Questions of a weird mind

[Yora]

Okay, the purpose of this thread is to collect questions that seem strange to ask about, but actually are not that easy to answer. If you happen to know the answer for any of the questions, you can of course share them, the main purpose is to come up with entertaining questions.
Here's a starter:

Which side of an octopus or squid is the front side?

[Elemental]

Well, an octopus has two eyes and a clearly deined facial area.
Which is obvious, because they look at people when they're sure we're not a threat. So I'd have to assume that that is their front.
As for a squid, I think its the same.

Now I have a tricky question: Which side of a jellyfish is the front?
I have no clue.

[Savannah]

There isn't a front -- jellyfish have radial symmetry, not bilateral symmetry, and therefore cannot have a front or back (or right or left for that matter).

[thubby]

how bad is dying (cessation of heartbeat) and being brought back for your health?

[Riverdance]

Is it weird that I frequently imagine (not fantasize) what it would be like to have my stomach slit open in a sword fight and other such things? Also, is it a predominantly male thing to fixate on that kind of thing? Not saying all males do it or females don't, just wondering if it's more of a male tendency.

I ask because one day my mom and sister asked me why I was grimacing silently and when I explained that I was trying to conceptualize what it would be like to hold my own intestines in they were slightly shocked.

[TheSummoner]

Is it weird? Yeah, probably. Is there anything wrong with that? Not as I see it.

As for what it would feel like... Well I would imagine that if you didn't lose consciousness from pain or bloodloss, you would feel incredible pain in the stomach and a feeling of emptiness inside where your insides are rapidly becoming outsides. If you were holding your entrails in your hands, I would imagine they would feel like warm, moist, maybe a little slimy... Noodles maybe? Really thick noodles... I can't think of a better comparison... Warm, moist, slimy, thick noodles that don't seem to have a beginning or end slipping through your fingers.

And now that I have typed probably the most disturbing thing I have ever typed, I think I'll refrain from eating for a few days...

I suppose I should probably come up with my own question... But that'll have to wait for later, I've got nothing at the moment.

[thubby]

if it's anything like how it feels for appendicitis, like getting stabbed with a metal rod that burns cold.

[AsteriskAmp]

how bad is dying (cessation of heartbeat) and being brought back for your health?
Depends on how long you are without a heartbeat and how you are returned. Experiences differ and giving an actual answer from people experiences violates forum rules.

[Raddish]

If you were born at sea on the international date line thingy (Through a really strange set of coincidencess or something) how would they decide which day you were born on? And would you want double presents?

[DeadManSleeping]

The correct answer is "not as bad for you as NOT being resuscitated" :smallwink:

Given that "chuck" means "throw", and woodchucks are perfectly capable of throwing things (albeit awkwardly and poorly), why have we not already answered the age-old question of how much wood they can chuck?

[thubby]

we have. a woodchuck would chuck all the wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood, (and wanted to)

[Icewalker]

Is it weird? Yeah, probably. Is there anything wrong with that? Not as I see it.

As for what it would feel like... Well I would imagine that if you didn't lose consciousness from pain or bloodloss, you would feel incredible pain in the stomach and a feeling of emptiness inside where your insides are rapidly becoming outsides.

...

Fun fact, you almost definitely wouldn't die of blood loss! If only your abdominal cavity got opened up, but there weren't serious injuries into the organs themselves (just them, well, exiting your abdominal cavity) you would have very little blood loss as there aren't any large arteries/veins in the front of the abdomen, they're all back towards the spine. Other than risk of severe infection, having your abdominal cavity opened with things falling out is actually not as lethal as one would first think! Assuming it's your only injury of course. If somebody gutted you, you've probably been cut in other places first, where blood would be more of an issue. And, if the abdominal cut was at all deep it would probably hit organs, which would mean 1) loss of very important functions, 2) possible increased serious risk of infection, or 3) terrible internal bleeding. Option 2 stemming from major cuts to the stomach or intestines, and 3 stemming from cuts to the kidneys or liver (lots and lots of blood in those).

...the more you know? :smallbiggrin:
EMT training: totally worth it, just for this sort of thing.

[Dumbledore lives]

I often wonder about the consciousness of various animals, their level of sentience compared to ours and what not, and how we would discover this. For now I simply ask, do animals like dogs dream, and do they do it in the same general form as we do, as highly variable as human dreams are.

[Elemental]

They do indeed dream.
All species of mammals undergo REM sleep, even a few birds and reptiles undergo it as well.
The ammount of REM sleep is highly variable. Dolphins don't do very much of it, whereas armadillos experience a lot of REM sleep.

Dreams on the other hand... The number of species that have been observed to dream is very low, mostly mammals. These include; elephants, cats, dogs, monkeys, shrews and rats.
Signs of dreaming have also been observed in some birds and reptiles.
The actual number of dreaming animals is probably much higher, but it is rather difficult to scan the brainwaves of most animals.

So, in summary, animals do dream. Why, or what about, I have no idea.

[Asta Kask]

My cat has nightmares from time to time. He will wake with a start and then look at me and make the noise he does when he's scared. And I'll talk to him soothingly and he'll go back to sleep.

Good skill to have if I ever get kids.

[Eldan]

Okay, the purpose of this thread is to collect questions that seem strange to ask about, but actually are not that easy to answer. If you happen to know the answer for any of the questions, you can of course share them, the main purpose is to come up with entertaining questions.
Here's a starter:

Which side of an octopus or squid is the front side?

In a squid it's actually quite simple: their axis of symmetry is nicely back to front. See this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Loligo_vulgaris.jpg) for example: it has a clearly defined head on the right side of the picture. The eyes are just visible on either side of the head. The mouth is between the tentacles, the various interior organs are back in the body. This is a pretty decent body plan. (http://www.bumblebee.org/invertebrates/images/LoligoOpalescens.jpg)

In an octopus, it gets a bit more complicated. Technically, the terms Anterior and Posterior are only well-defined in vertebrates, anterior being towards the skull and/or mouth, posterior being the opposite. Usually, the "mouth" definition is used in animals that have one, but in animals that have one preferred direction of locomotion, that can also be used. Since, however, the octopus has its mouth on what is pretty clearly the underside, this gets a bit complicated. See here (http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-octopus.jpg). I'd probably say that the end with the eyes is in front, as that is also the side it most often has in front when moving.

[Karoht]

The correct answer is "not as bad for you as NOT being resuscitated" :smallwink:

Given that "chuck" means "throw", and woodchucks are perfectly capable of throwing things (albeit awkwardly and poorly), why have we not already answered the age-old question of how much wood they can chuck?Didn't Mythbusters have a go at that?

[Traab]

If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?

[AsteriskAmp]

If you choke a smurf, what color does it turn?

Purple. ....

[Traab]

Purple. ....

Thats when they become zombies. Totally different thing.

[Bouregard]

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs? One adult female one, remember and she seems not to be the mother of the kidsmurfs...

Turning nightmarefuel on in one ... two ... three

[Traab]

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs? One adult female one, remember and she seems not to be the mother of the kidsmurfs...

Turning nightmarefuel on in one ... two ... three

You know, I dont recall, but I do remember they introduced a baby smurf at one point, and I think they mentioned how it happened. The reality is blue ice from passing airplanes that achieves sentience after hitting the earth.

[Asta Kask]

Is there life after birth?

[Raddish]

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs? One adult female one, remember and she seems not to be the mother of the kidsmurfs...

Turning nightmarefuel on in one ... two ... three

I believe smurfette was created by someone so I would guess that smurfs are a single gender species with smurfette being a modified version or something.

[Yora]

Is there life after birth?

There's a snarky comment I could make, that would be guaranteed to get me a red card. :smallbiggrin:

Question is, is there a life before death?

[Asta Kask]

If there's transhumanism, does that mean there's cishumanism?

[H Birchgrove]

How do I make a wheelchair bound hero or heroine who doesn't come off as a Professor Xavier or an Oracle expy/knock-off?


That's when they become zombies. Totally different thing.

Well, in the cartoon, and possibly in censored versions of the comic book.

In the original comic book, the Smurfs who were bitten by the nasty bug or by infected Smurfs became black. :smalleek:

Seriously, as a Ménage a 3 reader, you should know this. :smallamused:

[Frozen_Feet]

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs?

A stork brings more.

[Karoht]

How do I make a wheelchair bound hero or heroine who doesn't come off as a Professor Xavier or an Oracle expy/knock-off?I can tell you how not to do it, but I think you've got that base covered.

Mentor in a wheelchair-Xavier
Hacker/Coordinator/Support-Oracle
Crackpot inventor-Mostly villains, a few heroes
Wheelchair transform into tank/cybersuit-Too many to list, both hero and villain.

Daredevil was a bold and highly successful attempt at a Blind superhero. Terrible film though. None the less, Daredevil might give you some leads.

This might not help but try this. Place normal person in situation. Ask yourself how this normal person might solve the problem. Now same problem, but in wheelchair. When you get to the point where the wheelchair bound person you imagine can solve problems as proficiently as the non-wheelchair bound person, you're ready. At that point, add some super powers to the mix.


Variant of the Charles Xavier archetype.
Charles is a powerful psychic. Great, awesome.
Variant is a essentially a Bard. Mostly uses storytelling/magic. Highly social character.
Yeah, he can have a cool buttler or servant or assistant or something.
Maybe he's actually even a stage magician?

As for the cause of him being wheelchair bound, pick a medical condition. My advice, stick to severe damage to his legs or even complete amputation combined with severe nerve damage.

So what do we have so far? We have a fellow who was crippled. Due to not having exceptional physical attributes he has come to rely on his wits and charm. Uses lots of actual slight of hand, maybe even nix the 'powers,' reads people and their reactions remarkably well. Stage magic or street magic? Or neither? Maybe this person is actually rather pleasant to be around even, rather than the trope of super genius but abrasive jerkwad.

The companion. It's hard to fill this role without automatically thinking of Holmes and Watson. Perhaps the companion is in fact the abrasive on. Or not. Perhaps he's equally smart but with a different skillset and background. Is the the guardian sort (IE-Bodyguard) or is he merely the faithful servant/friend that will stick with his charge through thick and thin? Or is that too Bruce and Alfred? Darn, I'm having trouble with the companion.
Maybe he doesn't have one?

[Hazzardevil]

My question?
If you have multiple personality disorder, would the personalities talk to each other inside their head?

Also, is it normal for teenagers to dream about sexual intercourse?

[Savannah]

My question?
If you have multiple personality disorder, would the personalities talk to each other inside their head?

It depends, but it's pretty common for the personalities not to know about each other. (Also, it is quite possible that multiple personality disorder doesn't exist and/or is highly exaggerated.)


Also, is it normal for teenagers to dream about sexual intercourse?

Yes.

[Dsurion]

I believe smurfette was created by someone so I would guess that smurfs are a single gender species with smurfette being a modified version or something.IIRC, she was created by Gargamel to destroy the Smurfs.

[AsteriskAmp]

My question?
If you have multiple personality disorder, would the personalities talk to each other inside their head?

Also, is it normal for teenagers to dream about sexual intercourse?

Disociative Identity Disorder is not well documented and even recorded cases are debatable. But no, you don't have multiple personalities so much as memory voids coupled with mood swings, so it's just one but different moods and what is done by it sometimes is forgotten. So they cannot really talk to each other.

It's still very controversial, specially due to it being mostly a North American condition and it also springing from psychotherapist suggestions.

Depends on cultural context but the answer is most likely yes for the greater part of the population.

[Yora]

Also, is it normal for teenagers to dream about sexual intercourse?
As pumped up on hormones as you are supposed to be, I think it would rather be worrysome not to. :smallbiggrin:

It depends, but it's pretty common for the personalities not to know about each other. (Also, it is quite possible that multiple personality disorder doesn't exist and/or is highly exaggerated.)
Where did you get that? From what I know, this is mostly an urban myth. Not to say there aren't cases that are sowhat similar to multiple personalties, but the way people think it works seems to be mostly made up because it's a cool story.

[Savannah]

Where did I get what, precisely? The general answer comes from my degree in psychology, although I never bothered with Abnormal Psych, so I'm not as up on DID as other areas in psych.

[Elemental]

There's such a thing as non-abnormal psychology? My world view has been shattered!


Nah, I'm just kidding, but my view is still skewed as everyone I know is crazy.

But now, an interesting question... Why do people befriend animals?

