Language Evolution, it's Fantastic, it's Incredible
 

I am a fan of old time radio. One thing you notice when listening to OTR is how words had different meanings, mere decades ago. A usual theme in OTR is that an individual is accused of murder and s/he replies:
"That's fantastic" or "That's incredible"
These words had a very different meanings 50/60 years ago.

[url]http://www.websters1913.com/words/Fantastic[/url]

[url]http://www.websters1913.com/words/Incredible[/url]


My parents migrated from the Soviet Union before I was born from a region which is now Azerbaijan. My mother tongue is Azary and I sometimes watch Azerbaijany TV online.
One thing I have noticed is that I have no problem understating when an elderly person speaks but can hardly understand when young people do.

I myself was born and raised in Persia (Iran) and am fluent in Persian but have lived in Canada for decades. I can hardly understand contemporary Persian writings with all the made up new words.

I have discussed this with others and am told that the experience is common among others.
I have a Spanish speaking collogue who says he too has difficulty understanding when young people in his country speak.

Just an observation.:smile:

[QUOTE=a1call;482350]I am a fan of old time radio. One thing you notice when listening to OTR is how words had different meanings, mere decades ago. A usual theme in OTR is that an individual is accused of murder and s/he replies:
"That's fantastic" or "That's incredible"
These words had a very different meanings 50/60 years ago.

[url]http://www.websters1913.com/words/Fantastic[/url]

[url]http://www.websters1913.com/words/Incredible[/url]


My parents migrated from the Soviet Union before I was born from a region which is now Azerbaijan. My mother tongue is Azary and I sometimes watch Azerbaijany TV online.
One thing I have noticed is that I have no problem understating when an elderly person speaks but can hardly understand when young people do.

I myself was born and raised in Persia (Iran) and am fluent in Persian but have lived in Canada for decades. I can hardly understand contemporary Persian writings with all the made up new words.

I have discussed this with others and am told that the experience is common among others.
I have a Spanish speaking collogue who says he too has difficulty understanding when young people in his country speak.

Just an observation.:smile:[/QUOTE]

Yes word meanings change a lot over time. At the time autism got named for example, it was thought to be part of schizophrenia, so it was named aut(o)- + -ism literally a belief or practice of self. The word to describe what you want to talk about is etymology, and the closely related euphism treadmill etc. Similiar evolution can be seen in math notation last I heard.

[QUOTE=a1call;482350]Just an observation.:smile:[/QUOTE]

An excellent book along these lines is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surgeon_of_Crowthorne"]The Surgeon of Crowthorne[/URL], retitled "The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary" for the North American market.

Amazing how the OED was first created, long before computers....

[QUOTE=science_man_88;482351]Yes word meanings change a lot over time. At the time autism got named for example, it was thought to be part of schizophrenia, so it was named aut(o)- + -ism literally a belief or practice of self. The word to describe what you want to talk about is etymology, and the closely related euphism treadmill etc. Similiar evolution can be seen in math notation last I heard.[/QUOTE]

I remember a time when there was no such word or disease.
[url]http://www.websters1913.com/words/autism[/url]

Wasn't really that long ago.

It's strange how a disease which didn't exist 30+ years ago, is so common today and of such apparent importance.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;482351]Similiar evolution can be seen in math notation last I heard.[/QUOTE]
The evolution is not always a positive happening.
An example would be The definition of unit length "Meter". Quite recently it has been defined as a function of speed of light. In the very recent past it was defined as there length equal to the length of Platinum-Rod which was kept in the Louvre Museum.

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light[/url]

Not many seem to noticed that this is a circular definition. You are defining length as a function of speed, which in turn is defined as a function of length. This is a circular definition. It's the same as defining the right-hand as the hand opposing the left-hand and the the left-hand as the hand opposing the right-hand. You are not really defining anything.:smile:
But if Wikipedia says so then it's scientific and true.:smile:

[QUOTE=a1call;482357]The evolution is not always a positive happening.
An example would be The definition of unit length "Meter". Quite recently it has been defined as a function of speed of light. In the very recent past it was defined as there length equal to the length of Platinum-Rod which was kept in the Louvre Museum.

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light[/url]

Not many seem to noticed that this is a circular definition. You are defining length as a function of speed, which in turn is defined as a function of length. This is a circular definition. It's the same as defining the right-hand as the hand opposing the left-hand and the the left-hand as the hand opposing the right-hand. You are not really defining anything.:smile:
But if Wikipedia says so then it's scientific and true.:smile:[/QUOTE]

The purpose of the definition is to get away from physical models. But that's a different thread. Break down proopiomelanocortin maybe, if interested.

Today the speed of light is a Constant. It is defined as 2.99793458 X10^8 m s[SUP]-1[/SUP]

It is akin to defining the permeability of space as 4π × 10−7 H·m[SUP]-1[/SUP]

It would be circularity if the "Second" [STRIKE]was[/STRIKE] were defined as the time it takes light to travel 1/288972458 m

[QUOTE=rudy235;482361]Today the [B]speed of light[/B] is a Constant. It is defined as 2.99793458 X10^8 [B]m[/B] s[SUP]-1[/SUP]

[/QUOTE]

I think it is also circular if a Meter is defined as:

[QUOTE]The[B] metre [/B]is defined as the [B]length of the path travelled by light [/B]in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second"]second[/URL].[/QUOTE]
[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre[/URL]

:smile:

[CODE][/CODE][QUOTE=a1call;482363]I think it is also circular if a Meter is defined as:


[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre[/URL]

:smile:[/QUOTE]

Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of cesium-133 to vibrate between two energy states. :smile:

[QUOTE=a1call;482363]I think it is also circular if a Meter is defined as:

[quote]The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second.[/quote]

[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre[/URL]

:smile:[/QUOTE]

There is nothing circular about that definition.

Recall that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a universal constant. There is no "definition" of the speed of light, it just is.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;482368]There is nothing circular about that definition.

Recall that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a universal constant. There is no "definition" of the speed of light, it just is.[/QUOTE]

yeah, you are right. I did not mean to say defined, rather acknowledged or recogmized.

But the important point is that the def of the meter/metre is a sound one.