>You control language, it doesn't control you.
>>41523954O is clearly the winner. It is the strongest. It has barely changed since it's second iteration. All hail O.
>>41523954>>You control language, it doesn't control youAn acid trip told me the oppositeMmm. It was like the whole world was a dictionary and everything that exists only exists cause it was written in that dictionary. Like theres the entry and its meaning and we exist only as a manifestation of that entry, as its meaning
>>41524284You might like the philosophy of constructivism.Goes something like, "a thing is true because you can construct it" - the inverse being, "something is false if you cannot construct it". It a perspective that gets used in mathematical analysis a lot. It goes against the classical binary perspective that "anything that isn't false, is true" which lets you prove all kinds of weird things through first-order non-contradiction that cannot ever actually exist in reality, not even in principle. It states that a proof must be something you can really create out of some elements. Those elements could be anything, concepts, matter and energy, whatever you want. The bottom line is that, analytical proof cannot just be a pure abstraction that has no reality. If it cannot actually do anything or be anything, then it isn't anything at all.
>>41523954is this chart commonly agreed upon? not throwing shade just have an interest in etymology
>>41524036Is "T" a joke to you?!
>>41523954the s /w origin looking kinda puffy
>>41523954This image in no way supports what you are trying to say
>>41524339nta but I've heard of Constructivism as an epistemology, centered around the interaction between subject (any thinking entity) and object (simply, anything that is not the latter). When you interpret that objects define subjects, you have empirism (or, sociologically, determinism). When you understand the opposite: subjects entirely defining objects, you get apriorism (as in, the subject already carries his potential a priori), sociologically idealism. Constructivism sees that both object and subject build upon each other, without establishing a starting point, for the object is rooted in history just as much as the subject carries his own preconceptions. It's the sociological theory of dialectics.A Constructivist view of that anon said would be: The whole world is a dictionary, but you read it in ways that retroactively change it. Less so following the entries (empirism), but neither controling the "language" (apriorism).
>>41524348Whoops, didn't see your post before sending mine. I've got a lot to read about the history of the alphabet, but I recall it is mostly accurate. The Proto-Sinaitic alphabet was quickly identified as Semitic because of its letters and their order (Aleph, Bet, Guimel, etc.). The pictograms each carry a meaning, and plenty of Semitic words are pretty much a story being told by them. Example: Aleph א = ox head, represents strengthBet ב = tent floorplan, represents houseאב = strength (of the) house = fatherNow, was the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet inspired from the Egyptian hieroglyphs (which were also alphabetic)? Or did it originate by itself, which could've happened given the simplicity of the concepts? At the very least we know it isn't common to ALL semitic languages, because some have a different letter order and Akkadian/Ugaritic were both inspired in Sumerian cuneiform.
>>41523954Abjads aren't alphabets, retard.
>>41524432>>41524722>NPCs
>>41524645i know a hey'el
>>41523954Oh, so that's what the transformers are trying to do by calling men women and women men.>amen>and awomen
>>41524861might need to workshop that one alittle longer.
>>41524384there are many ts and that one is yours but there do be only one G silly whores
>>41524722I did a quick search and isn't that idea proposed by a single linguist? That abjads are not true alphabets because they lack vowels? To me it's a lot more proper to define alphabets as "symbols with correspondent sounds", with abjads simply being a category of alphabets.
Proto-sinaitic was derived from heiratic which was derived from heiroglyphs
>>41526593Btw, language cannot fully describe reality.
>>41526579>That abjads are not true alphabets because they lack vowels?They are also syllabic and not phonetic, which is kind of the whole point of an alphabet.
>>41526614Aren't Akkadian and Sumerian syllabic, while Hebrew and Phoenician phonetic? I only recall this because transliteration of cuneiform is often weird like RU or PU.>>41524799Could be something like "Breath of God". El is commonly used to refer to God and means "Ox head" (power) + "Shepherd Staff" (authority).
>>41524339>You might like the philosophy of constructivism.Havent heard of it but makes sense. One thing after i had that trip is i started learning sanskrit and reading Bhagavad Gita couple months later. Constructivism sounds like a verse of Gita: na asato vidyate bhavo na abhavo vidyate satah. Meaning only the truth exists and what is not truth cannot existI get questioned sometimes when arguing against sophists: what even is truth? As if disproving truth... anyway they couldnt offer a reply when i told them: "truth is what exists, non-truth cannot exist"
>>41526637Akkadian and Sumerian are logo-syllabic, they have symbols that can represent both individual syllables and entire words. Hebrew and Phoenician use abjads. Because they don't represent vowels but essentially pairs of consonants and implied vowels, and because the same symbols may represent different sounds, I disagree that they are properly phonetic or alphabetic. Hebrew can sometimes be properly phonetic and alphabetic, when vowels are explicitly marked.
>>415239541. Aleph (ox head) – Strength, breath, unformed power.2. Beth (house) – Container, inner sanctum, the womb.3. Gimel (throwstick) – Movement, the break from stasis.4. Daleth (fish or door) – Opening, passage, the first choice.5. He (arms raised) – Revelation, spirit, contact with the divine.6. Waw (hook) – Union, link, binding.7. Ḥet (enclosure/anvil) – Pressure, forging, transformation.8. Yod (hand/ladder) – Divine spark, aspiration.9. Kaph/Samekh (circle-cross) – Mark, fate, center.10. Lamed (staff/antenna) – Guidance, signal, push toward knowing.11. Mem (water) – Depth, memory, chaos.12. Nun (seed/fish/cane) – Descent, life within shadow.13. Samekh (mountains/shield) – Threshold, guardian of knowing.14. Ayin (eye/snake) – Insight, temptation, the awaken-er.15. Pe (mouth) – Speech, naming, consequence.16. Tsade (hooked back/kneeling figure) – Humility, correction, exile.17. Qoph (sun rising over horizon) – Renewal, memory of paradise.18. Resh (head) – Personhood, accountability.19. Shin (teeth) – Judgment, consumption, the grind of time.20. Tav (cross/mark) – Completion, curse or covenant. The final glyph.God spoke creation into being. We are his stories. His myths. A giant hall of mirrors in gods imagination and through the graveyard of memory unfolding back into myth can we find the one true mirror and learn to shape ourselves to it's form.
>>41526701>what is not truth cannot existThat is not what the verse says.The verse says what is not truth cannot LAST.na — never; asataḥ — of the temporary/false; vidyate — there is; bhāvaḥ — endurance; na — never; abhāvaḥ — changing quality; vidyate — there is; sataḥ — of the eternal/truth
>>41527078I know its talking of the soul and body, but sanskrit has this little quality that many literal translations of the same word are possible. You know thisAnd before you go by the translations of Shrila Prabhupada, youd do well to remember those envious snakes calling themselves his disciples have been editing his works since the day he left this world. Before that, actually.
>>41524036Ooooooooooooooooo