[Savannah]

Sure, social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, experimental psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, evolutionary psychology, personality psychology, sports psychology, cross-cultural psychology, forensic psychology, behavior analysis (my field), behavioral neuroscience, etc, etc, etc. (I realize you were probably joking, but I kinda wanted to point out how much beyond abnormal/counseling psychology there is. Also, this totally counts as on topic because you phrased it as a question :smallwink:)

As for why people befriend animals....hang on, my dog demands tummy scritches before I respond...

*ahem* As I was saying.

Well, in a lot of cases, our relationships with our pets started as mutually beneficial partnerships -- dogs help hunt and provide security, cats kill vermin (dogs do, too), sheep/cattle/goats/etc provide food (actually, in some cultures, dogs do this, too), horses haul heavy loads (hey, dogs can do this one, as well!), etc. As for why we do it now, animals can provide the same help and more (seeing eye/hearing ear dogs, monkey assistants for quadriplegics, heck, dogs are being trained to prevent their seriously allergic owners from contacting foods that can kill them) and animals can provide companionship or something to nurture the same way a spouse or child can (but way, way cuter and less annoying -- oops, I think my bias is showing). ...I swear I had a third reason in mind when I started that sentence, but I can't remember it now.

Edit: Trust me to remember right after posting. Animals can supplement their owner's image -- big tough-looking dogs for manly men, floofy little dogs for girly girls, exotics for the non-conformists, stupid things like tigers for the thrill seekers, and so on. Mind you, this isn't a good reason to get a pet, but it can be a reason.

[Elemental]

It's still strange. I like animals, especially cats, but how I can love creatures that are so aloof and almost never spend time with me, I have no idea.
I mean, I see my cats for a small fraction of the day, and during most of that time, they're sleeping.
It's probably because I've had them forever.

Oh well... I'll just put it down to humans being weird.

[Raddish]

Why do peoples pets like dogs and cats always seem to come to me in a room of many people.

I always feel awkward around them, like a mix between being really unsure of what they are doing and not wanting to move incase I hit them. Another question, is it normal to feel awkward around other peoples pets?

[Savannah]

Why do peoples pets like dogs and cats always seem to come to me in a room of many people.

Because you don't go "OOH WHAT A CUTE DOGGIE/KITTY! LET ME HOLD YOU!" You aren't comfortable with them, so you ignore them, which lets them get used to you at their own pace and makes you non-threatening.


I always feel awkward around them, like a mix between being really unsure of what they are doing and not wanting to move incase I hit them. Another question, is it normal to feel awkward around other peoples pets?

Yeah (and it beats overconfidence). I generally only get it with species I'm not familiar with, though, so maybe it's a general lack of familiarity with animals for you?

[H Birchgrove]

I can tell you how not to do it, but I think you've got that base covered.

Mentor in a wheelchair-Xavier
Hacker/Coordinator/Support-Oracle
Crackpot inventor-Mostly villains, a few heroes
Wheelchair transform into tank/cybersuit-Too many to list, both hero and villain.

Daredevil was a bold and highly successful attempt at a Blind superhero. Terrible film though. None the less, Daredevil might give you some leads.

This might not help but try this. Place normal person in situation. Ask yourself how this normal person might solve the problem. Now same problem, but in wheelchair. When you get to the point where the wheelchair bound person you imagine can solve problems as proficiently as the non-wheelchair bound person, you're ready. At that point, add some super powers to the mix.


Variant of the Charles Xavier archetype.
Charles is a powerful psychic. Great, awesome.
Variant is a essentially a Bard. Mostly uses storytelling/magic. Highly social character.
Yeah, he can have a cool buttler or servant or assistant or something.
Maybe he's actually even a stage magician?

As for the cause of him being wheelchair bound, pick a medical condition. My advice, stick to severe damage to his legs or even complete amputation combined with severe nerve damage.

So what do we have so far? We have a fellow who was crippled. Due to not having exceptional physical attributes he has come to rely on his wits and charm. Uses lots of actual slight of hand, maybe even nix the 'powers,' reads people and their reactions remarkably well. Stage magic or street magic? Or neither? Maybe this person is actually rather pleasant to be around even, rather than the trope of super genius but abrasive jerkwad.

The companion. It's hard to fill this role without automatically thinking of Holmes and Watson. Perhaps the companion is in fact the abrasive on. Or not. Perhaps he's equally smart but with a different skillset and background. Is the the guardian sort (IE-Bodyguard) or is he merely the faithful servant/friend that will stick with his charge through thick and thin? Or is that too Bruce and Alfred? Darn, I'm having trouble with the companion.
Maybe he doesn't have one?

Thanks! This will help me to avoid (at least some) clichés!

Is it wrong that I've already thought about a companion, who happens to have only one leg, aside from a prosthetic one?


Disociative Identity Disorder is not well documented and even recorded cases are debatable. But no, you don't have multiple personalities so much as memory voids coupled with mood swings, so it's just one but different moods and what is done by it sometimes is forgotten. So they cannot really talk to each other.

It's still very controversial, specially due to it being mostly a North American condition and it also springing from psychotherapist suggestions.

Depends on cultural context but the answer is most likely yes for the greater part of the population.

I saw a documentary about a Swedish woman with Disociative Identity Disorder. It was quite clear that she wasn't faking it or that she wasn't "delusional" about having that disorder, she really had three personalities. Interestingly, each personality corresponded with the Freudian ideas of the Id, Ego, and Superego. One personality was like a constantly scared young girl, the main personality was trying manage her life, and the third personality was very moralistic and pedantic, especially about the two other personalities.

It should be noted that European psychologists and psychiatrist were first to diagnose and research Disociative Identity Disorder and schizophrenia (I know the relation between those two terms is controversial, since laymen have often confused them), for example Eugen Bleuler, Carl Jung, and Kurt Schneider.

[Dogmantra]

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

[thubby]

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

i don't, and it's rather vexing.
or rather, it's vexing that my spoken voice doesn't match the one in my head which i consider "my voice".

[Kobold-Bard]

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs? One adult female one, remember and she seems not to be the mother of the kidsmurfs...

Turning nightmarefuel on in one ... two ... three

I've been told in te past that there was a village of all female Smurfs to balance the all male one the stories discuss.


This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

Sort of. The voice in my head is how my voice sounds to me, but I know from audio evidence that it's not how my voice actually sounds.

I also have this weird thing where I can't read properly when it's too noisy, because I don't really read the words, my brain sort of acknowledges them and then speaks them to me in a different voice than my own. So as far as I can tell I listen to books (or even this forum) for example rather than read it.

My turn:

Who came up with the names for things? Who decided that a tomato was called a tomato, rather than a grape or a mountain?

[TheSummoner]

On the topic of smurfs, how do they make more smurfs? One adult female one, remember and she seems not to be the mother of the kidsmurfs...

Turning nightmarefuel on in one ... two ... three

Smurfs lay eggs. Think about it for a moment... There's one female and a large number of males. That implies a species that lays eggs.

[Traab]

Related to your last question. How long did it take for early man to figure out what was safe to eat and what wasnt? Did someone pick up say, a carrot, and eat the leaves, then after that was terrible, eat the root? I know there are some edible plants that have poisonous parts, who convinced their buddies to try the rest after the first guy died or got horribly ill?

[Raddish]

Well I expect with things like carrots it was watching an animal of some kind pull it up and eat the root area.

Whats more confusing to me is things like drinking cows milk, whoever decided it was a good idea to pull those dangly things beneath a cow and drink whatever comes out must have been an interesting character...

[Kobold-Bard]

Well I expect with things like carrots it was watching an animal of some kind pull it up and eat the root area.

Whats more confusing to me is things like drinking cows milk, whoever decided it was a good idea to pull those dangly things beneath a cow and drink whatever comes out must have been an interesting character...

See milk isn't a mystery. Seeing baby cows use the udders in the same way baby people use bewbz, the connection probably wasn't that hard to make.

[TheSummoner]

Ok, milk is disgusting but it's still understandable.

Explain eggs. Or for that matter, cheese. What the hell was the first person who ever ate one of those thinking when he did?

[Maralais]

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

As strange as this may sound, I sometimes think with the voice of Stephen Fry. Charming, really.

Also, do salaries of academicians(I think that's the word) depend on their field? e.g. are academicians of psychology are better paid when compared to academicians of philosophy?

I actually used "do" instead of "are", what is happening to my grammar?

[Kobold-Bard]

Ok, milk is disgusting but it's still understandable.

Explain eggs. Or for that matter, cheese. What the hell was the first person who ever ate one of those thinking when he did?

Eggs: Animals are delicious. Baby animals are especially delicious (the cuteness improves the flavour). Therefore once they saw baby birds hatching from eggs the logical thing to do us eat them because of their inherent deliciousness.

Cheese: Ok, this one was probably an accidental discovery by someone who screwed up but was just that hungry that he'd eat the weird chunky stuff in their milk.

[Traab]

Eggs: Animals are delicious. Baby animals are especially delicious (the cuteness improves the flavour). Therefore once they say baby birds hatching from eggs the logical thing to do us eat them because of their inherent deliciousness.

Cheese: Ok, this one was probably an accidental discovery by someone who screwed up but was just that hungry that he'd eat the weird chunky stuff in their milk.

Explain salt then. "Hey, there is some oddly colored dirt! Try sprinkling it over your food. WOW! Thats awesome!"

[H Birchgrove]

Explain salt then. "Hey, there is some oddly colored dirt! Try sprinkling it over your food. WOW! Thats awesome!"

Animals like salt too. One of the reasons for road kill are elks and other animals licking off rock salt from roads during the winter.

It's possible that fishermen tasted some salt in their fish, and wanted to try to improve on it. Or they experimented with several methods to preserve food.

Heck, someone might have just liked the taste of seawater.

[Kobold-Bard]

Explain salt then. "Hey, there is some oddly colored dirt! Try sprinkling it over your food. WOW! Thats awesome!"

I don't know. I'm a questioner like the rest of you, not some sort of food origins expert.

Maybe they watched an animal do it, maybe animals the ate a lot of salt tasted better, maybe it was a blind accident. Who knows.

Edit: Though I like the fish water theory from the above post.

[razark]

What the hell was the first person who ever ate one of those thinking when he did?
"Holy crap, I'm about to starve, so I might as well eat this thing!"

[Archonic Energy]

why does a 500ml mug of tea keep it's heat better than a 500ml mug of mocha ?

[Traab]

why does a 500ml mug of tea keep it's heat better than a 500ml mug of mocha ?

Heat is lost by transfer of energy. Mocha has a lot more random bits and bobs in the water, which makes the heat move all over the place and as it does, more and more is lost in transit. Tea on the other hand has a lot less bits and bobs in it generally, therefore less heat transfer takes place and it holds its temperature longer. I may have some of the details wrong but I think thats the gist of it.

[Yora]

Also, do salaries of academicians(I think that's the word) depend on their field? e.g. are academicians of psychology are better paid when compared to academicians of philosophy?
It's "Academics". And the pay they get mostly depends on the position they have. If you are just some lousy assistant who works two days per week entering research data into a computer, you will get very different pay than the lead physicist who designs a billion dollar mass accelerator.

There's a joke in Germany: What does a philosopher with a job say to a philosopher without one?
"Do you want fries with that?"

Related to your last question. How long did it take for early man to figure out what was safe to eat and what wasnt? Did someone pick up say, a carrot, and eat the leaves, then after that was terrible, eat the root? I know there are some edible plants that have poisonous parts, who convinced their buddies to try the rest after the first guy died or got horribly ill?
That's evolution!

At first, people eat everything. Than those who have the weird habbit of not eating small yellow fruit, somehow didn't die like anyone else. So when they had children who also didn't want to eat small yellow fruit, they survived while their siblings who did also died. Repeat that a few generation and you end up only with people who don't try to eat that. At some point they are so many, that anyone who still tries to eat them is regarded as weird and when he does eat them and dies, while everyone else is fine, it's easy to make the connection and from then on you can teach children: "Don't eat those things, they kill you."

[thubby]

i want to know who figured out bread.
it's not exactly something you can accidentally make like cheese or alcohol.

[Traab]

i want to know who figured out bread.
it's not exactly something you can accidentally make like cheese or alcohol.

