-
12 votes
-
Language learning thread #3 - Share your progress, tips and questions
Previously, on Tildes Bit late but I think monthly maybe from now on?
7 votes -
These caves shouldn't exist. Or, at the very least, we can't yet explain them.
10 votes -
Is it possible to learn multiple languages at once?
6 votes -
Logistics: How did they do it? Part III, on the move
6 votes -
Sweden's Foreign Minister Ann Linde said she won't return a historical document to Poland, as it was a “legitimate” spoil of war
2 votes -
How the French Foreign Legion learns languages fast
9 votes -
The etymologies of military ranks
7 votes -
Flags are not languages
Ten years ago, I got my first job in the field of languages. I was a "translation engineer", working on tooling for translators. I very quickly was told to never represent a language by a flag....
Ten years ago, I got my first job in the field of languages. I was a "translation engineer", working on tooling for translators. I very quickly was told to never represent a language by a flag.
I'm sharing this here because this is something you either know, or don't, and many people don't.
Why is simple: languages do not map 1:1 to a country.- A country can have multiple languages
- A language can be spoken in multiple countries
- A language can exist without being spoken in any country
- A country can exist without an officially recognised language
Today as I sit here, I'm at a language meetup where language tables each have a flag on them. Well, none of us at the Russian table are comfortable with that Russian flag, so we just turn it around and write "RU" on the other side.
Wikipedia has an article about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_icons_for_languages
So how are you supposed to do this correctly ? ISO 639 has a list of 2-letter and 3-letter codes for languages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-1_codes- You want to represent a language, use ISO 639-1: a two letter code. For example, "English" is "en" and "French" is "fr".
- You want to represent a language, but wish for a larger code for some reason (such as disambiguation with state or country codes)? You can use ISO 639-2/T: 3-letter codes for the languages. For example,
"English" is "eng" and "French" is "fra". - You want to represent a language, as spoken in a particular country? ISO 639 and ISO 3166 work together. You can represent "English as spoken in England" as "en_GB", "American English" as "en_US", "Canadian French" as "fr_CA", and so on. (This is a very flexible standard, allowing for a lot of variations and a topic for a more motivated person than me. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF_language_tag)
- You want to represent the abstract notion of translations or internationalization, such as for an icon to change the language? This wikipedia article may help. The two most common variations I've seen are an icon that has "A" and "文" together, or some kind of globe icon.
- You want to represent a currency? Use ISO 4217 currency codes: "USD" for US Dollar, etc. Some countries have multiple currencies, don't use a flag without disambiguating somewhere.
- You want to represent a country? You can use a flag, I don't care. But even then, ISO 3166 will probably be less political :)
27 votes -
The reluctant prophet of effective altruism: William MacAskill's movement set out to help global poor. Now his followers fret about runaway AI. Have they seen our threats clearly, or lost their way?
11 votes -
Analytic vs. continental philosophy
5 votes -
How ancient soldiers used sound to frighten and confuse their enemies
8 votes -
Citizen future: Why we need a new story of self and society
4 votes -
A brief look at Jordan Peterson
8 votes -
Viking-era sword hilt found near grave of 'Gausel Queen' by amateur detectives – only twenty similar swords of this type have been found in Norway
4 votes -
Why Taiwan is not Ukraine
5 votes -
A geyser that shoots sparkling mineral water
7 votes -
Leopoldo López on activism under autocratic regimes
3 votes -
Can you distinguish Daniel Dennett from a computer?
9 votes -
The Harry Potter fallacy
6 votes -
Landseaire, the crazy Catalina flying camper of the 1950s
1 vote -
Languages at war: Ukraine and Belgium
6 votes -
Warships of the Carthaginian Navy | Units of History
6 votes -
The maintenance race
11 votes -
The tiny US island with a British accent
11 votes -
40% of Americans believe in creationism
33 votes -
The philosophical guide to software piracy
14 votes -
Cain and Abel
Cain and Abel The Story you Might know: Cain was Adam and Eve’s first son, Abel was No. 2. “in the course of time,” Cain, a farmer, brought an offering of his harvest. Abel, a “keeper of flocks,”...
