Le 03/03/2023 à 03:22, Dingbat a écrit :
>
> What do femme petite and petite femme mean in French?
> I know something about it only because I read a monograph on it.
>
> Unusually, the French translation of 'little women' has the adjective coming 1st
> like in English rather than last like in French. It's 'petite femme'. I remember
> seeing an explanation that you can't say 'femme petite' because it means
> 'lady of ill repute'. Does it really? If so, perhaps it is a short form of 'femme de
> petite vertu' (woman of easy virtue). Then, why does 'petite fille' mean 'girl child'
> or 'granddaughter' with petite coming 1st even though 'fille petite' presumably
> doesn't have a negative connotation? I haven't seen that explained.

Some books list 'femme petite' as 'pretty woman', which is new to me.

I think the whole business is quite subtle, though this summary is
simple enough:

'adjectif (place de l'adjectif avec un nom)' -
<https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/clefsfp/index-fra.html?lang=fra&lettr=indx_catlog_a&page=9vZTNTMJeZCA.html>

Sometimes the sense does change - un grand homme = a great man; un homme
grand = a tall man.

I think some adjectives that normally come before a noun can give
emphasis if placed after it - Les femmes petites prennent moins de place
- that sort of thing.

Or: '15 problèmes que seules les femmes petites comprennent' -
<https://www.cosmopolitan.fr/,16-problemes-qui-ne-concernent-que-les-femmes-petites,1906625.asp>

(Fifteen problems [16 in the article; Diane Abbott must have done the
counting] that only small women understand - being patted on the head etc..)

Le 03/03/2023 à 11:26, Hibou a écrit :
>
> Or: '15 problèmes que seules les femmes petites comprennent' -
> <https://www.cosmopolitan.fr/,16-problemes-qui-ne-concernent-que-les-femmes-petites,1906625.asp>

People like to pat you on the head.

They also like to say you're really cute.

Your trousers cost 30 euros more than other people's.

You can't reach half the shelves in your flat.

Being in the pit at a concert is a nightmare.

Shopping is a session of stretching.

You have to wear high heels at work (to stop colleagues asking how your
internship is going).

People want to carry you, and often do so without asking permission.

You look up to everyone.

Sleeping with a big man is punishing sport.

Holding your boyfriend's hand looks strange.

People use your shoulders as armrests.

Being photographed with your best friend is a nightmare.

You always end up on the middle seat in the car.

You'll never be a model.

15.

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:28:23 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 8:59:50 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels:
> > > > Anton Shepelev:
> >
> > > > > No, I have not. I was (and am) using the simple and
> > > > > obvious definition of linguist as a man (or woman) who
> > > > > studies language, as a historian studies history or an
> > > > > entomologist studies insects, ants, and spiders. This
> > > > > definition does not require that a linguist share your
> > > > > opinions about language and the proper way to study it.
> > > > > I wonder what your definition is.
> > > > Do you think that entomologists judge insects and spiders?
> > >
> > > Bad manners, yours, thus to answer a question with another
> > > question. And you commit a logical fallacy here, because I
> > > did not say that linguists ought to judge verbs and
> > > participals. Understand?
> > I understand what you said in previous messages. Here you
> > say that scientists have "opinions" about what they study.
> > Previously you have said that linguists identify "errors." Do
> > entomologists find "errors" in the insect world?
> >
> > Linguistics, of course, is the scientific study of language.
> > That entails collecting data by observation (not by accepting
> > what "authorities" say) and creating theories to explain the
> > data and, hopefully, to elucidate future data; and the theories
> > must be falsifiable.
> >
> The author of the oldest treatiese on Old Scandinavian, aka
> Old Norse, is called The First Grammarian. Was he a linguist?

That's the sobriquet awarded the anonymous author when
Einar Haugen of Harvard edited the text.

> Was Panini a linguist?

He and his ilk are generally considered such.

> What are the differences between
> Philologists, Grammarians and Linguists?

Philologists study texts and literate cultures.
Linguists study languages.
I don't know anyone who calls themself a grammarian or what they do.

The first modern linguistics was "comparative philology," later
called "historical linguistics." These days, language change is
treated within "variation studies" (sociolinguistics).