I dunno, unleavened bread isnt that complex, and considering early experimenters would likely try every possible way of making things it makes sense they would create that. As for adding yeast, its possible it was a newtons apple kind of thing. "What the hell is this crap? Hey! Look what it did to the flatbread! Hmm, tastes pretty good too! Dang, now if only it wasnt in such a huge chunk. I KNOW! I can SLICE IT! This is the greatest invention since.... UNSLICED BREAD!"

[Elemental]

There's a joke in Germany: What does a philosopher with a job say to a philosopher without one?
"Do you want fries with that?"


We have that joke here in Australia as well.

Also, a question to awaken your minds...
Why do we laugh?
Note: This isn't a question on whether or not humans are the only creatures that appreciate humour. It's about why humour exists and why we laugh at it.


And as for the bread thing, adding yeast is a modern thing. Before people understood microbiology, they had no idea why some bread rises and some bread doesn't.
What they used to do is leave it somewhere, and eventually enough yeast spores would get into the bread and start eating the sugar in the dough.
In places where flat bread is more common, that's probably a result of the air being too dry for yeast. Something along those lines.

[thubby]

Also, a question to awaken your minds...
Why do we laugh?


i think that question is too small.

why are any emotions linked to universal outward expression?

blind people and newborns smile when they're happy, cry when they're upset, etc. despite never seeing it.

[Traab]

i think that question is too small.

why are any emotions linked to universal outward expression?

blind people and newborns smile when they're happy, cry when they're upset, etc. despite never seeing it.

Body language is instinctual. Its a throw back to the days before we had a spoken language, and like all animals, we communicated through body language and an assortment of odd grunts.

[Ravens_cry]

Why do female humans have breasts? I don't mean mammaries, all mammals have them, it's what defines the type in fact.
But only humans females have them always noticeable, unlike other mammals where they are generally only visible during pregnancy and nursing. Look at a female gorrilla. Except when she has a baby gorilla to care of, she's as flat as two raisins on a breadboard.
According to Wikipedia, Bonobo, also known as pygmy chimpanzees, also exhibit this trait, though to a much lesser extent.
Still, why?

[Kobold-Bard]

Body language is instinctual. Its a throw back to the days before we had a spoken language, and like all animals, we communicated through body language and an assortment of odd grunts.

Try to cash a traveller's cheque in a country where you don't speak the language (Japan in my case). You very quickly fall back into the point & grunt mentality.

[Elemental]

Okay then, the bigger question is not why we laugh, but why humour exists.
As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be much point to it.

And as for your question Ravens_Cry:
I'm not really sure, but it's probably to show that the individual possessing them is of childbearing age. Aside from that, I can't think of anything.

[razark]

i want to know who figured out bread.
it's not exactly something you can accidentally make like cheese or alcohol.
People prepared a porridge of grains in water. Someone spilled their porridge on the hot rock next to the fire, and tasted the result. Naturally occurring yeasts found their way into the mix eventually.


Why do female humans have breasts
Humans walk upright. The males could no longer make sexual selections based off of the buttocks of the females in the manner that many other primates do, so the breasts developed as a "in your face" sort of display.

[thubby]

Body language is instinctual. Its a throw back to the days before we had a spoken language, and like all animals, we communicated through body language and an assortment of odd grunts.

well, yeah, i figured that much. but how did that happen. projecting and understanding body language are 2 distinct functions

[Traab]

Try to cash a traveller's cheque in a country where you don't speak the language (Japan in my case). You very quickly fall back into the point & grunt mentality.

Exactly, because body language is universal. Everyone understands that when you point at something, you are indicating it in some way. Rub your hand across your belly and lick your lips while smiling? You enjoyed what you just ate. There isnt a person above the mentally handicapped level on earth that wouldnt understand exactly what you were trying to say there. It may be harder with more complex things you want to express, but it can be done. Body language crosses all language barriers.

[Traab]

well, yeah, i figured that much. but how did that happen. projecting and understanding body language are 2 distinct functions

You mean how did body language develop? Or real language? Thats a bit beyond me, as body language comes from times before sentience. Its not exactly something I would even know how to BEGIN researching.

[irenicObserver]

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

I generally think in my own voice, mostly for my own decisions. I play my own Devil's Advocate. But when it comes to something for school I think in the voice of my teacher.

[Eldan]

Why do female humans have breasts? I don't mean mammaries, all mammals have them, it's what defines the type in fact.
But only humans females have them always noticeable, unlike other mammals where they are generally only visible during pregnancy and nursing. Look at a female gorrilla. Except when she has a baby gorilla to care of, she's as flat as two raisins on a breadboard.
According to Wikipedia, Bonobo, also known as pygmy chimpanzees, also exhibit this trait, though to a much lesser extent.
Still, why?

The explanation I heard is that it has to do with bipedalism. The child can't really access a nipple that is not hanging down. If human females were standing upright and the chest was flat, they couldn't really drink. Apes mostly nurse when standing on all fours, with the child hanging below them. Humans do it sitting or standing, so a hanging or malleable is necessary.

The explanation I heard given for humour is that it basically serves to defuse potentially dangerous situations. The example Stephen Fry gave on Q.I. was:
"Oh my god! I heard a noise! It must be a tiger!" - "Oh, hahaha, I'm so silly, it's just a squirrel."
Situation defused, everyone can calm down.

[Yora]

I was just conducting experiments on the flamability of olive oil in my kitchen.
Now my whole apartment smells, in what I have to admit is not an entirely unpleasant way. :smallbiggrin:

Exactly, because body language is universal.
Even stranger it appears to be shared with canines and felines. After years of interpreting the body language of cats and dogs, the body language and emotions seem to match those of humans.
Which I think is not unreasonable. After all, all land predators, which includes primates are competitors who share overlapping territories. It is important to be able to read a competitor of another species, to learn if he wants to challenge you for your meal or just happens to be in the area and doesn't want any trouble.
It would be a waste to flee from an animal much larger than you, if it currently isn't in the mood to fight you for your kill. But if you just leave it there, it will be happy to help itself. However, if it really wants your kill really badly and would kill you for it, it would be too dangerous to stick around for too long. So a universal language among top level predators, which really comes down to apes, dogs, cats, and bears, would make a lot of sense. Helps avoid unneccessary fights, but keeps you alive when you're outmatched.

well, yeah, i figured that much. but how did that happen. projecting and understanding body language are 2 distinct functions
There's a difference between instinctual and aquired body language. Some are universal, many others are not. The later are simply learned by oversavtion, just like spoken language, and are in fact sign language, which we happen to use subconsciously, since our bodies use many of them automatically.

Instinctual body language is a result of evolution. At the beginning (of this purely made up hypothetical case), we have lots of creatures who have no way of communicating their intentions to each other. Now there is one really tough big guy, who always opens his eyes wide and furrows his brow before he is beating someone to death who annoys him. Lots of people died, because they had no idea he was getting pissed. However, because of mutations, some people are born with the reflex to get scared when they see that face. They run away, so they don't get killed. Some of their children inherit this mutations, some don't. The former never get strangled to death, but the later ones mostly do. Repeat for billions of years and everyone alive has that gene that makes them back off when someone is making that face at them.
Also, people who have the gene to make this face are less frequently ending up in fights where they murder people (because most people run away), so they can live better in the group and have better chances to spread their "I kill you" face genes.

[Ravens_cry]

The explanation I heard is that it has to do with bipedalism. The child can't really access a nipple that is not hanging down. If human females were standing upright and the chest was flat, they couldn't really drink. Apes mostly nurse when standing on all fours, with the child hanging below them. Humans do it sitting or standing, so a hanging or malleable is necessary.

The trouble with that explanation is it doesn't explain the crux of the question, why are they big, even when not nursing?

[Maxios]

This is one that's plagued me for a while.

Do you think in your own voice?

I do, most of the time.

[Eldan]

Because most of the time, a human female would have been nursing pretty much constantly until rather recently. Or be pregnant.

[Yora]

Peacocking.

Just like long hair (which in humans grows much longer than in any other animal), an ample bossom displays to the world that you are healthy and well fed. Same goes for peacock feathers and lots of other unneccesarily overblown body features.
When you're malnurished or sick, it shows in your body.

Males want women who bear children that will survive to pass on their genes, females want men who will bring the most food on the table and other luxuries that ensure she can raise her children to survive and pass on their genes.
And then it's again evolution: As a result, the most healthy males get the first pick and want to chose the most healthy females. Which means you get children with healthy fathers and mothers, and children with sickly fathers and mothers. The healthy children survive, the sickly ones don't. Which means that genes that make the body look very healthy (long hair, big breasts) can continue, and those genes that make a body look sickly die out. Repeat this process for thousands of generations and you end up with rediculous long hair and big boobs. :smallbiggrin:

[Kobold-Bard]

New Question:

How do we know that someone hasn't invented time travel already & they are constantly screwing around in the past? To us the past would always be the past, but for all we know originally Germany won WW2 or reality tv was a failure or some breeds of dinosaurs survived & my manager used to be a velociraptor.

[Yora]

Answer: We can't.

[Traab]

New Question:

How do we know that someone hasn't invented time travel already & they are constantly screwing around in the past? To us the past would always be the past, but for all we know originally Germany won WW2 or reality tv was a failure or some breeds of dinosaurs survived & my manager used to be a velociraptor.

As Yora said, we cant, but it goes beyond that. Depending on the school of time travel thought you believe in, some joker going back and changing things could have absolutely no effect on us, because it doesnt change our timeline, it creates a new one for itself. Basically a new branch, or a thread on the spiderweb of the multiverse. So now, to use one of your examples, there is a world where dinosaurs still exist, and our world where they dont.

[Karoht]

As Yora said, we cant, but it goes beyond that. Depending on the school of time travel thought you believe in, some joker going back and changing things could have absolutely no effect on us, because it doesnt change our timeline, it creates a new one for itself. Basically a new branch, or a thread on the spiderweb of the multiverse. So now, to use one of your examples, there is a world where dinosaurs still exist, and our world where they dont.

And the schools of thought on time travel is about as diverse as the schools of thought on god. But if you want a good read on the subject, check out the quantum physics version which, if I recall, does the multiple timelines thing. Then there's all the paradox stuff, but that stuff honestly does go into absurdity in some cases.

For purposes of entertainment only, I still enjoy the Back to the Future version of timeline alteration. For purposes of intrigue, I kinda sorta like how Source Code did it.

[Hazzardevil]

Related to your last question. How long did it take for early man to figure out what was safe to eat and what wasnt? Did someone pick up say, a carrot, and eat the leaves, then after that was terrible, eat the root? I know there are some edible plants that have poisonous parts, who convinced their buddies to try the rest after the first guy died or got horribly ill?
no idea, but it would have been a woman in your example because men were amost exclusively carnivores andwmen vice versa.

Why do female humans have breasts? I don't mean mammaries, all mammals have them, it's what defines the type in fact.
But only humans females have them always noticeable, unlike other mammals where they are generally only visible during pregnancy and nursing. Look at a female gorrilla. Except when she has a baby gorilla to care of, she's as flat as two raisins on a breadboard.
According to Wikipedia, Bonobo, also known as pygmy chimpanzees, also exhibit this trait, though to a much lesser extent.
Still, why?
I think it's because women never evolved to only have them when they needed them, becuasewmen never did anything that dangerous where their breasts would likely get in the way.

How much is mens obession with large breasts stereotype and how much is it true?
Why has the general populations opinoin of abeautiful woman gone from obese to anorexic?

[Ravens_cry]

For less headache but more heartache, I stick to the Quantumly Brittle Multiple Branches theory of time travel.
Simply put, any change, including the presence of a time traveller, creates a new parallel. It might not be noticeable if you go into the future again, but any real alteration means it will be thanks to the butterfly effect.
But either way, your original parallel ain't seen you again.

[Themrys]

Why has the general populations opinoin of abeautiful woman gone from obese to anorexic?

Because the "general population" you are thinking of has enough to eat. Now, being able to withstand the temptation is a sign of psychological health. In former times, it was more the question of being intelligent enough to get lots of food or healthy enough to gain weight quickly.


Well, no, women definitely do not have breasts because we didn't dangerous things. This is utter nonsense on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

Just this: Do you really think there was such a thing as a safe place to stay when human beings evolved?


