191–199 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes - not exactly a transcription.
Written chinese is a direct transcription of the spoken language. It is not (entirely) phonetic, but it is still a 1:1 transcription.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Written chinese is a direct transcription of the spoken language. It is not (entirely) phonetic, but it is still a 1:1 transcription.
Well, now imagine a mark on a boulder that means ‘danger’ (left there because, say, a tiger lives nearby). Same thing. (And it would not be unreasonable to suspect that that’s how writing began.)
Yes writing systems evolved from earlier symbols used to indicate general concepts without a linguistic context. And those symbols go far back into the ice age -- we see such symbols on the walls of cave paintings in Europe, for example. In the case of Sumer, we certainly know that the writing system derived from accounting symbols for livestock and grain and such.
But going from simple context-free symbols to transcribing spoken language or thought with grammar and structure is a conceptual leap worth tracking.
The Chinese assert that they in fact started the first civilization, before the civilizations of the Tigris/Euphrates, Nile, or Indus. I never had the time to really dig into it to evaluate the arguments, but I don't think it's correct because the Shang Dynasty is usually placed around 1600 BC while Sumer is dated around 3000 BC (or even earlier). So I don't know how the Chinese claim they were first. But I can tell…
most chinese people have no interest in those who started the first civilization. in fact most of them there have to work about 12~14 hours a day and have no ability to spend any time to 'think' and 'assert'. only a few people there that have higher position and get well educated that know a little about the very old times... and most of them believe Egipt or middle east started the first civilization because that's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, outside of philosophy class, I do consider it a known fact, that the earth is round, just like I consider my birth to be a known fact, even though I have not personally witnessed both.
So, you say you can know things that others have verified, but not you personally. This is belief, surely?
But for all practical matters, I can say I know it.
Do you think different? I have not had a flat earth debate on HN yet, but am open to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you say you can know things that others have verified, but not you personally. This is belief, surely?
Yes, I am a believer in the theory, that the earth is (somewhat) round. But for all practical matters, I can say I know it. Do you think different? I have not had a flat earth debate on HN yet, but am open to it.
In my first comment, I made a point about what is called knowledge. Read this thread again and you will see I don't object to the common usage - I was merely trying to address the original commentator's confusion.
As you say, you agree certain things you believe (earth shape, birth date) but do not know, you nevertheless characterise as 'practical knowledge'. This is fine, and a common usage. I get it.
What I would ask you though, is whether there is a value to you or in general in using the word 'know' as distinct from 'believe' - does 'know' mean something special that 'believe' cannot mean? And what about 'think' or 'feel' - can these also be used instead of 'know'?
I personally do find a value in trying to say what I mean (and no more!) - I try not to overstate or understate my position. I appreciate when others also try to be clear.
I am perhaps a bit excessive in this with my own behaviour as I consider it a form of lie to over- or under- state something, as I may erroneously indicate a level of certainty that could mislead others. For me, being careful with language relates to my morality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does not seem very likely, because earlier than this people did not really need a writing system. More precisely, they had no reason to believe that a writing system would be useful, so there was no pressure to invent one. In Mesopotamia we can see the evolution over many hundreds of years and even a few millennia from an accounting system that used a few symbols for the things that were recorded, to a full fled…
The Mayans were writing with knotted rope around 1900BCE, so I would very much say it wouldn't be beyond possibility. Most of the early use was for tracking the seasons for religious rites - a pressure for developing writing that would exist across most early cultures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you're saying, but I also think it's hard to overstate how different ancient cultures and experiences made people.
That’s a cultural difference though. It’s like when people believe that you’re going to be declared a witch and burned at the stake if you time travelled to the past and talked about iPhones. Just like in any culture today, they’d just assume you’re nuts, laugh and move on. However, people generally underestimate how culture differs. The idea of belonging to a certain group was vital in the Middle Ages. And that’s so…
We haven't ever observed the invention of a writing system in the absence of cultural contact with written language, so we actually have no basis in evidence for the motivations that bring such a thing about, we just have speculations based on preconceived notions about why people might use writing, which is fine, but don't pretend like it isn't blindly opining on why you think someone would've invented or used a writing system
We can’t know they were the first. We can’t even know what the idea of a singular Sumerian culture or civilization was. It’s fine to speculate, but it’s pointless to just decide that our speculation is fact when there is absurdly huge numbers of pre-historic people who may have stumbled upon writing, but never care about permanence. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposition: “Ancient Sumerians probably c…
Why? We have no records of other writing systems that have been conclusively dated to be earlier, and in this case (unlike others, e.g. Chinese) we DO have a very clear record of the development of the script, from accounting symbols to pictograms to ideograms to phonetic transcription. It definitely did not derive from an earlier script, as we see the progression of development in isolation. So why can't we call it…
Tally sticks as primitive ledgers predate writing by at least 15,000 years. A lot occurred between this time and the first evidence of writing. We'd know a lot more if wood and bone held up as well as clay and stone. Either way, the sparseness of the archaeological record should humble us into not making any sweeping claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Sparta (they famously claimed that they don’t need walls) wasn’t a city?
Sparta was more a collection of villages rather than a city like Athens or Rome.