Cain and Abel
The Story you Might know:
Cain was Adam and Eve’s first son, Abel was No. 2. “in the course of time,” Cain, a farmer, brought an offering of his harvest. Abel, a “keeper of flocks,” also brought “the fattest part of the firstborn of his flocks.” Cain got a God Thumbs Down, Abel, a God Thumbs Up.” Cain was pissed, killed Abel. God exiled Cain and put a “mark” on him so no-one would kill him.
You Might not Know:
Cain goes on to found a city and have progeny, one of whom is the father “of those who play stringed and wind instruments,” another becomes the father of “all those who keep flocks,” another the father of those who make tools. So like, everything you could do in the ancient world except farming.
The father of these three is a guy named Lamech. Perhaps merely coincidentally, Lamech is the name of the father of Noah, the next story in the Genesis. Bible Purists obviously distinguish these two, but we’re talking about the Law Books of Moses here, seems like they would have chosen these sorts of things pretty carefully. I am not a Bible purist (or scholar, for that matter).
Something in this story dings a low-pitched gong deep down in my psyche. Granted, I was raised in a certain christian religious tradition where lots of time were spent on certain bible stories, of which this was one. But it was always presented as a simple morality tale: God wants animal sacrifices, and it’s wrong to kill your brother. Also don’t read anything past where God, who is clearly so merciful, put a mark on cain to save his life.
I turned to the internet, and most of the Christian exposition points to a few New Testament passages that clarify Abel was more righteous and had better faith. I found that wholly unsatisfactory. So I looked for Jewish exposition. One, an academic at a (presumably reformed) Jewish university, basically was like, God, wtf? (totally my summary). Others had various moral expositions, albeit far more eloquently reasoned and rhetoricized than the christians, but still unsatisfactory.
Questions based on the English text alone:
What was really wrong with Cain’s offering, and how would Cain know in advance? Sure, all the whole rest of the bible is about animal (and human) sacrifice, but at this stage? After all, God requires Adam to be a farmer, so Cain is just being a dutiful son, and offering what he has to offer. The implication from the text is not that it was wrong in kind, but that it wasn’t “nice” enough, suggested by the text’s additional detail about Abel’s offering being fat and firstborn.
Also, how can Cain’s descendant, born well after this incident, be the of father those “who keep flocks,” when that’s what Abel did?
How did Cain ditch his curse?
What other people were there to kill Cain? At this point, technically, there’s only Adam, Eve, Cain (and dead Abel). Also, where’d he get a wife? And don’t say Adam and Eve were busy. The text says their next child after Cain and Abel was Seth, born after all this mess.
Other than the nature of the offering and the curse, these questions are really only important to Ken Hamm and his pals.
Based on preliminary research:
The questions don’t easily resolve, as some scholars believe that what Cain offered was flax, which would have been the best of his crops. Also, what Abel offered was goats, when the best offering would have been cows. Conclusion: god doesn’t care what kind, so long as it’s the best of that kind. Or, God prefers a Chevy with full options over a base model BMW (better get that heated seat subscription now!).
Cain’s name might mean “blacksmith.” The father of tools is Tubal-Cain. “Abel” might be a transmogrifation of “Jabel,” the father of those who keep flocks.
Lamech is the same Lamech in both stories, what we are seeing is an attempt to include and combine two traditional sources into one text. Assuming that is true, would keeping the name the same be an effort to signal the reader needs to understand we are bridging two stories? I mean, if I were trying subterfuge, I’d change one of their names. If I were trying to be real, I’d add a footnote explaining it. But then again, I don’t have to write on papryus by hand.
Later interpretations:
In the late middle ages/early post middle ages, depictions of this story show Abel as clean shaven, smaller, with soft features, and wearing fine, aristocratic clothing. Cain is bigger, bearded, aggressively countenanced with sharp, angular features. He’s wearing the clothes of a field-hand.