Like any other useless feature, breasts probably evolved because the opposite sex found them attractive. Like peacock feathers. (Which also didn't evolve because peacocks have such a nice, dangerless life)

[Gnoman]

Related to your last question. How long did it take for early man to figure out what was safe to eat and what wasnt? Did someone pick up say, a carrot, and eat the leaves, then after that was terrible, eat the root? I know there are some edible plants that have poisonous parts, who convinced their buddies to try the rest after the first guy died or got horribly ill?

Actually, it's quite possible to gain some idea of weather something unknown is safe to eat without suffering too much in the way of ill effects. First is smell. If it smells poisonous, don't eat it. After that is taste. If it has a numbing or excessively bitter/acrid taste, don't eat it. If it seems ok, consume small amounts and keep an awareness of any unusual effects it may have. After enough such testing, the mystery food can be positively identified as safe or unsafe.

[Starwulf]

Actually, it's quite possible to gain some idea of weather something unknown is safe to eat without suffering too much in the way of ill effects. First is smell. If it smells poisonous, don't eat it. After that is taste. If it has a numbing or excessively bitter/acrid taste, don't eat it. If it seems ok, consume small amounts and keep an awareness of any unusual effects it may have. After enough such testing, the mystery food can be positively identified as safe or unsafe.

What about stuff like Blowfish(I think that's it). That one fish that if you prepare it wrong, or eat any but one specific part, it's pretty much death within a matter of minutes? How in the world did someone eventually figure out that there was actually an edible part to that fish when any other part would kill you damn quickly? The trial and error method doesn't seem like it would work there, because, ya know, first time someone tried it, they probably died. I know I certainly wouldn't volunteer to eat something that I just watched kill someone else.

[Hazzardevil]

[QUOTE=Gnoman;12650107]After that is taste. If it has a numbing or excessively bitter/acrid taste, don't eat it.[quote]

Then why do people persist in the belief that we should eat burssel sprouts?

[Yora]

People eat the most disgusting things. Particularly in Northest Europe and Southern China. Even the Chinese think cantonese food is disgusting. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

I remember that from Thailand. To quote our Guide:
"I know tourists expect to eat some weird stuff when they come to Asia, so I have found a Cantonese market stall that sells insects..."

[H Birchgrove]

I remember that from Thailand. To quote our Guide:
"I know tourists expect to eat some weird stuff when they come to Asia, so I have found a Cantonese market stall that sells insects..."

When I was in Thailand, I ate lasagne and hamburgers (and other meals, but those are those I can remember).

Granted, I was 7-8 years old, and would probably have not been able to eat Thai food, given how strong their spices can be.

[Eldan]

We basically ate curries twice a day. It was delicious.

[Eldan]

We basically ate curries twice a day for a month. It was delicious.

[Gravitron5000]

What about stuff like Blowfish(I think that's it). That one fish that if you prepare it wrong, or eat any but one specific part, it's pretty much death within a matter of minutes? How in the world did someone eventually figure out that there was actually an edible part to that fish when any other part would kill you damn quickly? The trial and error method doesn't seem like it would work there, because, ya know, first time someone tried it, they probably died. I know I certainly wouldn't volunteer to eat something that I just watched kill someone else.

That's Fugu, and the mark of a good chef is that they leave just enough toxin in the dish that you feel a tingle in your lips. Small doses won't kill you, but you will have symptoms.


Actually, it's quite possible to gain some idea of weather something unknown is safe to eat without suffering too much in the way of ill effects. First is smell. If it smells poisonous, don't eat it. After that is taste. If it has a numbing or excessively bitter/acrid taste, don't eat it. If it seems ok, consume small amounts and keep an awareness of any unusual effects it may have. After enough such testing, the mystery food can be positively identified as safe or unsafe.

Before going to the step of ingesting any of it, rubbing whatever you want to test for toxicity on your skin and waiting to see if you have a reaction is also a good idea. Lips are known to be especially sensitive for this purpose. Better a rash than dead.

[Yora]

Why is swarm pronounced "suarm", but sword as "sord"?

[Maralais]

I think the w disappeared in the speech as trying to add that w really slows it down.

[Karoht]

I think the w disappeared in the speech as trying to add that w really slows it down.And weapon speed is pretty important.

[Gnoman]

[QUOTE=Gnoman;12650107]After that is taste. If it has a numbing or excessively bitter/acrid taste, don't eat it.[quote]

Then why do people persist in the belief that we should eat burssel sprouts?

You mean the little cabbages that are neither bitter or acrid?

[The_Admiral]

Better question is why do we eat spinach?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Because it's delicious.

[irenicObserver]

[QUOTE=Gnoman;12650107]After that is taste. If it has a numbing or excessively bitter/acrid taste, don't eat it.[quote]

Then why do people persist in the belief that we should eat burssel sprouts?

I have recently learned the main reason vegetables taste so bad is because everyone is cooking them wrong (i.e. overcooking).

[Starwulf]

That's Fugu, and the mark of a good chef is that they leave just enough toxin in the dish that you feel a tingle in your lips. Small doses won't kill you, but you will have symptoms.



Before going to the step of ingesting any of it, rubbing whatever you want to test for toxicity on your skin and waiting to see if you have a reaction is also a good idea. Lips are known to be especially sensitive for this purpose. Better a rash than dead.

The question remains, who was the genius who managed to say "Hey, sure this fish just killed the last god knows how many people who tried to eat it, but I am absolutely positive that no matter how many have died before this, I will be the person who finally manages to prepare it in such a way that it won't kill me or anyone who eats it". Because, if something killed someone who ate it, and then kept on killing many people after that that tried to eat it, why in the world would you keep trying to eat it? Which goes back to the person I originally quoted who described the Trial and Error method, which clearly would not have worked in this case, because it very likely(99% I'm sure) killed multiple people before a way was finally discovered to prepare it safely.

[thubby]

i think stuff like that is a product of dangerously "adventurous" people. the ones skydiving and such today.

or maybe it's because japan had very strong medicine/science for its time. something with such drastic effects would quickly become a subject of interest to an ancient man of science. they might not have been looking to it for food at all to begin with.

[Fri]

Fugu fish is simple. You just have to remove a part of it, and I'm sure that people knew back then that some part of animals might be dangerous. Like polar bear liver.

I imagine it's something like, when you cook fish you do always get rid of the internal organ. people might notice that when you do it roughly, the eater dies, but when you do it carefully and thoroughly, people survive. Things like that.

But what about cassava, who need complex processing to get rid of its very lethal cyanide. Soaking them for 24 hours is just the start of it, and one of the simpler method. And yet, cassava is staple food in a lot of place.

[Elemental]

Perhaps cassava is like the humble potato? Too hard to eat when raw, but delicious in it's cooked state?
Also, both are poisonous. Potatoes even remain poisonous after preparation.
Though you'd have to eat two kilograms of cooked potatoes in order to die.

And a lot of herbs and spices are toxic in high doses. Though admittedly, if you add too much of them, the meal often becomes unpalatable anyway.

[Gnoman]

As far as blowfish is concerned, they probably weaponized it first, which lead to discovering where the poison came form.

[Eldan]

Perhaps cassava is like the humble potato? Too hard to eat when raw, but delicious in it's cooked state?
Also, both are poisonous. Potatoes even remain poisonous after preparation.
Though you'd have to eat two kilograms of cooked potatoes in order to die.

And a lot of herbs and spices are toxic in high doses. Though admittedly, if you add too much of them, the meal often becomes unpalatable anyway.

Actually, natural cassava, as opposed to modern, poison-reduced varities, is very, very lethal. It releases eff-tons of cyanide.

That said, the preparation is not that complicated. It involves mostly cutting, soaking, more soaking and cooking.

[Traab]

As far as blowfish is concerned, they probably weaponized it first, which lead to discovering where the poison came form.

Thats actually a likely scenario. They figured out what part of the blowfish was lethal and used it as a weapon. That let them get very good at safely removing the poisonous part. The rest is just tasty. (I assume, never ate it)

[H Birchgrove]

Better question is why do we eat spinach?

Because its iron content was grossly over-estimated in the early half of the 20th century, which led to pro-spinach propaganda including the Popeye the Sailor Man cartoons. It *does* contain iron, just not very much. (If you need more iron, you eat liver or black pudding once a month, or ask your doctor or nurse if you need iron pills.)

It does, however, also contain folic acid, which is important among other things for the development of the brain.

[Mx.Silver]

Why is swarm pronounced "suarm", but sword as "sord"?
Because it's the English language.



Then why do people persist in the belief that we should eat burssel sprouts?
Because sprouts are tasty.




Who came up with the names for things? Who decided that a tomato was called a tomato, rather than a grape or a mountain?
Whoever got to them first, for the most part.

[Yora]

Because it's delicious.

Spinach is very tasty. Same goes for brocoli.

The only vegetable that is really eww is indeed brussels sprout. They do have an interesting taste, but they always taste like they have starting to rot a week ago.

Damn, now I really want some spinach or broccoli. But I have very tasty potatoes, those will have to do.

[Traab]

Spinach is very tasty. Same goes for brocoli.

The only vegetable that is really eww is indeed brussels sprout. They do have an interesting taste, but they always taste like they have starting to rot a week ago.

Damn, now I really want some spinach or broccoli. But I have very tasty potatoes, those will have to do.

I love broccoli, only time I like spinach is when its in my zupa tuscana. Or whatever that sausage soup at the olive garden is called.

[Frozen_Feet]

Spinach makes fine soup, which you can then eat with boiled eggs and meatpie. :smallbiggrin:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Broccoli and cauliflower, not a big fan of. But spinach and brussel sprouts are delicious. Spanakopita is the most amazing things ever.

[Lord Raziere]

this thread suddenly makes me want to answer all the questions in it with a That Guy With the Glasses type manner...

[Yora]

You men Ask That Guy?

[Mx.Silver]

I think you'll all find the worst vegetable ever is Eruca Sative, aka Rocket. Its inexplicable popularity is guaranteed to turn any mixed leaf salad in into a middle-class variant of Russian Roulette.

[Xiander]

Why is swarm pronounced "suarm", but sword as "sord"?

Because spelling and pronunciation do not necessarily follow each other. Put in another way: You cannot deduct how to pronounce a word solely from the way it is spelled.

My professor in phonology presented us with an example of this: Fish could just as well be spelled Ghoti.

Think on that one for a while. :smallwink:

[Savannah]

My professor in phonology presented us with an example of this: Fish could just as well be spelled Ghoti.

Except that it can't. The "gh" that makes a "f" sound is always at the end of words, and there are similar objections for the other parts. Position within a word and relative to other letters is a very important part of pronunciation -- no one would ever consider reading "ghoti" as "fish".

[Ravens_cry]

I had a dream where I had to pay a friends bar tab unexpectedly as they dined and dashed.
Great friends, eh?
While trying to explain how I couldn't pay, I said I was "living knickers to garters" as an idiom with the same basic meaning as "living hand to mouth." basically, no extra money beyond that for the necessities.
Actually,I believe I said "nickels to garters" but I meant knickers.
My question is, does this idiom actually exit or did I, literally, dream it up?

[Dogmantra]

My professor in phonology presented us with an example of this: Fish could just as well be spelled Ghoti.
This "trick" bugs me.

GH is only pronounced F after an OU and at the end of words (mostly, though adding a suffix, like roughage) and even then not always (dough, bough etc). Then TI is only really pronounced SH when part of the -tion ending.

Take a bunch of things out of context and you can make them do whatever you want.

[Dr.Epic]

Do doughnuts ever wish they could eat people?

[Xiander]

Except that it can't. The "gh" that makes a "f" sound is always at the end of words, and there are similar objections for the other parts. Position within a word and relative to other letters is a very important part of pronunciation -- no one would ever consider reading "ghoti" as "fish".


This "trick" bugs me.

GH is only pronounced F after an OU and at the end of words (mostly, though adding a suffix, like roughage) and even then not always (dough, bough etc). Then TI is only really pronounced SH when part of the -tion ending.

Take a bunch of things out of context and you can make them do whatever you want.

All this is perfectly correct, and I agree with all of it. The point is not that we can spell stuff however we want by taking stuff out of context. The point is that "GH" is sometimes pronounced "F" and "T" does not always make a T-sound. These simple facts leads straight to the conclusion that spelling does not dictate pronunciation.

In short: Of course no one thinks fish when they see the constellation kghotip. But some words, like Chameleon, defy the normal rules of pronunciation.

[pffh]

Why are bats called bats? They look nothing like bats.

[Siosilvar]

Why are bats called bats? They look nothing like bats.

