New breakthrough on the English language

origin said:
I fear that none of this has any rational basis.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I thought I'd be more constructive than simply slagging the OP's sanity.
The OP has not insisted that this is a personal theory that will overthrow centuries of science dogma. That's refreshing around these parts.
Nothing wrong with engaging in a little suspension of disbelief for the sake of discussion.
 
He believes that if you replace the letters of a word with some syntagmas he has chosen, you will get a definition of a word more often than it would be predicted by chance. For instance, he thinks that the letter 'c' means "chance to reflect", and therefore most of the words that contain the letter 'c' have something to do with reflection or chance. Like in the word "colour", the letter 'c' suggests that it has to do something with reflection.
Now, the syntagmas he has chosen for other letters in the word "colour" have nothing to do with colour, and the same goes for other words he interprets. It does no better than chance. There are probably at least 100 words that have something to do with either chance or reflection, and the number of words that would seemingly support his theory grows exponentially with the number of letters a word has.
And if any such system assigning meanings to individual letters did better than chance, most of the linguistics would have to be wrong. But my guess is that he knows so little about linguistics that he is uncapable of realizing how little he knows.

Also, FlyingRedSportsCar, why do you support the policies against global warming? Don't you think they do more harm than good? What we need is private investment in the research of the alternative sources of energy. Governments aren't careful with their money, and they will never find an efficient solution, no matter how much money they spend. Think of the Wright brothers: people who didn't
know much about physics, but spent their money carefully because it was their own money, found a way to make the metal fly, while the government funded scientists couldn't do that. Don't you think that the same is going on now?
The only thing the governments do in the name of protecting the environment is keeping the people poor by passing more and more regulation preventing people from starting new buisnesses, and poverty kills way more people than the climate change does (and, no, increasing the global temperature by 2ºC by 2100 will not make us have catastrophic storms, neither has the frequency of intense storms increased as the global temperature has slightly increased by now). If you really care about bees, I'd suggest you reconsider your political beliefs.
 
I mean, like, the entire comparative and historical linguistics, as well as most of the etymology, are built on the assumption that regular sound correspondences prove genetic relationship, which wouldn't be true if sounds themselves had meanings.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I am unclear. How is b deciphered into belonging?
How does any word get chosen for a letter?
And how is ant of this deciphering?
Click to expand...

Actually b isn't deciphered into belonging, that was just an example I was using to describe the kind of thing I'm doing.

Usually only 1 word fits into the others and The Poem that it forms. It's very hard to figure out which combination of words or idiom it is.

My work has improved a lot since I first posted it, I'd suggest you check out the website for a better explanation - if you're interested.

(once I get it going again of course)
 
Last edited:
FlatAssembler said:
He believes that if you replace the letters of a word with some syntagmas he has chosen, you will get a definition of a word more often than it would be predicted by chance. For instance, he thinks that the letter 'c' means "chance to reflect", and therefore most of the words that contain the letter 'c' have something to do with reflection or chance. Like in the word "colour", the letter 'c' suggests that it has to do something with reflection.
Now, the syntagmas he has chosen for other letters in the word "colour" have nothing to do with colour, and the same goes for other words he interprets. It does no better than chance. There are probably at least 100 words that have something to do with either chance or reflection, and the number of words that would seemingly support his theory grows exponentially with the number of letters a word has.
And if any such system assigning meanings to individual letters did better than chance, most of the linguistics would have to be wrong. But my guess is that he knows so little about linguistics that he is uncapable of realizing how little he knows.

Also, FlyingRedSportsCar, why do you support the policies against global warming? Don't you think they do more harm than good? What we need is private investment in the research of the alternative sources of energy. Governments aren't careful with their money, and they will never find an efficient solution, no matter how much money they spend. Think of the Wright brothers: people who didn't
know much about physics, but spent their money carefully because it was their own money, found a way to make the metal fly, while the government funded scientists couldn't do that. Don't you think that the same is going on now?
The only thing the governments do in the name of protecting the environment is keeping the people poor by passing more and more regulation preventing people from starting new buisnesses, and poverty kills way more people than the climate change does (and, no, increasing the global temperature by 2ºC by 2100 will not make us have catastrophic storms, neither has the frequency of intense storms increased as the global temperature has slightly increased by now). If you really care about bees, I'd suggest you reconsider your political beliefs.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's nothing on the website similar to that regarding Global Warming at all.

The word global and warming are only used once each to suggest that people could donate to "help saving the bees" or "global warming fund" as an alternative if they prefer, if they choose to thank me for my work.
 
Being thankful to you for what? Making a website used to spread what's more than likely misinformation? And people who are thankful to you should donate to political organizations for which we have very good to think they do more harm than good?

And you still haven't addressed my question: if your code should work for words that weren't originally English at all (like "color", which comes from Latin), how do you explain away the Grimm's Law? If you can't, or you don't even know what Grimm's Law is, then your "theory" is nothing more than yet another example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.
 
Last edited:
FlyingRedSportscar said:
Actually, there's nothing on the website similar to that regarding Global Warming at all.

The word global and warming are only used once each to suggest that people could donate to "help saving the bees" or "global warming fund" as an alternative if they prefer, if they choose to thank me for my work.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I miscounted the uses of global warming on the website. There's exactly two uses of global warming, the other one is a quote from Greenpeace's website about Bees.
 
Anyways, the website is now back up. I was hoping to keep it offline 'til version 2.0 was ready to be released *wink*, however I guess it's better that something stays up for now.
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK so this is a creativity exercise. I can get behind that.
Click to expand...
Years ago when I went through a creative poem writing exercise I used friends names to create a poem

BRENDA

Beneath the weeping willow tree
Runs a river deep and wide
Ever flowing to the sea
Never stopping til the tide
Dances on some distant shore
And the sun sets by its side

:)
 
Look, FlyingRedSportscar, I know you've studied a bit of philosophy, and that that enables you to ask good questions. But just like it's important to know logic and philosophy to be able to ask interesting questions, it's perhaps even more important to have an idea what you are talking about. You don't really appear to.

Why did you come to a forum if you're not willing to respond to the arguments as they are made? I've asked you just some basic question about your theory, if the code also applies to the Latin words (like "color"), how do you explain away the Grimm's Law, and you refuse to answer.
 
One for you SSB

Since I have posted in this thread
I often worried it would go dead
Dispite the efforts from original post
Everything seems to hang on a stupid boast
Sure I can decipher the English Code
Huffed a flying red car
Or I
Will
Be
Only
Burnt toast

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top