|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I still can't quite wrap my head around the fact that, phonetically, Walentinian might find himself recalling Caesar's comment "Weni, Widi, Wici" to officers from the Legio Waleria Wictrix. It is my understanding that it isn't exactly a full on W sound, just that the English W sound is the closest we have to describing it. It's kinda like how Japanese speakers are famous in bad jokes for not really distinguishing between "R" and "L". The reason for that is that in the general Japanese language, neither the exact English R or L sounds are used in normal speech, instead there's a sound that's pretty much a mixture of the two, leaning more heavily towards R, and hence gets transliterated as R. W for those words gets you a good halfway there to what they spoke it as, but it doesn't tell you the whole thing, basically.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:It is my understanding that it isn't exactly a full on W sound, just that the English W sound is the closest we have to describing it. This is nonsense. When Classical Latin V represents a consonant, it's just the same as the English W. Or if you have sources claiming something else, I'd like to see them. I'm not very familiar with Japanese, but afaik the R sound varies depending on which vowel it comes before, and in some cases it resembles English L closely. Since Japanese does not have a phonemic L sound, native Japanese speakers often struggle to make the distinction. You can read the Wiki article on Japanese phonology for a more technical explanation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Japanese does not have a phonemic L sound So, the feature in question (laterality) is what is "phonemic" (telling apart words with different meanings), not the sound. What Install Windows said isn't actually wrong, he's just speaking on a different level from what you said. At least in the classic linguistic analysis, cognitively, Japanese natives do not make a difference between what we'd write as l and r, but rather have one underlying representation ("a sound [that's a mixture] ...") that, when actually pronounced, manifests as various more r-like sound in some, and as some more l-like things in other (articulatory) contexts. What you said is also correct, in that you do find these different realisations of the underlying phoneme in Japanese if you're sensitive to the difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What is to us probably the primary distinction between l(ove) and r(owing) is not phonemic in Japanese - it does not differentiate words, as it does in e.g. English (lust, rust), but depends, as you said, on context (English does similar things with other features that are phonemic in other languages, such as aspiration, which makes as much as a difference for a speaker of Hindi as l and r do for you and I, but which you and I usually can't tell apart). Yeah, good post. And FWIW (very off-topic), I can distinguish aspiration in English in some contexts: my first language is Finnish, in which consonants (at least initial ones) are never aspirated, so to me the pronunciation of my name, Toni, is "thouni" in English, while the Finnish pronunciation basically starts with an unaspirated D from an English speaker perspective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
This is pretty cool! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19153732 I read elsewhere that many of the amphorae appear to still be sealed, so maybe some lucky folks will sip some 2,000 year old Roman wine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Got this from a friend today. The history of the world in one convenient jpg. I dunno how you guys make a career out of this; history was solved in some sort of zero-sum game in 1931   Click for oh-gently caress-off big another source
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
FucktheChinese.jpg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't like that chart's wild western bias. Not that I have any real idea what the X axis is supposed to represent, but I can't think of anything where it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
~150 AD: "Cultured aristocratic groups rule wisely and magnificently over a brilliant cosmopolitan civilization embodying Roman, Hellenistic, and Oriental cultures." is probably my favorite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
It might be a way of measuring an empire against itself, with expansions and contractions corresponding to relative increases and decreases in power and influence in reference to an earlier point in time of that empire's continuity, but it's utterly useless for comparing between groups. Especially ones on the opposite sides of eurasia. To be fair it was made in like the 30s, and falls into those old traps of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I don't know that's there's all that much of the Gallic language preserved in it. What is a big part of French is a crapload of German though, according to some linguists I know through the internet. I was asking why modern German and modern French aren't much closer, but it turns out there's a lot of similarities. Yeah, I wasn't trying to say that there's much of the Gallic language left in French, just that there may be a bit around the edges. German is definitely the larger influence! The 1931 chart is incredible and really shows how much scholarship on the ancient world has changed in the last century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:It might be a way of measuring an empire against itself, with expansions and contractions corresponding to relative increases and decreases in power and influence in reference to an earlier point in time of that empire's continuity, but it's utterly useless for comparing between groups. Especially ones on the opposite sides of eurasia. Still, it's hilarious seeing Rome take over half the X axis at one point, and china NEVER reaching 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