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:27:26 AM UTC-5, Michael Uplawski wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> They also judge insects as more or less perfect or
> > > advanced, e.g. in the evolutionary sense.
> > And that sentence is absolute proof that you have no idea
> > what evolution is about.
>
> Although I am afraid to intervene, please say that Evolution has no
> direction and no objective and that therefore “perfect”, “advanced” or
> their contraries are of no interest to evolution and have no sense
> at all in its discussion.

Exactly my point. (It's not clear that Darwin was convinced of that,
and some of his followers certainly went in the teleology direction.)

> I can do that, but fear to be unable to react to the claims and boasts
> which would follow.
>
> Your misunderstandings, however, come from a lack of words. I am unable
> to express nuances and thus must write lengthy posts.
>
> Do not waste your skill, either use it thoroughly and explain or ...
> I don't know. Your discussions leave the passive reader unsatisfied.
>
> Cheerio and have a nice week-end, by all means!

Peter T. Daniels:

> If I venture an opinion, it is clearly marked as such.

Do you think the Earth is spherical (rather than flat)? If
you do, then it is your honest opinion. If you make a
statmenet that is not your opinion, than you are being
hypocritical.

> > Quote or a I didn't say it! Hint: I really didn't. I
> > wrote that /some/ linguists /did/ indeed indentify
> > errors (among other things), and that judgement of
> > changes in language as good or bad was a moral
> > obligation of the linguist to the people of whose
> > culture that language is the vehicle and carrier.
>
> And that paragraph is absolute proof that you have no idea
> what linguistics is about.

Linguistics is all about the study of language, but my
paragraph is all about what I think is the moral obligation
of a linguist, which early lisguists did not fear to assume!
Who can provide better care of any thing than the person who
knows it best? Since linguists understand language better
than anybody else, they are the most responsible for it, and
should exercise their responsibility by protecting language
from devolutional, degenerative changes, c.f. the moral
obligation of the philosopher as seeker of truth, to protect
honest people from the enemies of truth, as set down by
Stefan Molineux:--

This is not to say that philosophers must engage with
every person who makes a mistake. We do not want to
become like the hapless husband in a famous cartoon, who
says to his wife that he cannot possibly come to bed yet,
because someone is wrong on the internet. However, when
someone of prominence and influence is publicly making
bad arguments, philosophers are honour-bound to push back
against these errors. We do not have to argue with a
crazy man on the street corner who is waving a Wingdings
pamphlet at rain clouds, but egregious errors from a
prominent person tend to stand unless and until we
correct them.

> > They find errors in us humans, who are guilty, for
> > example, of the dangerous shrinking of the population of
> > the honey bee. They also judge insects as more or less
> > perfect or advanced, e.g. in the evolutionary sense.
>
> And that sentence is absolute proof that you have no idea
> what evolution is about.

You really like throwing bare statements about the person of
your interlocutor with nary an attempt at proof. I will
therefore dismiss it without comment and refer you to a
dictionary:

That series of changes under natural law which
involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to
the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single
and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or
function. The process is by some limited to organic
beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and
the psychical. It is also applied to explain the
existence and growth of institutions, manners,
language, civilization, and every product of human
activity. The agencies and laws of the process are
variously explained by different philosophers.

Peter T. Daniels:
> Anton Shepelev:
> > Peter T. Daniels:
> >
> > > Linguistics, of course, is the scientific study of
> > > language. That entails collecting data by observation
> > > (not by accepting what "authorities" say) and creating
> > > theories to explain the data and, hopefully, to
> > > elucidate future data; and the theories must be
> > > falsifiable.
> >
> > The term `linguist' predates this modern definition by
> > several hundred years. It in no way contradicts the
> > older meaning of study of language but only narrows is
> > down.
>
> Etymological Fallacy again. Whether some reactionaries
> here should continue to claim that the 'polyglot' sense of
> "linguist" should be the only legitimate one has been
> discussed several times.

But you keep misunderstaning. I did not refer the
`polyglot' meaning, but the definition of a linguist as a
person who studies language, without the recent accretions
of `scientific method' &c.

All meanings of `linguist' are strictly etymological in that
they derive the word for tongue, which meant language a long
time ago. Remeber KJV and "speaking in tongues"?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

Good morning

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Although I am afraid to intervene, please say that Evolution has no
> > direction and no objective and that therefore “perfect”, “advanced” or
> > their contraries are of no interest to evolution and have no sense
> > at all in its discussion.
>
> Exactly my point. (It's not clear that Darwin was convinced of that,
> and some of his followers certainly went in the teleology direction.)