Why I am writing this:
Like I said, it bangs a ceremonial gong. I feel like there is an important truth embedded here. It’s more spiritual, and important, than merely accepting it as an artifact of changing and competing cultures. There’s some talk of two traditions merging here, one priestly, the other “YHWH-ist,” especially when you consider the preceeding and succeeding texts (Adam <> Noah). The competing cultures are nomadic, pastoral (these two are not exclusive), and agricultural, and also urban “industrial.” Everything comes from Cain—nomadicism, agriculture, technology, music, animal husbandry. Some jewish scholars say Architecture is included in there, too.
My interpretation:
I deign to practice midrash. When Cain lets his displeasure at God’s judgment be known, God says something like, don’t you know if you do right, I will lift you up? I think what is being said here is that what Cain did was not good enough—for Cain. That is, Cain could do better. Abel did the best he could, he gave some juicy meat. But God had bigger plans for Cain. No offering of mere crops, or money, or even cows would have satisfied coming from Cain. No, Cain needed to literally found civilization. And following that path is when the blessings started to flow.
Side-note, In old Egypt, Osiris was the first-born brother of Set, and created culture for humans.
Abel the first capitalist.
I believe that medieval interpretations were attempting to perpetuate feudalism. The depictions of poor, innocent Abel, righteous and faithful servant of God, as aristocratic, against aggressive, crude, farmer Cain as a peasant, is meant to keep the judgmental finger of God pointed firmly and clearly at the heart of the serfs. God’s (through his faithful feudal Lord) is going to expel you if you act like Cain. Keep offering your crops to God (through your faithful feudal Lord) plus some phat veal.
It’s also possible that the story was holding up an early form of capitalism. I’m getting speculative (and casual) here. But whereas farming is a very labor intensive endeavor, flocking is very capital intensive (and also, like modern big capitalists, is very good at externalizing costs). Farming does require land-capital, a few tools, and seed, but mostly crops are grown through effort. Pastoral endeavors, otoh, require capital, namely, the flock. The inputs are externalized-water and pasture not owned by the shepherd. The flock largely persists, producing milk, wool, and babies (ROI!!), requiring much less effort to maintain than dirt. Don’t believe me? How do you think David had all that time to sing those psalms?
Thanks for reading.
11 votes -
The Contradictory Christ
4 votes -
Language learning thread #2 - Share your progress, tips and questions
As I couldn't decide whether these types of threads should be monthly or semiweekly, I today cut the baby in two by posting this one three weeks after the first issue.
7 votes -
Time Travel: Probability and Impossibility
4 votes -
A number is not an explanation
6 votes -
On language discrimination within Ukraine
@Voytsekhovskyi: A thread about why many Ukrainians speak Russian and why it was not actually their choice but rather consequences of about 400-year #RussianColonialism. Today we'll review just some examples of how Russia methodically was banning 🇺🇦language and forcing Ukrainians to forget it. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/HIuxrLFdpc
8 votes -
What is the Cyrillic alphabet?
15 votes -
Absurd Trolley Problems
27 votes -
Thoughts on learning languages
9 votes -
What's the point of grammatical gender?
9 votes -
Nationalism is underrated by intellectuals
14 votes -
🤔 Emojivism 😀
4 votes -
A working flight simulator, no computers necessary
4 votes -
Three things I got wrong about patriarchy
5 votes -
Adam Curtis documentaries
7 votes -
The history of (American) Sign Language
4 votes -
The polyglots of Dardistan - At the crossroads of south and central Asia lies one of the world’s most multilingual places, with songs and poetry to match
3 votes -
The philosophical reason you shouldn’t call people liars
4 votes -
A Modest Proposal: For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick (1729)
17 votes -
Reading to improve language skills? Focus on fiction rather than non-fiction
6 votes -
Interesting histories: Female — Male — Woman — Man
6 votes -
Mike the headless chicken
9 votes -
Mechanization and monoculture
6 votes