That entire thing is so Edwardian but all I can pay attention to is that tiny sliver of Greater Serbia. Which I guess was deemed more important than the Aztecs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:That entire thing is so Edwardian but all I can pay attention to is that tiny sliver of Greater Serbia. Which I guess was deemed more important than the Aztecs. Aztecs: "Aztecs" I guess the width on the x-axis is a measure of how much they're loving around with Europe since Japan suddenly pops on there with "western civilization adopted" and "defeats Russia and becomes a first-class power."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:That entire thing is so Edwardian but all I can pay attention to is that tiny sliver of Greater Serbia. Which I guess was deemed more important than the Aztecs. Relative to Europe, Serbia was actually powerful in the period ~ 1280-1360, cheerfully bullying Byzantium every chance it got. That said, the chart pretty much ignores everyone who wasn't directly related to the going-ons in Europe at the time. I still can't get over mini-China. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
The article also links to a chart of "evolution" featuring some good-old Jim Crow '30's casual racism, and somehow magically explains how Eukaryotic cells lead to the various nations and national groups of the world. It is a much prettier graph though  (imgur is not behaving. Check out the link below) Clicky-for-biggy I kinda want to see the religion chart this guy made now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
"The Renaissance in Western Europe was possibly directly due to renewed vitality as a result of the absorption of new Alpine blood and the complete fusion of this with with the old Nordic (Caspian) and Mediterranean blood." What the gently caress is this even referring to? Also, the Greeks were the first race to achieve self-awareness. Checkmate anthropologists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
I'm reading this thread in its entirety(currently page 44), but wanted to ask a question. I'm going to start teach older history (6000 BCE-1750CE) in upper secondary and I'm noticing alot of popular mistakes in our history book. Regarding the roman history it's mostly that "troops were paid in salt", "carthage was salted" and "the byzantine empire was a thing" and stuff like that. Does the OP or anybody else have examples of common misconceptions in the egyptian eras, the middle ages and enlightenment? I'm going to teach the curriculum anyways, but rather focus on why these misconceptions have become popular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
You could tie a critical thinking lesson into going over these misconceptions and why they don't make sense and how misconceptions arise, like through writers in later centuries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
It may be inaccurate, dated, and based upon a metric of complete nonsense, but that is still some drat nice looking graphwork. Even if it's hilariously wrong about its central premise, you can tell a lot of work went into it. As for actually getting some use out of it, I guess it could be useful as a giant timeline of historical events maybe? It also handily illustrates how the "traditional" view of history, the one that's taught in schools, tends to steadily shift westward from the fertile crescent as time goes on (although it does acknowledge the eastern roman empire, which is better than I would normally expect). It's also nice to know that in the 1930s, France was so much more powerful than Germany, and Russia was dwarfed by nearly every other power, so it would never be a threat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:You could tie a critical thinking lesson into going over these misconceptions and why they don't make sense and how misconceptions arise, like through writers in later centuries. Yeah, that's what I'm planning to do. I've got some about the vikings, as this is in Norway. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
QCIC posted:"The Renaissance in Western Europe was possibly directly due to renewed vitality as a result of the absorption of new Alpine blood and the complete fusion of this with with the old Nordic (Caspian) and Mediterranean blood." What the gently caress is this even referring to? It's quite obvious that the author is a fan of popular racial bar-room theories of that time. "Negroid tribes become a serious social problem" or other gems like when he goes on to talk about proportions of heads and colour of hair. I'm quite sure Himmler would have opened a wonderful career opportunity for this guy. Anyway, this is a wonderful example for the popular racist "science" talk of the 30s. It's surprisingly short on the jews though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
BlueGrot posted:popular mistakes ... "the byzantine empire was a thing"
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
To put it crassly, "Byzantine Empire" is a term made up by Gibbon so he didn't have to acknowledge the part of the Empire that survived the collapse of the West the Roman Empire because it was a highly Christian society and Gibbon was the Richard Dawkins of his day. Or at least that's my understanding. I'm probably oversimplifying matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