I am happy that you mentioned Darwin with the contradictions in mind and
I see how difficult it is to give concise answers, where simplification
is sought, but not possible, when the audience had been oriented towards
rigidity.

;) I used to recommend Descartes, knowing that his method was far better
than his assumptions. As expected, I end in hell quite regularly.
It must be the same with “Darwin”. A pity, as his book is such a joy.

There is such a big difference between the concepts that you compare in
this very thread. IMO, that does not make much sense, if your life
provide enough spectacle, elsewhere.

Cheerio.
--
Native German / Colloquial French

Good morning

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Although I am afraid to intervene, please say that Evolution has no
> > direction and no objective and that therefore “perfect”, “advanced” or
> > their contraries are of no interest to evolution and have no sense
> > at all in its discussion.
>
> Exactly my point. (It's not clear that Darwin was convinced of that,
> and some of his followers certainly went in the teleology direction.)

I am happy that you mentioned Darwin with the contradictions in mind and
I see how difficult it is to give concise answers, where simplification
is sought, but not possible, when the audience had been oriented towards
rigidity.

;) I used to recommend Descartes, knowing that his method was far better
than his assumptions. As expected, I end in hell quite regularly.
It must be the same with “Darwin”. A pity, as his book is such a joy.

There is such a big difference between the concepts that you compare in
this very thread. IMO, that does not make much sense, if your life
provides enough spectacle, elsewhere.

Cheerio.
--
Native German / Colloquial French

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:14:16 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:28:23 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 8:59:50 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels:
> > > > > Anton Shepelev:
> > >
> > > > > > No, I have not. I was (and am) using the simple and
> > > > > > obvious definition of linguist as a man (or woman) who
> > > > > > studies language, as a historian studies history or an
> > > > > > entomologist studies insects, ants, and spiders. This
> > > > > > definition does not require that a linguist share your
> > > > > > opinions about language and the proper way to study it.
> > > > > > I wonder what your definition is.
> > > > > Do you think that entomologists judge insects and spiders?
> > > >
> > > > Bad manners, yours, thus to answer a question with another
> > > > question. And you commit a logical fallacy here, because I
> > > > did not say that linguists ought to judge verbs and
> > > > participals. Understand?
> > > I understand what you said in previous messages. Here you
> > > say that scientists have "opinions" about what they study.
> > > Previously you have said that linguists identify "errors." Do
> > > entomologists find "errors" in the insect world?
> > >
> > > Linguistics, of course, is the scientific study of language.
> > > That entails collecting data by observation (not by accepting
> > > what "authorities" say) and creating theories to explain the
> > > data and, hopefully, to elucidate future data; and the theories
> > > must be falsifiable.
> > >
> > The author of the oldest treatiese on Old Scandinavian, aka
> > Old Norse, is called The First Grammarian. Was he a linguist?
> That's the sobriquet awarded the anonymous author when
> Einar Haugen of Harvard edited the text.
>
> > Was Panini a linguist?
>
> He and his ilk are generally considered such.
> > What are the differences between
> > Philologists, Grammarians and Linguists?
> Philologists study texts and literate cultures.
> Linguists study languages.
>
Thanks.
>
> I don't know anyone who calls themself a grammarian or what they do.
>
I asked because someone was given the sobriquet 'The First Grammarian'.
If that name was not based on what he did, what was it based on?
>
> The first modern linguistics was "comparative philology," later
> called "historical linguistics." These days, language change is
> treated within "variation studies" (sociolinguistics).

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:24:52 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:14:16 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:28:23 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 8:59:50 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> > > > > Peter T. Daniels:
> > > > > > Anton Shepelev:

> > > > > > > No, I have not. I was (and am) using the simple and
> > > > > > > obvious definition of linguist as a man (or woman) who
> > > > > > > studies language, as a historian studies history or an
> > > > > > > entomologist studies insects, ants, and spiders. This
> > > > > > > definition does not require that a linguist share your
> > > > > > > opinions about language and the proper way to study it.
> > > > > > > I wonder what your definition is.
> > > > > > Do you think that entomologists judge insects and spiders?
> > > > > Bad manners, yours, thus to answer a question with another
> > > > > question. And you commit a logical fallacy here, because I
> > > > > did not say that linguists ought to judge verbs and
> > > > > participals. Understand?
> > > > I understand what you said in previous messages. Here you
> > > > say that scientists have "opinions" about what they study.
> > > > Previously you have said that linguists identify "errors." Do
> > > > entomologists find "errors" in the insect world?
> > > > Linguistics, of course, is the scientific study of language.
> > > > That entails collecting data by observation (not by accepting
> > > > what "authorities" say) and creating theories to explain the
> > > > data and, hopefully, to elucidate future data; and the theories
> > > > must be falsifiable.
> > > The author of the oldest treatiese on Old Scandinavian, aka
> > > Old Norse, is called The First Grammarian. Was he a linguist?
> > That's the sobriquet awarded the anonymous author when
> > Einar Haugen of Harvard edited the text.
> > > Was Panini a linguist?
> > He and his ilk are generally considered such.
> > > What are the differences between
> > > Philologists, Grammarians and Linguists?
> > Philologists study texts and literate cultures.
> > Linguists study languages.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > I don't know anyone who calls themself a grammarian or what they do.
>
> I asked because someone was given the sobriquet 'The First Grammarian'.
> If that name was not based on what he did, what was it based on?

It's a brief text, and Haugen's edition is a small pamphlet. I think
I once found it on line. He probably explains why he chose the name.

> > The first modern linguistics was "comparative philology," later
> > called "historical linguistics." These days, language change is
> > treated within "variation studies" (sociolinguistics).

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 6:16:46 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:

> > If I venture an opinion, it is clearly marked as such.
>
> Do you think the Earth is spherical (rather than flat)? If
> you do, then it is your honest opinion. If you make a

If that were relevant to anything I write, why would I bother
to state it?

> statmenet that is not your opinion, than you are being
> hypocritical.
>
> > > Quote or a I didn't say it! Hint: I really didn't. I
> > > wrote that /some/ linguists /did/ indeed indentify
> > > errors (among other things), and that judgement of
> > > changes in language as good or bad was a moral
> > > obligation of the linguist to the people of whose
> > > culture that language is the vehicle and carrier.
> > And that paragraph is absolute proof that you have no idea
> > what linguistics is about.
>
> Linguistics is all about the study of language, but my
> paragraph is all about what I think is the moral obligation

"moral obligation???"

> of a linguist, which early lisguists

Which early linguists are you referring to?

> did not fear to assume!
> Who can provide better care of any thing than the person who
> knows it best?

The person whose remit (or job) is taking care of things.

> Since linguists understand language better
> than anybody else,

What on earth are you talking about?

> they are the most responsible for it, and

So, Einstein or Hawking is "responsible for" the universe?

> should exercise their responsibility by protecting language
> from devolutional, degenerative changes, c.f. the moral

What is "c.f."?

> obligation of the philosopher as seeker of truth, to protect
> honest people from the enemies of truth, as set down by
> Stefan Molineux:--

Oh, thank you for another opportunity:
And that paragraph is absolute proof that you have no idea
what science is about.

> This is not to say that philosophers must engage with
> every person who makes a mistake. We do not want to
> become like the hapless husband in a famous cartoon, who
> says to his wife that he cannot possibly come to bed yet,
> because someone is wrong on the internet. However, when
> someone of prominence and influence is publicly making
> bad arguments, philosophers are honour-bound to push back
> against these errors. We do not have to argue with a
> crazy man on the street corner who is waving a Wingdings
> pamphlet at rain clouds, but egregious errors from a
> prominent person tend to stand unless and until we
> correct them.

You get upset when people delete your precious words,
so I'll leave that whole paragraph in, but

And that paragraph is absolute proof that you have no idea
what philosophy is about.

> > > They find errors in us humans, who are guilty, for
> > > example, of the dangerous shrinking of the population of
> > > the honey bee. They also judge insects as more or less
> > > perfect or advanced, e.g. in the evolutionary sense.
> > And that sentence is absolute proof that you have no idea
> > what evolution is about.
>
> You really like throwing bare statements about the person of
> your interlocutor with nary an attempt at proof. I will
> therefore dismiss it without comment and refer you to a
> dictionary:

A very, very old dictionary. As usual, you cite no source.
(It was you, wasn't it, who used to cite Ambrose Bierce
as the acme of English literature?)