Because of verbs. Bat: to hit. Bat: to flutter.

More importantly, why are homonyms? Crazy people, you don't need to use the same words over and over again, there are plenty of letter combinations that look like words that aren't in use.

[Traab]

Because of verbs. Bat: to hit. Bat: to flutter.

More importantly, why are homonyms? Crazy people, you don't need to use the same words over and over again, there are plenty of letter combinations that look like words that aren't in use.

What about palindromes? Why create words like racecar? is it intentional? Or did they just happen to work out that way? Phrases are different, I dont count things like,

"Do nine men interpret?" "Nine men," I nod.

as odd because thats intentionally setup to be a palindrome, to me its all about the single words.

[Lord Raziere]

You men Ask That Guy?

Yes, and to accompany him…..the Ebon Dragon.

:smallamused: hehehe….. Ask The Ebon Dragon….

Yes.

[Frozen_Feet]

Do doughnuts ever wish they could eat people?

No, because they don't think.

Though I guess a doughnut could become a tsukumogami if it lasted for a century, those have a habit of wishing to eat people. But it would take some mighty preservatives.

[Elemental]

The preservatives required exist.
I just have one question... Does the doughnut have to be in good shape?

[Grinner]

If a person must train with a skydiver before becoming a skydiver himself, who first invented the practice?

Militaries are the first to come to mind. But, really, what soldier would actually leap from a plane, even on orders?

[Kobold-Bard]

If a person must train with a skydiver before becoming a skydiver himself, who first invented the practice?

Militaries are the first to come to mind. But, really, what soldier would actually leap from a plane, even on orders?

Some sort of deranged adrenaline junkie in the age before health & safety?

[Karoht]

From wiki:

The history of skydiving starts with Andre-Jacques Garnerin who made successful parachute jumps from a hot-air balloon in 1797. The military developed parachuting technology as a way to save aircrews from emergencies aboard balloons and aircraft in flight, later as a way of delivering soldiers to the battlefield. Early competitions date back to the 1930s, and it became an international sport in 1952.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skydiving
Note that the entry says 'successful' jumps. :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

Why do inflammable and flammable mean the same thing, while sane and insane are opposites?
Also, completely unrelated, if you hear a lot of a person talking, say watching a TV show or a comedian,does your head voice, the one you hear when you think in-loud* sound like that person? I know mine does, my brain goes all Alton Brown after a 'Good Eats' binge.
*as opposed to out-loud

[TheThan]

Related to your last question. How long did it take for early man to figure out what was safe to eat and what wasnt? Did someone pick up say, a carrot, and eat the leaves, then after that was terrible, eat the root? I know there are some edible plants that have poisonous parts, who convinced their buddies to try the rest after the first guy died or got horribly ill?
Caveman 1: “bet you can eat that.”
Caveman 2: “dunno, it doesn’t look too good.”
Caveman 1: “go on give it a try, whats the worst that can happen?”

Now I’ve got one.
In space, where there’s no gravity, do women need bras for support?
If I ever get the chance to meet a (Female) astronaut, I am totally asking this.

[Ravens_cry]

Now I’ve got one.
In space, where there’s no gravity, do women need bras for support?
If I ever get the chance to meet a (Female) astronaut, I am totally asking this.
Well, one thing is for sure, if your hair is long enough, everyone gets eighties hair.

[Grinner]

Now I’ve got one.
In space, where there’s no gravity, do women need bras for support?
If I ever get the chance to meet a (Female) astronaut, I am totally asking this.

Here's a question: Why do women even wear bras? It seems odd that biology would require them.

[H Birchgrove]

Here's a question: Why do women even wear bras? It seems odd that biology would require them.

Imagine women without them doing sports or other physical activities.

It's not that much different from men "having" to wear underpants.

[razark]

In space, where there’s no gravity, do women need bras for support?
If I ever get the chance to meet a (Female) astronaut, I am totally asking this.
I'm not sure if they need them, but yes, they do wear them. They are considered "space flight hardware", just like a spacesuit, the space station, legos, or anything else that is taken into orbit. NASA keeps detailed engineering drawings of them on file.

[Grinner]

Imagine women without them doing sports or other physical activities.

It's not that much different from men "having" to wear underpants.

I dunno. African tribesmen seem to get along just fine.

You know what. I've a martial arts class tomorrow, so I'll try it out and report back.

[Ravens_cry]

I dunno. African tribesmen seem to get along just fine.

You know what. I've a martial arts class tomorrow, so I'll try it out and report back.

Let's just say a mass swinging on a fleshy pendulum tends to cause imbalances.
Also, bruising of said masses, which are tender as is.

[TheThan]

I'm not sure if they need them, but yes, they do wear them. They are considered "space flight hardware", just like a spacesuit, the space station, legos, or anything else that is taken into orbit. NASA keeps detailed engineering drawings of them on file.

Well I'm more wondering if the lack of gravity would provide sufficient "lift" and "support" to render the bra redundant.

[razark]

Well I'm more wondering if the lack of gravity would provide sufficient "lift" and "support" to render the bra redundant.
I imagine that without gravity to provide guidance, things would get a bit uncomfortably bouncy, so the sports bra is probably very useful. It can also be good if a t-shirt floats up.

[Savannah]

Here's a question: Why do women even wear bras? It seems odd that biology would require them.

Culture. Really, that's the main reason. Now, depending on how you're built, bras can make you more comfortable by preventing your breasts from bouncing all around (really not fun), but they aren't necessary for survival (and, in fact, can be really annoying, even when properly fitted).

[TheThan]

the sports bra is probably very useful. It can also be good if a t-shirt floats up.

You know, I never considered that little bit of the idea. Must ponder it some more...

*wanders off pondering*

[Ravens_cry]

Culture. Really, that's the main reason. Now, depending on how you're built, bras can make you more comfortable by preventing your breasts from bouncing all around (really not fun), but they aren't necessary for survival (and, in fact, can be really annoying, even when properly fitted).

Also aesthetics. Even if it is debatable if they prevent sagging, they do lift what is sagging, creating at least an illusion of a more youthful appearance.

[Eldan]

As for why Tribesmen don't wear them, I'd think diet plays a role in that. On a more scarce diet with less fat and probably generally fewer calories and more physical activity, I'd imagine the assets in question would be less pronounced.

After all, humans are built to be walking pretty much perpetually all day.

[The Succubus]

Arthur C Clarke once pondered this very question in Rendevous with Rama. Apparently, while generously endowed women are distraction enough, weightless apparently causes certain sympathetic movements and vibrations. At least one serious space accident is thought to have been caused due to "crew distraction" in this manner. Wish I had the actual quote here in front of me....:smallwink:

[Dogmantra]

Why do inflammable and flammable mean the same thing, while sane and insane are opposites?

Because insane has added the "in" prefix to make it the opposite of sane, whereas flammable and inflammable are from to different words. Flammable from "flame", meaning fire, and inflammable from "inflame", meaning to catch fire.

[GolemsVoice]

Why does the German language have a word for insane, but not for sane? On the other hand, why do the English have no word for Schadenfreude? I'm sure the English aren't less schadenfreudig than the Germans, why didn't they invent a word for it?

[Dogmantra]

Why does the German language have a word for insane, but not for sane? On the other hand, why do the English have no word for Schadenfreude? I'm sure the English aren't less schadenfreudig than the Germans, why didn't they invent a word for it?

We do have a word for it, we call it schadenfreude. We are not an inventive language :P

[Elemental]

Well, we have words for it...
It means something about joyful harm, right?
My apologies, I used Google Translate, the German dictionary is upstairs, and I've got a laptop on my lap and it's getting late.

[pffh]

Well, we have words for it...
It means something about joyful harm, right?
My apologies, I used Google Translate, the German dictionary is upstairs, and I've got a laptop on my lap and it's getting late.

It basically means laughing at others misfortune.

[Elemental]

That makes a lot more sense.

I suppose the real question is:
Why can't English make up its mind as to which language it wants to be based on?
I already know the answer, it's a hobby of mine, but I want to hear other people's opinions.

Edit: Also, why do I keep getting words confused when typing?

[Yora]

The thing with english is, that it started as a pidgin language from lots of different people with different languages settling in a rather small area in relatively short time. First there were the Brittons, then came the anglo-saxons, followed by vikings from Denmark and Sweden, and then came the French who took over upper class society. I don't know the hard facts about the origin of the english language, but I assume that it came into being when people of the different ethnic groups had to deal with each other and picked up words from each others languages. English grammar is also rediculously simple when compared to German or French, so they were probably also talking like "Me Tarzan, you Jane" for a very long time until at some point there was a sizable pool of words with a simple grammar that most poeple could speak with. But naturally, that would be a rather "primitive" language that is mostly used to communicate very simple day to day things. If you wanted to talk about complicated things, you'd probably talked in Latin or French.

If you ever learned a foreign language, there's a point where you start to be able to communicate but only know a basic vocabulary, so you often say "can I have something to write on" or "where is the next shop where I can buy bread". And I think english never really developed much beyond that point. Which makes it such a great language for other people to learn.

Now German has the added complication of compound words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB_9W9csP8k#t=12s). In a sense, compound words are not exactly new words, but just a way to combine existing words in a sentence. English does that as well when they speak, but they keep the words separate when when they write it. Pferdekutsche and horse carriage are exactly the same thing (except that you have to alter the ending of Pferd/horse if it describes the carriage). However, since Germans are used to such words, we often actually make up new words that only include two or three of the most important words of a longer sequence of words. Schadenfreude is in fact "Freude über das Unglück anderer" (delight over the misfortune of others). If you translate it directly, it's only "Misfortune Delight" which doesn't really make much sense. It only makes sense if someone once explained to you the concept, because much of the important information from the description has been dropped.
German writers invented lots of really awsome words that way, but pretty much always as part of a longer text that explains the concept. You could do the same in other languages as well, but it probably sounds weird and artifical. As you combine words in that way all the time, I assume german writers feel much more natural about making up new ones.

And we have created so many great ones. "At the same time I commiserate and condemn you - I bet the Germans have a word for this"

I think we should start a new "Mussings about language" thread, those are always very entertaining.

[Grinner]

The thing with english is, that it started as a pidgin language from lots of different people with different languages settling in a rather small area in relatively short time.

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." ~ James D. Nicoll

[Tebryn]

Why does the German language have a word for insane, but not for sane? On the other hand, why do the English have no word for Schadenfreude? I'm sure the English aren't less schadenfreudig than the Germans, why didn't they invent a word for it?

We call it Trolling.

[Grinner]

While we're on the topic on languages, how weird are they? They're learned so well that they actually become integrated into a person's consciousness.


German writers invented lots of really awsome words that way, but pretty much always as part of a longer text that explains the concept. You could do the same in other languages as well, but it probably sounds weird and artifical. As you combine words in that way all the time, I assume german writers feel much more natural about making up new ones.

Actually, English writers sometimes use compound words. Or portmanteaus, in other cases.

[Goosefeather]

Which makes it [English] such a great language for other people to learn.

We do our best to complicate the issue with our wonderfully non-phonetic pronunciation system =P

And phrasal verbs are, I've been informed by French and Spanish friends, a massive pain to learn - probably not so much for a German speaker though, given that you have separable verbs, which is a pretty similar concept.

On the other hand, our conjugation is easy, bar a couple of oddities, we barely use cases or subjunctives any more, and we completely avoid grammatical gender, all of which vastly simplifies the task of learning it.

We do have a very extensive vocabulary though, given the bastardised nature of the language, and the preponderance of synonyms of different origins means they acquire different nuances over time. Take 'kingly' (Germanic), 'royal' (French) and 'regal' (Latinate). Each has slightly different connotations in meaning, while French uses 'royal' for all three, and German uses 'königlich'.*

* It's been a while since I last studied German, but I don't remember there being any other synonyms for it - correct me if I'm wrong though! :smallsmile:

[GolemsVoice]

We do have a word for it, we call it schadenfreude. We are not an inventive language

Fair enough I guess :smallbiggrin:

Next question: do you think the US government, or any government for that matter, has plans for an alien attack? The thought really struck me while watching Battle: Los Angeles. Do they call their officers and say "We got an R-42, open envelopes labeled ET-57/C!"?

[Eldan]

You probably wouldn't use "königlich" for what "regal" means. As in "regal bearing", I mean. "Majestätisch" (majestic) maybe. Or "hoheitsvoll", which, translates literally to something like highnessfull. Full of highness.

