[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential race
*resending to entire group*
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> But the reason we use "abhorrent" Indo-European languages is because they are
> familiar worldwide,
> and also because Latin and Classical Greek are DEAD tongues.
So is Sanskrit, but it could make for some 'cool' names.
> Chinese and other languages are OK in moderation, but they are
I'd disagree here. In fact I recall having heard that Chinese was
/nearly/ considered an 'honourary' Classical language for systematic
purposes, the idea being that in order to prevent things like
'totallyawesomeosaurus' nomenclature should be restricted to classical
languages (and name/place derivatives), and that for this purpose
classical languages were latin, greek, mandarin, and hindi.
Anyway, not saying that 'classic' usage is a great idea, just that,
there's really nothing wrong with using chinese. "Long" has ended up
being a pretty cool suffix, for example.
>simply not "global" enough. Remember that Latin gave rise to French and
>Spanish, which are very widespread.
Well look if we want a global language then we have it, it's English.
Between colonialism and capitalism it's the /lingua franca/ (or should
that be 'common tongue' now eh?) of the modern world, and it's use
appears to only be growing (including as the internet and social media
grow). I recently heard that more people speak English as a second
language than as a first language too, which (sorta) removes some of
the 'it's biased and euro-yankee-centric' critique.
Robert J. Schenck
Kingsborough Community College
Physical Sciences Department
S332 ph# 718-368-5792
Follow Me on Twitter: @Schenck
KCC Class Schedule on Google Calendar: http://tinyurl.com/mqwlcy