> That series of changes under natural law which
> involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to
> the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single
> and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or
> function. The process is by some limited to organic
> beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and
> the psychical. It is also applied to explain the
> existence and growth of institutions, manners,
> language, civilization, and every product of human
> activity. The agencies and laws of the process are
> variously explained by different philosophers.

Darwin called his book The Descent of Man, not The Rise of Man.

> > > > Linguistics, of course, is the scientific study of
> > > > language. That entails collecting data by observation
> > > > (not by accepting what "authorities" say) and creating
> > > > theories to explain the data and, hopefully, to
> > > > elucidate future data; and the theories must be
> > > > falsifiable.
> > > The term `linguist' predates this modern definition by
> > > several hundred years. It in no way contradicts the
> > > older meaning of study of language but only narrows is
> > > down.
> > Etymological Fallacy again. Whether some reactionaries
> > here should continue to claim that the 'polyglot' sense of
> > "linguist" should be the only legitimate one has been
> > discussed several times.
>
> But you keep misunderstaning. I did not refer the
> `polyglot' meaning, but the definition of a linguist as a
> person who studies language, without the recent accretions
> of `scientific method' &c.

When/where was it used of a pre-scientific enterprise?

(Maybe this goes back to your "early linguists" above.)

> All meanings of `linguist' are strictly etymological in that
> they derive the word for tongue, which meant language a long
> time ago. Remeber KJV and "speaking in tongues"?

That has nothing to do with the Etymological Fallacy.

And obviously, "tongue" was a poetical/metonymical synonym
for "language" in and well before 1611.

On 5/03/2023 2:33 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:24:52 AM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:14:16 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 11:28:23 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 8:59:50 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:00:31 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>> Anton Shepelev:
>
>>>>>>>> No, I have not. I was (and am) using the simple and
>>>>>>>> obvious definition of linguist as a man (or woman) who
>>>>>>>> studies language, as a historian studies history or an
>>>>>>>> entomologist studies insects, ants, and spiders. This
>>>>>>>> definition does not require that a linguist share your
>>>>>>>> opinions about language and the proper way to study it.
>>>>>>>> I wonder what your definition is.
>>>>>>> Do you think that entomologists judge insects and spiders?
>>>>>> Bad manners, yours, thus to answer a question with another
>>>>>> question. And you commit a logical fallacy here, because I
>>>>>> did not say that linguists ought to judge verbs and
>>>>>> participals. Understand?
>>>>> I understand what you said in previous messages. Here you
>>>>> say that scientists have "opinions" about what they study.
>>>>> Previously you have said that linguists identify "errors." Do
>>>>> entomologists find "errors" in the insect world?
>>>>> Linguistics, of course, is the scientific study of language.
>>>>> That entails collecting data by observation (not by accepting
>>>>> what "authorities" say) and creating theories to explain the
>>>>> data and, hopefully, to elucidate future data; and the theories
>>>>> must be falsifiable.
>>>> The author of the oldest treatiese on Old Scandinavian, aka
>>>> Old Norse, is called The First Grammarian. Was he a linguist?
>>> That's the sobriquet awarded the anonymous author when
>>> Einar Haugen of Harvard edited the text.
>>>> Was Panini a linguist?
>>> He and his ilk are generally considered such.
>>>> What are the differences between
>>>> Philologists, Grammarians and Linguists?
>>> Philologists study texts and literate cultures.
>>> Linguists study languages.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> I don't know anyone who calls themself a grammarian or what they do.
>>
>> I asked because someone was given the sobriquet 'The First Grammarian'.
>> If that name was not based on what he did, what was it based on?
>
> It's a brief text, and Haugen's edition is a small pamphlet. I think
> I once found it on line. He probably explains why he chose the name.

Haugen simply took over the title "First Grammatical Treatise" for this
mediaeval text from a long tradition of Scandinavian scholarship, e.g.

Björn M Ólsen, Den tredje og fjærde grammatiske afhandling i Snorres
Edda. Copenhagen, 1884. (Islands Grammatiske Litteratur i Middelalderen,
I-II).

Since the author's name is not known, he is simply referred to as the
"First Grammarian". It's not clear whether this is Haugen's coinage or
also taken from Nordic writers.

The text is entirely concerned with speech sounds and spelling --
matters which for many centuries were considered part of "grammar".
>
>>> The first modern linguistics was "comparative philology," later
>>> called "historical linguistics." These days, language change is
>>> treated within "variation studies" (sociolinguistics).