[Karoht]

Fair enough I guess :smallbiggrin:

Next question: do you think the US government, or any government for that matter, has plans for an alien attack? The thought really struck me while watching Battle: Los Angeles. Do they call their officers and say "We got an R-42, open envelopes labeled ET-57/C!"?
I think they have a plan the same way most people have a plan for zombie invasion. They have some general ideas of what they think they will do, a plan a, b, c, maybe even d, but all of the above likely are similar proceedures to what they would do in the event of an air raid or mass panic.
Good chance they would have a use of force directive, or just apply the current one that works on people and say 'do this to them' and point vaguely in the aliens direction.

I also imagine the US nuclear retaliation directives apply to all kinds of attackers, not merely the old communist targets. In other words, DEFCON still applies even if the attacker/target is not of this earth.

[Matthias2207]

This question has bothered me for a very long time now:
Why do human males have nipples?
I once heard it has something to do with the amount of estrogen in the womb. Every human is supposed to be female until later in the pregnancy, or something like that. Still, what is the evolutionary advantage to having nipples? It would be confusing for other males if a male has something only females are supposed to have. They try to copulate with the male, are disappointed if he turns out to be male, kill him, end of the line for male nipples. Right?

[Ravens_cry]

Well, there is no disadvantage to men having nipples, so they never got selected out.
It's why a lot of genetic errors abound that are recessive. They only cause trouble when they get two copies, so a carrier, someone with only a single copy, has no net disadvantage and keeps making kids who can also get the gene.
In some cases, like sickle cell anaemia, the single copy's effect is actually a net advantage.
Incidentally, this also explains the incest taboo.
If closely related couples couple, they are much more likely to have their recessive and otherwise harmless errors meet up and express in their off spring, leading to disadvantaged offspring who are themselves less likely breed.
There is a bit of the "good lie" in all this in that it is not the complete picture, but it's a good start.

[AsteriskAmp]

Zurechnungsfähig?

[Ravens_cry]

Zurechnungsfähig?
Pardon? I sprechen no Deutsch.

[pffh]

Pardon? I sprechen no Deutsch.

Means sane.

[Karoht]

Don't forget about things like vestigal organs such as the appendix.

[Grinner]

This question has bothered me for a very long time now:
Why do human males have nipples?
I once heard it has something to do with the amount of estrogen in the womb. Every human is supposed to be female until later in the pregnancy, or something like that. Still, what is the evolutionary advantage to having nipples? It would be confusing for other males if a male has something only females are supposed to have. They try to copulate with the male, are disappointed if he turns out to be male, kill him, end of the line for male nipples. Right?

Through hearsay, I've learned that, in extreme circumstances, men have been known to lactate.

[pffh]

Through hearsay, I've learned that, in extreme circumstances, men have been known to lactate.

Men can be made to lactate. If I'm remembering it correctly simply suckling on them regularly will cause men to eventually produce small amounts of milk.

[Ravens_cry]

Means sane.

Interesting. Google Translate alternately translates it as both "sane" and "attribution capability". Putting on my etymological cap, this tells me the words component meaning is not just someone who is sane, but, more specifically, someone who can be blamed and praised, their actions and words taken with obvious intent, instead of dismissed as the ramblings of a mad man and not to be taken seriously.

[Eldan]

It's a legal term, actually. "Zurechnen", the verb, means more or less "to attribute to" or "to assign to". "Fähig" is "able". Basically, in court, you plead "unzurechnungsfähig", i.e. the Insanity Defence. Also, temporary insanity, or whatever the English term is. Someone who is not responsible for their own actions.

[pffh]

Interesting. Google Translate alternately translates it as both "sane" and "attribution capability". Putting on my etymological cap, this tells me the words component meaning is not just someone who is sane, but, more specifically, someone who can be blamed and praised, their actions and words taken with obvious intent, instead of dismissed as the ramblings of a mad man and not to be taken seriously.

Huh you would have a field day if you ever decided to learn Icelandic we have almost nothing but component words and almost any two words can be turned into component words except for funnily enough component word which would be samsett orð.

A fun example is: Vaðlaheiðarvegagerðarmannaverkfærageymsluskúrslykl akippuhringurinn which means roughly "The Vaðla hill roadworkers toolshed keyring ring" but can quite easily be made a lot longer by adding more adjectives or nouns.

[Ravens_cry]

It's a legal term, actually. "Zurechnen", the verb, means more or less "to attribute to" or "to assign to". "Fähig" is "able". Basically, in court, you plead "unzurechnungsfähig", i.e. the Insanity Defence. Also, temporary insanity, or whatever the English term is. Someone who is not responsible for their own actions.
Exactly! Another English translation might be the legalize definition of "competent."

[Frozen_Feet]

Well, we have words for it...
It means something about joyful harm, right?

And that's the punchline. Both in German and Finnish and several other languages I know of, the term for Schadenfreude is simply a compound word made of local equivalents to "joy" and "harm". (The Finnish word, "vahingonilo", literally translates to "joy of harm".)

So, it boggles the mind that for some reason, English opts to borrow a foreign compound word instead of just using their own, existing words as a compound.

[Ravens_cry]

The concept is hardly foreign, but schadenfreude is such a fun word to say and English just loves its loan words.

[Goosefeather]

We've also pinched 'Angst', 'Weltschmerz' and 'Sehnsucht', though you don't come across the latter very often.

Must be something to do with the German psychological state... :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

I still don't get why you had to grab Angst, really. Fear is a perfectly useful word. As for Sehnsucht... Desire? Longing? Craving? Yearning? What's wrong with those?

[Ravens_cry]

I still don't get why you had to grab Angst, really. Fear is a perfectly useful word.
Why, yes it is, but it doesn't capture what angst is in the slightest, at least in English.

[Kobold-Bard]

I still don't get why you had to grab Angst, really. Fear is a perfectly useful word. As for Sehnsucht... Desire? Longing? Craving? Yearning? What's wrong with those?

We're like language kleptomaniacs, we take them not because we need them, but because they're there and we just need to have them.

[Dogmantra]

Angst (in English) doesn't really mean fear, at least not any more. Fear is more "ahhh, a bear is coming", angst is more like anxiety, which is less... fight or flight?

[Goosefeather]

Their German equivalents have a more specific, more... existential feeling, which bog-standard English words don't convey :smalltongue:

I guess it's mixture of both the standard exoticising effect of using a foreign word, and the German philosophical tradition (in my opinion, you and the Greeks are tied for the title of 'Nation With The Best Philosophers'!)

[Ravens_cry]

We're like language kleptomaniacs, we take them not because we need them, but because they're there and we just need to have them.
Darn tootin'! English is bastard, both in the genealogical and epithetic sense.

[Frozen_Feet]

Their German equivalents have a more specific, more... existential feeling, which bog-standard English words don't convey :smalltongue:

It's statements like these that convince me that English-speaking peoples are secretly ashamed of their own language. :smalltongue:

[Goosefeather]

It's statements like these that convince me that English-speaking peoples are secretly ashamed of their own language. :smalltongue:

Haha, I think it's more that foreign words sound exotic and interesting, no matter what language you are native in.

Take the word 'nap', which conjures up the image of a short sleep, quite commonplace and dull - but the word 'siesta', which to a Spanish person means exactly the same as 'nap' to an anglophone, sounds to us all exotic and funky!

'I've seen it already'. Ok, fine. 'Déjà vu'? OMGsodeep! :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

It's statements like these that convince me that English-speaking peoples are secretly ashamed of their own language. :smalltongue:
Nah, this extravagant melting pot commingling of tongues is English.
Without it, it's just Anglo Saxon.

[Eldan]

Goes both ways, by the way. German is full of English words. Everywhere.

[AsteriskAmp]

Pardon? I sprechen no Deutsch.
Du kann nicht Deutsch sprechen?

It's statements like these that convince me that English-speaking peoples are secretly ashamed of their own language. :smalltongue:
Everybody is to a certain point, ashamed of their own language.

Haha, I think it's more that foreign words sound exotic and interesting, no matter what language you are native in.

Take the word 'nap', which conjures up the image of a short sleep, quite commonplace and dull - but the word 'siesta', which to a Spanish person means exactly the same as 'nap' to an anglophone, sounds to us all exotic and funky!

'I've seen it already'. Ok, fine. 'Déjà vu'? OMGsodeep! :smalltongue:
"Siesta" is the literal equivalent of nap. It's the exact word for nap, only in spanish. It doesn't even add any meaning, or context or anything, it's the exact equivalent, word in definition for word in definition.

Probably even worse, Spanish at least has idiomatic regional variations to it to define different naps. Like the one after breakfast, or after lunch, or before lunch. And English took the word they already had.

[Goosefeather]

"Siesta" is the literal equivalent of nap. It's the exact word for nap, only in spanish. It doesn't even add any meaning, or context or anything, it's the exact equivalent, word in definition for word in definition.

Probably even worse, Spanish at least has idiomatic regional variations to it to define different naps. Like the one after breakfast, or after lunch, or before lunch. And English took the word they already had.

In Spain at least, while 'una siesta' is indeed the exact literal equivalent of 'a nap', 'la siesta' is more specific, and refers to the afternoon nap taken between 2pm and 5pm. By extension, it can also refer to that timeslot, when most shops close, and you can't get anything useful done :smalltongue:

[AsteriskAmp]

In Spain at least, while 'una siesta' is indeed the exact literal equivalent of 'a nap', 'la siesta' is more specific, and refers to the afternoon nap taken between 2pm and 5pm. By extension, it can also refer to that timeslot, when most shops close, and you can't get anything useful done :smalltongue:

Damn the RAE and it being Spain based!

[Goosefeather]

That's something else different about English - the lack of an institution like the RAE, or the Académie Française, which has official control over language usage. Is there such a thing in Germany?

I guess it's another proof of our complete laissez-faire attitude to what enters our language. Or allez-prendre, or allez-voler, if you like :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Du kann nicht Deutsch sprechen?

Nein, ich kann nicht Deutsch sprechen*.
It is a language I hope to learn though.
*No, I can not speak German.

[AsteriskAmp]

That's something else different about English - the lack of an institution like the RAE, or the Académie Française.

I guess it's another proof of our complete laissez-faire attitude to what enters our language. Or laissez-prendre, or laissez-voler, if you like :smalltongue:

The lack of those things is probably for the better.
The RAE makes more issues than solves them, heck, overzealous Spanish teachers sometimes disagree with it despite overzealousness being the need for it to even exist.

At least Spanish countries don't have the no non-French words restrictions France has.


Nein, ich kann nicht Deutsch sprechen*.
It is a language I hope to learn though.
*No, I can not speak german.
Gut, Deutsch ist ein wunderbar sprache.
One day I'll finish my German lessons and take the Sprachdiplom

[Eldan]

That's something else different about English - the lack of an institution like the RAE, or the Académie Française, which has official control over language usage. Is there such a thing in Germany?

I guess it's another proof of our complete laissez-faire attitude to what enters our language. Or allez-prendre, or allez-voler, if you like :smalltongue:

We have the people from Duden who hand out the official spelling of words every so often. Of course, they have to bring out a different version of the dictionary for Switzerland because we have so called Helvetisms.

Basically: Switzerland has its own family of weird and strange dialects. However, we also have our version of standard written German, which is very different from what we speak. It has the same rules as German standard German, except that we have official license to add a few handfuls of our own words to it. Mostly French words. One I remember is that the western cantons use the word "Camion" for "Lastwagen", a truck.

Similarly, the Germans decided to Germanize the spelling of (Teutonize? Allemandize? Who knows) French and other foreign words. As French and Italian are some of thee languages spoken in Switzerland, we refused, so we are officially allowed to use the spellings "Mayonnaise" instead of "Majonäse" and "Spaghetti" instead of "Spagetti" as the Germans now spells those words. Those barbarians.

Edit: There's also the Idioticon for Swiss German, which is weird, since, of course, Swiss German has no written version.

[Goosefeather]

The lack of those things is probably for the better.
The RAE makes more issues than solves them, heck, overzealous Spanish teachers sometimes disagree with it despite overzealousness being the need for it to even exist.