It was very much a thing in one way, but the term is misleading. If you asked a byzantinian how much he enjoyed being a byzantinian, he wouldn't have known what you were talking about. He was Roman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is this the thread where I can ask what this means? I'm a neurolinguist, not a historian, and I thought the Byzantine Empire very much was a thing ... I think he was saying that this is pretty much the extent of what his history book says, basically,"P.S there was a Byzantine Empire" and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
I think the history books I read called it "Eastern Rome" (vs. the Western Rome that quickly fell).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:To put it crassly, "Byzantine Empire" is a term made up by Gibbon so he didn't have to acknowledge the part of the Empire that survived the collapse of the West the Roman Empire because it was a highly Christian society and Gibbon was the Richard Dawkins of his day. I have to say, reading Gibbon at the moment and while it's good to be aware of his anti-Christian sentiments, it's kind of annoying that the notes that come with the book sometimes go on for a page or more just to counter a single line. There's a whole section in response to a simple,"Slavery wasn't as bad as you might think during the Roman Empire" that just goes on and on and on and on about how Gibbon is an rear end in a top hat for not declaring that Christianity singlehandedly ended slavery forever. The book even has notes on a previous person's notes on a note made by Gibbon!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I think he was saying that this is pretty much the extent of what his history book says, basically,"P.S there was a Byzantine Empire" and nothing else. It does elaborate, not that I'm going to have time to dive into it in class anyways, but it kinda says the Roman empire ended in 476 and then suddenly dark ages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
BlueGrot posted:It does elaborate, not that I'm going to have time to dive into it in class anyways, but it kinda says the Roman empire ended in 476 and then suddenly dark ages. To steal a joke from The History of Rome, I blame Livia 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is this the thread where I can ask what this means? I'm a neurolinguist, not a historian, and I thought the Byzantine Empire very much was a thing ... The issue is that there was no real 'Byzantine Empire' at the time. They called themselves the Roman Empire, other people called them Romans, they had Roman laws and customs (though they did speak Greek). Imagine if the entire East coast of the US is wiped out in a nuclear attack, does that mean the West coast suddenly isn't the US any more? Should it change their names to the Greater California Republic? It's basically a distinction that only exists in modern times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:44
|
|
|
What the history_of_the(_western)_world.jpg thing reminds me of is: Civilization. The game. That's how these people saw history. Only in Civ, generally, when an empire threatens to fall apart, its descendants rarely make it anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:44
|
|
|
BlueGrot posted:Yeah, that's what I'm planning to do. I've got some about the vikings, as this is in Norway. So uh, I've got 104 hours of teaching 'till April. Early Rome gets 3 hours, post-467 Rome gets 3 hours. Yergh
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
As an outsider, if any of you feel like going over the most important or your favourite common misconceptions regarding ancient history, that would be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
Wait, how does that work out, assuming all 104 hours are one world history class? A whole big bunch of world history can be talked about with a focus on Rome and China. Are you having to follow a prescribed schedule?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
I'm making my own schedule, really, but I have certain criteria for it, located here: http://www.udir.no/kl06/HIS1-02/Hele/Kompetansemaal/Etter-Vg2-studieforberedende-utdanningsprogram/?lplang=eng It's world history with a huge focus on norway 800-1500. This might be leaning towards off topic in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:The issue is that there was no real 'Byzantine Empire' at the time. They called themselves the Roman Empire, other people called them Romans, they had Roman laws and customs (though they did speak Greek). Imagine if the entire East coast of the US is wiped out in a nuclear attack, does that mean the West coast suddenly isn't the US any more? Should it change their names to the Greater California Republic? Well, they should call it the New California Republic. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:As an outsider, if any of you feel like going over the most important or your favourite common misconceptions regarding ancient history, that would be interesting. Any particular era you are interested in? There are some super educated people kicking around here and the medieval history thread. One of my pet peeves is the whole vomitorium = room to puke in thing. This is a vomitorium  It's an exit to an amphitheater or stadium, where people "vomit" out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Nice, I did not know that. Makes sense now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Any particular era you are interested in
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 15:02
|
|