006-02-14 7:30 pm

Re: Universal languages

#45 2006-02-15 3:18 am

Re: Universal languages

Tallgeese wrote:

KeilwerthSX90 wrote:

Merriam-Webster wrote:

lord funk wrote:

Macskeeball wrote:

#46 2006-02-15 3:24 am

Re: Universal languages

lord funk wrote:

Macskeeball wrote:

#47 2006-03-23 10:43 am

Re: Universal languages

jhota wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

#48 2006-03-23 11:14 am

Re: Universal languages

#49 2006-03-23 12:07 pm

Re: Universal languages

#50 2006-03-23 1:38 pm

Re: Universal languages

Board footer