I'm still not quite over the whole recent tilde (http://www.rae.es/rae/gestores/gespub000018.nsf/(voAnexos)/arch8100821B76809110C12571B80038BA4A/$File/CuestionesparaelFAQdeconsultas.htm) issue (points 4 and 5) :smalltongue: I'm trying to learn the language here, please don't go changing it half-way through!



Gut, Deutsch ist ein wunderbar sprache.
One day I'll finish my German lessons and take the Sprachdiplom

I recently decided to pick up German again, after 5 years of not speaking it (put off by a terrible teacher). So far, my only progress has been to download lots of German music to listen to and pick up random vocab and structures!

[AsteriskAmp]

I'm still not quite over the whole recent tilde (http://www.rae.es/rae/gestores/gespub000018.nsf/(voAnexos)/arch8100821B76809110C12571B80038BA4A/$File/CuestionesparaelFAQdeconsultas.htm) issue (points 4 and 5) :smalltongue: I'm trying to learn the language here, please don't go changing it half-way through!
You've just experienced a minor change, ask Chileans about the Bello Grammar...

But most of those changes were somewhat logical, and try to simplify the language, and it isn't like the tilde is completely unintuitive, it's got only 3 rules, and now that there are no monosyllabic exceptions, the only odd cases are those created by hiato and diptongo, both of which are easy to spot.

Spanish really is annoying in terms of synonyms, paronyms, homonyms and homophones, where the vocab is simply too insanely mixed, big and strict to even make sense at times. Not made easy by the RAE's idea that changes should take decades and refuse to incorporate new meanings and drop outdated ones, or accept anything that is not from Spain. Or worse, when it does accept them and "blue jean" becomes "bluyin", a word not even overzealous Spanish teachers, pedants, or university entry exams use.


I recently decided to pick up German again, after 5 years of not speaking it (put off by a terrible teacher). So far, my only progress has been to download lots of German music to listen to and pick up random vocab and structures!
Most of a language is random vocab and structures though.

[Goosefeather]

Or worse, when it does accept them and "blue jean" becomes "bluyin", a word not even overzealous Spanish teachers, pedants, or university entry exams use.


'Bluyin' is just the tip of the iceberg, once you get into Spanglish and Llanito territory.

I get endless amusement from Gibraltarian words like 'chakarau', which apparently means 'bouncer' (from 'chucker-out' in English), or the replacement of the word 'cachondeo' (possibly one of those words mainly used in Spain) with 'cachonfinga' - (dedo, finger... )

I wish I were making this up (http://www.aboutourrock.com/dictionary/a.htm)!



Most of a language is random vocab and structures though.

True, but right now I'm at a point where I can tell you all about how the shark hides in the ocean so no-one sees his tears, hence why it is salty, but I can't satisfactorily explain what my plans are for this evening! :smalltongue:

[AsteriskAmp]

'Bluyin' is just the tip of the iceberg, once you get into Spanglish and Llanito territory.

I get endless amusement from Gibraltarian words like 'chakarau', which apparently means 'bouncer' (from 'chucker-out' in English), or the replacement of the word 'cachondeo' (possibly one of those words mainly used in Spain) with 'cachonfinga' - (dedo, finger... )

I wish I were making this up (http://www.aboutourrock.com/dictionary/a.htm)!
Bluyín is academy approved though. (http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=BLUYIN)

[Maralais]

That's something else different about English - the lack of an institution like the RAE, or the Académie Française, which has official control over language usage. Is there such a thing in Germany?

I guess it's another proof of our complete laissez-faire attitude to what enters our language. Or allez-prendre, or allez-voler, if you like :smalltongue:

You made me cringe by saying Académie Française, I think their attitude of "WE decide which word is French or not" seems so wrong to me, especially when the youth is speaking something completely different.

[Douglas]

Fair enough I guess :smallbiggrin:

Next question: do you think the US government, or any government for that matter, has plans for an alien attack? The thought really struck me while watching Battle: Los Angeles. Do they call their officers and say "We got an R-42, open envelopes labeled ET-57/C!"?
I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Such things could make interesting training exercises for command officers, and once the plan's been made why not keep it on file?

[GolemsVoice]

True, but right now I'm at a point where I can tell you all about how the shark hides in the ocean so no-one sees his tears, hence why it is salty, but I can't satisfactorily explain what my plans are for this evening!

Rammstein can help you there! Or, well, rather not, I'm afraid. Depends on the evening you want to have.

But I think that's how I picked up many English words too, back when I was young. I also played a lot of videogames in English and read some Warhammer 40k novels (without properly understanding anything) so my vocabulary was very specific. But hey, eviscerate is a fun word!

[Matthias2207]

Rammstein can help you there! Or, well, rather not, I'm afraid. Depends on the evening you want to have.

But I think that's how I picked up many English words too, back when I was young. I also played a lot of videogames in English and read some Warhammer 40k novels (without properly understanding anything) so my vocabulary was very specific. But hey, eviscerate is a fun word!

But English is so much easier to learn from videogames and music than German.
Pretty much every game is in English and the only German music in my collection is an album of Peter Fox and '99 Luftballons'.
I've heard of Rammstein... It's seems to be very popular among a particular group of people at my school. I don't really like them, so I probably won't like Rammstein, although I've never heard it.

[Grinner]

I've heard of Rammstein... It's seems to be very popular among a particular group of people at my school. I don't really like them, so I probably won't like Rammstein, although I've never heard it.

They're quite...dramatic...and undeniably cynical.

[Eldan]

And the texts are surprisingly poetical, once you really listen to them. Quite a few double meanings and archaic words, too.

[pffh]

And the texts are surprisingly poetical, once you really listen to them. Quite a few double meanings and archaic words, too.

Hah yes I used to have a german teacher that loved Rammstein and had us translate and discuss their songs in class. That was awesome and it didn't hurt that Rammstein is one of my favorite bands :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Heh. Also, the Shark Song is totally useful: you learn about three dozen possible uses of the verb "halten" in figures of speech.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

But English is so much easier to learn from videogames and music than German.
Pretty much every game is in English and the only German music in my collection is an album of Peter Fox and '99 Luftballons'.
I've heard of Rammstein... It's seems to be very popular among a particular group of people at my school. I don't really like them, so I probably won't like Rammstein, although I've never heard it.

Oh, for videogames in German, if you have TES4:Oblivion, get the Nehrim mod. It's fully voice-acted in German, but you can get a version that is sub-titles in English, and also changes 99% of the in-game literature to English, if you want.

[Riverdance]

There is a very good Call of Duty mod which makes the entire game into Star Wars, new maps and everything. It was designed by a German team and is probably available in German. Just google "cod star wars mod"

[Goosefeather]

I'm only just really getting into Rammstein, but swiftly discovering how much more there is to them than just Du Hast and Amerika.

They do seem to love their wordplay, which is always good when you're trying to learn a language. And yes, surprisingly poetical. Engel and Haifisch immediately spring to mind. They may be cynical, but that just leads to funkier ways of expressing their humour - Links-2-3-4 deserves a special mention for the way it handles its 'Germans aren't evil' message.

Plus pyromania :smallbiggrin:

[The Second]

Question: Has anyone ever tried to get to the center of a tootsie pop without biting, and if so, how many licks did it take?

I remember trying this as a kid, but, much like the owl, I could never do it without biting.

[Elemental]

I wouldn't know. Being Australian, I've never had one. But, I'll try and find an answer. Perhaps an experiment should be set up?
Wait... The University of Cambridge beat me to it.
As did half a dozen different universities.

Wow, that is a wide range of results...
Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tootsie_Pops#Rumors_and_set_attempts_for_Tootsie_P op

In conclusion, I'm going to say it varies from person to person.

[GolemsVoice]

They do seem to love their wordplay, which is always good when you're trying to learn a language. And yes, surprisingly poetical. Engel and Haifisch immediately spring to mind. They may be cynical, but that just leads to funkier ways of expressing their humour - Links-2-3-4 deserves a special mention for the way it handles its 'Germans aren't evil' message.

The song "Los" is basically one huge play on words.

[Story Time]

Question: Has anyone ever tried to get to the center of a tootsie pop without biting, and if so, how many licks did it take?

Six hundred and eleven licks.

Yes, it does vary based on the size of the tongue, the type of lick, and the...ability of the individual. Try tying ( not just folding ) a tootsie pop stick with only your mouth. Almost certainly someone will be impressed.

[Riverdance]

I wouldn't know. Being Australian, I've never had one. But, I'll try and find an answer. Perhaps an experiment should be set up?
Wait... The University of Cambridge beat me to it.
As did half a dozen different universities.

Wow, that is a wide range of results...
Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tootsie_Pops#Rumors_and_set_attempts_for_Tootsie_P op

In conclusion, I'm going to say it varies from person to person.

Suddenly I can't help but read everything in an Australian accent.:smallbiggrin:

[Grinner]

Why do we put milk on cereal?

Edit: While researching the matter, I came across a caption of a picture that made me realize that perhaps not every country follows this practice.

This is what I meant:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Spoonful_of_cereal.jpg/640px-Spoonful_of_cereal.jpg

[Ravens_cry]

Because it makes them easier to chew, and it's more filling with milk?
Also, a lot of them are designed so that milk, or at least liquid, brings out their flavour more.

[Xuc Xac]

Originally, the purpose of the milk was to add fat and protein to make the cereal a more balanced meal. You could drink the milk separately for the same nutritional benefit, but the cereal would be dry and harder to swallow. The same reason you put butter and jam on toast instead of eating it plain and then swallowing a pat of butter and a spoonful of jam. Early American colonists used to pour cream on bowls of popcorn and eat it with a spoon like cereal for the same reason. Now, it's just traditional.

[Story Time]

Woah-woah-woah!!! Milk in pop-corn!?

:smalleek:

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwww! :smallyuk:

No wonder I always eat my cereal dry.


A better question: Why do women oppress cultures by trying to insert strawberries at every meal? ( Including the breakfast cereals! )

[Elemental]

Well, admittedly, strawberries are known to be delicious.

[Xuc Xac]

Woah-woah-woah!!! Milk in pop-corn!?


Milk in popcorn isn't any stranger than milk on puffed rice or puffed wheat or flakes of those same grains.

[Yora]

I'm only just really getting into Rammstein, but swiftly discovering how much more there is to them than just Du Hast and Amerika.

They do seem to love their wordplay, which is always good when you're trying to learn a language. And yes, surprisingly poetical. Engel and Haifisch immediately spring to mind.
You might enjoy Knorkator. Very good music, very silly lyrics, and lots of playing with language.
I think they have put most of their videos on youtube.

[Story Time]

Milk in popcorn isn't any stranger than milk on puffed rice or puffed wheat or flakes of those same grains.

I'm not sure which is scarier. The fact that I think you're probably right, or that it's weird enough to try at least once.

:smallfrown:

Some brown sugar might make it interesting...

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not sure which is scarier. The fact that I think you're probably right, or that it's weird enough to try at least once.

:smallfrown:

Some brown sugar might make it interesting...
It is pretty good. It tends to get soggy very quickly, at least with air-popped corn, but it's just as flavourful, if not more so, than Rice Krispies.

[Story Time]

It is pretty good. It tends to get soggy very quickly, at least with air-popped corn, but it's just as flavourful, if not more so, than Rice Krispies.

If I do this will someone do it with me? It's just so...

Ew. :smallyuk: Y'know. That automatic reaction.

[Grinner]

If I do this will someone do it with me? It's just so...

Ew. :smallyuk: Y'know. That automatic reaction.

What sort of popcorn? :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

If I do this will someone do it with me? It's just so...

Ew. :smallyuk: Y'know. That automatic reaction.
We're not talking salted and buttered popcorn here, or whatever that stuff they add to microwave popcorn, we're talking fresh from the popper, no additions except in the bowl, popcorn.
Your reaction does not surprise me, it is a human instinct to reject unfamiliar foods, it is a safety protocol for omnivores, but really, it's good. Not exactly filling, but good.

[Story Time]

So my Yucky Instinct is a safety mechanism? :smallconfused:

Interesting thought.

Anyway...air popped. This means...using hot air to pop kernels? I don't have one of those. I'd have to use a pot and probably oil?

[Grinner]

Anyway...air popped. This means...using hot air to pop kernels? I don't have one of those. I'd have to use a pot and probably oil?

Sounds good.

[Ravens_cry]

So my Yucky Instinct is a safety mechanism? :smallconfused:

Interesting thought.

Think about it. As an omnivore, we can eat anything, but a lot of things are trying to not be eaten. Herbivores evolved immunities to the toxins of the plants they consume, but tend to restrict themselves to a fairly limited variety. An extreme version of this is Koalas eating almost exclusively eucalyptus leaves, which to other critters are very toxic.
Us omnivorous apelings move around a lot, so we couldn't evolve specific immunities, but we can watch what our fellow apelings eat and basically use them as taste testers when we are very young.
If they don't die or get sick, chowing down is probably A-OK.


Anyway...air popped. This means...using hot air to pop kernels? I don't have one of those. I'd have to use a pot and probably oil?
Yes, but there is another way. Do you have a microwave? Get a a soup bowl and sprinkle a few kernels on the bottom. Cover the mouth of the bowl with a teaplate or saucer and nuke for 30 seconds, than 15 seconds at a time. You should hear popping. After a while, you'll have a bowl of tender popped corn.
Be careful when removing the saucer, hot steam inside.
A microwavable glass bowl would probably be best, so you can see when it's done.
I actually like this better than the dedicated machine air popped, as the steam released during popping is trapped in the bowl, meaning the popped kernels are more tender and flavorful.
It's also much more convenient when you want some just for yourself and not a gallon bucket of the stuff.

[Xuc Xac]

Your reaction does not surprise me, it is a human instinct to reject unfamiliar foods, it is a safety protocol for omnivores, but really, it's good.

Little kids will put anything in their mouths, including stuff that isn't food. People who think escargot is disgusting will happily pay premium prices for clams and oysters. People who would never eat fried crickets will happily suck on the head of a crawfish before ripping the legs off to get at the tail meat. Some people will happily eat venison but not understand how a horse could be considered edible. Lobster and shrimp used to be cheap "poor people food" that no one would eat unless they were starving, but now they are expensive delicacies. Learning what is "disgusting" is a result of culture, not instinct.

[Eldan]

Little kids will put anything in their mouths, including stuff that isn't food. People who think escargot is disgusting will happily pay premium prices for clams and oysters. People who would never eat fried crickets will happily suck on the head of a crawfish before ripping the legs off to get at the tail meat. Some people will happily eat venison but not understand how a horse could be considered edible. Lobster and shrimp used to be cheap "poor people food" that no one would eat unless they were starving, but now they are expensive delicacies. Learning what is "disgusting" is a result of culture, not instinct.

Fun fact: there was a law in the 19th century in the city of Basel, which is on the rhine, which stated that you weren't allowed to feed your servants salmon more than three times per week.
Salmon's extinct now, in Switzerland.

[Eldan]

Little kids will put anything in their mouths, including stuff that isn't food. People who think escargot is disgusting will happily pay premium prices for clams and oysters. People who would never eat fried crickets will happily suck on the head of a crawfish before ripping the legs off to get at the tail meat. Some people will happily eat venison but not understand how a horse could be considered edible. Lobster and shrimp used to be cheap "poor people food" that no one would eat unless they were starving, but now they are expensive delicacies. Learning what is "disgusting" is a result of culture, not instinct.

Fun fact: there was a law in the 19th century in the city of Basel, which is on the rhine, which stated that you weren't allowed to feed your servants salmon more than three times per week.
Salmon's extinct now, in Switzerland.

[Yora]

Fun fact: there was a law in the 19th century in the city of Basel, which is on the rhine, which stated that you weren't allowed to feed your servants salmon more than three times per week.
Salmon's extinct now, in Switzerland.
You too? We had the same law in Lübeck, which is at the Baltic Sea. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Elemental]

If I remember correctly, there was a similar law in England.
But I think it referred to apprentices, not servants.

Fortunately, salmon isn't extinct in England, just not easy to fish out of the river. Hurrah for the History Channel!

Anyway, as far as I'm aware, we've never had any laws like that in Queensland.

[Story Time]

There is no popping corn in my entire house! :smalleek:

...groceries, then maybe testing popped corn kernels in milk.

[Karoht]

Little kids will put anything in their mouths, including stuff that isn't food. People who think escargot is disgusting will happily pay premium prices for clams and oysters. People who would never eat fried crickets will happily suck on the head of a crawfish before ripping the legs off to get at the tail meat. Some people will happily eat venison but not understand how a horse could be considered edible. Lobster and shrimp used to be cheap "poor people food" that no one would eat unless they were starving, but now they are expensive delicacies. Learning what is "disgusting" is a result of culture, not instinct.

I had to laugh at the notion that lobster and shrimp were considered poor people food. It's entirely true, I assure you, but it still made me laugh.
It wasn't until the maritimes fished their waters into oblivion that they realized that Lobster and other crustacians were making a comeback. Now they are largely considered a plentiful food source. However, as a result of overfishing and the destruction of the turtle populations, Jellifish are now making a comeback in record numbers. It is entirely probable that in our lifetime, jellifish will make the transition from delicacy to common food source. They are fully sustainable, they are easy to produce in farming stocks (unlike fish), and if handled correctly, 100% safe to eat.

PS-Fried Jellifish tastes like deep fried wonton, it's actually quite tasty. And it's very protein rich, or so I hear. They serve it at some chinese restaraunts, but not very commonly. And I think there is a warning on it, in case they don't remove all the barbs.

[Grinner]

It is entirely probable that in our lifetime, jellifish will make the transition from delicacy to common food source. They are fully sustainable, they are easy to produce in farming stocks (unlike fish), and if handled correctly, 100% safe to eat.

Some have proposed that idea to be the origin of this song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4UtbrbsrjY).

[Matthias2207]

Why feels ALL CAPS like screaming?

How do I write 7331 in non-7331? LEET? LEEI?

And what's the proper use of the numbers in 7331? Or do we all just use them a lot, and hope people will understand?
1 6u355 4h15 15 h0w y0u 5h0u7d wr143 1n 7331, 8u4 1'm c0nfu53d 8y 1h3 u53 0f 4h3 4, 7 4nd 1.
4 could be A and t.
1 could be i and t
Or at least, that's how I used them here...

[pffh]

Why feels ALL CAPS like screaming?

How do I write 7331 in non-7331? LEET? LEEI?

And what's the proper use of the numbers in 7331? Or do we all just use them a lot, and hope people will understand?
1 6u355 4h15 15 h0w y0u 5h0u7d wr143 1n 7331, 8u4 1'm c0nfu53d 8y 1h3 u53 0f 4h3 4, 7 4nd 1.
4 could be A and t.
1 could be i and t
Or at least, that's how I used them here...

You got it backwards it's 1337 and it is indeed LEET. 4 is A and 7 is T and 1 is L.

And wow I didn't even know 13375P4K was still around considering that it is over a decade old I would have thought txt speak would have completely overtaken it.

Now excuse me while I go and purge myself of my 13 year old self again.

[Grinner]

And wow I didn't even know 13375P4K was still around considering that it is over a decade old I would have thought txt speak would have completely overtaken it.

Well, it's never really been practical for eased textual communication, and as an encryption method, it's about as effective as Pig Latin. Really, it's just used in jest anymore.

[Elemental]

Eyhay! Iglatinpay isyay ayay erfectlypay acceptableyay encryptionyay ethodmay. Unfortunatelyyay, onlyyay enwhay okenspay.

In my opinion, Leet Speak is just annoying. I can never remember which number means what letter. And how do you communicate large numbers in it?


Anyway, moving on from novelty languages, but not very far at all:
Why do people insist on constructing languages in an attempt to fix the problems that exist in existing languages?

[Goosefeather]

Anyway, moving on from novelty languages, but not very far at all:
Why do people insist on constructing languages in an attempt to fix the problems that exist in existing languages?

Real languages are full of irregularities, which are usually a massive bitch to learn. I guess some linguists just snapped one day :smalltongue:

Of course, perfection may be practical, but it's also dull, and a language's quirks are what give it character, in addition to being metonyms for its history, literature and evolution.

Besides, there are other reasons to create a new language. Wikipedia divides constructed languages into three categories:



Engineered languages (engelangs /ˈɛnd͡ʒlæŋz/), further subdivided into logical languages (loglangs), philosophical languages and experimental languages; devised for the purpose of experimentation in logic, philosophy, or linguistics;

Auxiliary languages (auxlangs) devised for international communication (also IALs, for International Auxiliary Language);

Artistic languages (artlangs) devised to create aesthetic pleasure or humorous effect, just for fun; usually secret languages and mystical languages are classified as artlangs

Exploring language can thus be a useful way of investigating the human psyche and condition.

[thubby]

I've got one.

gravity holds us to the earth, but the earth spins at something like 1,000mph. our momentum is directed away from the earth.

does this mean that moving counter to the earth's rotation would make you heavier?
and if that's right, how much more would stuff weigh if the earth didn't rotate?

[H Birchgrove]

Real languages are full of irregularities, which are usually a massive bitch to learn. I guess some linguists just snapped one day :smalltongue:


Besides, there are other reasons to create a new language. Wikipedia divides constructed languages into three categories:

Klingon (an artlang, I assume) was, as a by-product by making it so macho and guttural, constructed so it would filled with nearly as much irregularities as possible. :smalltongue:


Exploring language can thus be a useful way of investigating the human psyche and condition.

Indeed. :smallsmile:

Qapla'! ("Success!") :smallbiggrin:

[GolemsVoice]

I've got another one. Oh the ideas you get late at night.

How much time would it take a medieval printing press with moving letters to print a 1000 page book if they had only one press, but nothing else to worry about?

[Story Time]

gravity holds us to the earth, but the earth spins at something like 1,000mph. our momentum is directed away from the earth.

does this mean that moving counter to the earth's rotation would make you heavier?
and if that's right, how much more would stuff weigh if the earth didn't rotate?

The postulate is incomplete, unfortunately. Earth's atmosphere not only presses down on a person, it also presses in around them for certain buoyancy.

The rough trick to answer the question is, "The moon doesn't rotate. Calculate the mass difference between Moon and Earth; add that difference in gravity ( not mass ) to the moon." But without calculating additional forces like the Earth's electromagnetic field or atmosphere the equation will be incomplete.


Also, no popping corn for me, yet.

[razark]

"The moon doesn't rotate.
You might want to look into that a bit more.

[Eldan]

I've got another one. Oh the ideas you get late at night.

How much time would it take a medieval printing press with moving letters to print a 1000 page book if they had only one press, but nothing else to worry about?

From what I know, they'd have nearly a dozen people working on it, actually, A few on the presses and the rest setting the next few pages. So, with enough people, probably pretty quickly.

[GnomeFighter]

I've got another one. Oh the ideas you get late at night.

How much time would it take a medieval printing press with moving letters to print a 1000 page book if they had only one press, but nothing else to worry about?

Asumeing that the people working on it have everything to hand, are a full team and know what they are doing, not as long as you think.

First off you have loading the type. Beleave it or not a profesional type setter could load type faster than most touch typists (about 100 wpm). The plate would then be passed to someone else to load in to the press and ink. At the same time someone would load the paper on to the plate. The press would do two pages at once. You would then crank the press in and out, remove the paper. Whilst all of this was being done the next type tray would be set and inked. Asumeing that you have a few sets of type to speed things up and don't care about cleaning the type before putting it away for speed I would say you could probably manage one page every three mins, so 25 hours.

However in this time you could probably load the press with paper 3-4 times so in the same time you could probably print 3 1000 page books. If you were not loading and unloading the type, just re-inking and printing several pages, the time saveings are even more.

[GolemsVoice]

First off you have loading the type. Beleave it or not a profesional type setter could load type faster than most touch typists (about 100 wpm). The plate would then be passed to someone else to load in to the press and ink. At the same time someone would load the paper on to the plate. The press would do two pages at once. You would then crank the press in and out, remove the paper. Whilst all of this was being done the next type tray would be set and inked. Asumeing that you have a few sets of type to speed things up and don't care about cleaning the type before putting it away for speed I would say you could probably manage one page every three mins, so 25 hours.


Good thing I asked, that's FAST.

[Story Time]

You might want to look into that a bit more.

Okay, point accepted. But the technicality is so minor...

Hm. I'll try not to be bummed. Not over the thread, just in general.

[Yora]

You might want to look into that a bit more.

Depends on how you look at it. While the moon is tidally locked to the earth so the same side always faces earth, the moon does revolve around the earth. If you take earth as a fixed point, the moon does one rotation with every revolution. (Which is one per month, as compared to earths 28 per lunar month.)