Why I think English is Easy

Yes, English is my first language, but I'm reasonably competent in French and can parse Latin decently--I'm planning on learning Arabic within the next several months--so I don't think I'm completely out of the pond here when I think English is easy. At the very least, I think most people would agree it is easier than Mandarin. So, here are my thoughts:

1. When choosing a second language, non-English speakers will most typically learn English.
2. English has a vast vocabulary shared with many other languages. This helps newcomers relate words to their own language.
3. Many native-speakers are horrible at English, but it's still fairly easy to read and understand. Eevn wtirnig wtih eorrrs can be pserad. In short, you can get your point across even if you suck at the language.
4. English has no standard on pronunciation, either.
5. Even with its many exceptions, there are often patterns so you can guess when the norm will be broken.
6. It's everywhere. Immersion is easy, as are (good) free books at a library or online.

What makes a language difficult, anyway? I suspect it's the character set, grammar complexity, and vocabulary memorization. English has only 26 letters and no accents, so it's fairly simple in that respect. It's grammar is also straightforward, especially being Latin-based. (It is often said English is a Germanic language with Latin rules.) Every verb tense in French (I remember 14 but I'm too lazy to count them right now) exists in English, even though many English speakers don't realize it, which is the key to note it's not complicated. (In French, a slightly different conjugation table exists for each tense, so you have to know about them. In English it's often just a single word plus a form of the verb consistent for all subjects.)

See Full Post and Comments

Philosophy is a step above religion

And not a large step either. But the more I think about it, and the more I observe various cults springing up around philosophical ideas, the title's statement just seems true to me.

Does this pit philosophy against science? Yes, I believe it does. That also means philosophies, like religions, fall under the same rules as science. In fact, perhaps the earliest known scientific experiment is ironically in the bible. See the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal. Since I can't sum up nearly as well as the summation from where I first came across this several months ago, I'll quote directly:

The people of Israel are wavering between Jehovah and Baal, so Elijah announces that he will conduct an experiment to settle it - quite a novel concept in those days! The priests of Baal will place their bull on an altar, and Elijah will place Jehovah's bull on an altar, but neither will be allowed to start the fire; whichever God is real will call down fire on His sacrifice. The priests of Baal serve as control group for Elijah - the same wooden fuel, the same bull, and the same priests making invocations, but to a false god. Then Elijah pours water on his altar - ruining the experimental symmetry, but this was back in the early days - to signify deliberate acceptance of the burden of proof, like needing a 0.05 significance level. The fire comes down on Elijah's altar, which is the experimental observation. The watching people of Israel shout "The Lord is God!" - peer review.
--Eliezer Yudkowsky


See Full Post and Comments

Lazy and Stupid

(2023 commentary, because I noticed this page getting a lot of hits for some reason.. present me and me of the last several years disavows this whole rant. Just on negativity alone, but it's also just wrong. There's some recoverable nuance but it'd have to be done in a fresh post. What's interesting is I remember I wrote this after talking to a friend at the time and being frustrated with him, but I also remember being frustrated at my past-past self from like 2006/2007.)

"I don't read long things; I'm too lazy."

No, you're not too lazy. You're just stupid.

See Full Post and Comments

To the veterans and all military

(Edit: A short update to my views as of 2013 is at the bottom of this page.) Disclaimer: most people will probably feel offended after reading this and want to insult me. If you choose to, try to do so with civility. (Edit: this isn't my best post but it is my most popular. Fancy that. :)

I really only have one thing to thank you for today: thanks for giving me the day off from school.

I want to quote a famous physicist here, now, as he happened to share my views on this matter:

See Full Post and Comments

I love regular expressions

Regular expressions are seriously awesome. Perl (< 6) compatible ones, too. While I think what Perl 6 has done with changing them is for the better (|| becoming or, instead of |), I'm sticking with what I know for now.

Nevertheless, regexes can be annoying to work with. Especially when you start trying to replace patterns with your own text. And yes, I do have an example!

See Full Post and Comments

Values

Everything that can value, has a value scale. Some people claim to value everything equally (an impossibility with the human architecture, but let's assume they do), and so all values on the scale are the same. I consider that a wrong view to take, because then a human being is no more valuable than an electron. This is the case to the Universe, but only because the Universe doesn't care--it doesn't value. Values are subjective, or products of a mind. Does that mean no value can be morally superior to another? No, as I'll explain in a bit.

On the road of atheism one must pass by the existentialists. Maybe stay for a few meals, chat with the locals, but the journeyman must move on. Existentialists are perhaps more hypocritical than Christians: they believe that since we're all equally worthless to the Universe (true), that nothing we do matters in the end to the Universe (true), that nothing matters (false). If it doesn't matter whether you live or die, why not choose death and save yourself some suffering? You can argue it doesn't matter if you suffer or not, which makes either choice the same, but from a purely emotional feeling, why choose to suffer instead of not suffer? You'd at least save the Universe from calculating "suffering-ness" on you (not that it cares). It just seems logical that if you believe it doesn't matter if you're alive or dead, then you should choose to die and save yourself some trouble. Note I don't want existentialists to all go and kill themselves. I'd rather have them move on the atheist road. But I assert that killing oneself is the logical thing to do if one is existential. I value life over the rational choice, so obviously I'd want them to not literally follow logic off a cliff and pick new beliefs.

Atheists must move past the existentialists. As a budding atheist, you've just crossed one scary river: God doesn't exist and when you die you're annihilated with no hope of return (with present technology (this is a whisper of the river most people miss)). Now you must cross another: the Universe doesn't care if you live or die. But don't stop on the far bank and make camp like the existentialists! Move on. There's a small stream later on that says "Values are subjective, but that doesn't make it wrong to value things, or value things differently, or make all values just as good as other values." I am an entity which has the capability to value, and I value life. This value keeps me from wanting to kill people. Given the choice (which must be made) to kill an ant or kill a human, I'd kill the ant because I value ants less than I value humans. Preferring any outcome to any other is necessary to make a choice. The human brain obviously has preferences, whether you consciously acknowledge them or not, and if you tortured an existentialist I'd bet he wouldn't like it. That concept of liking things, of having preferences, is there in the brain, and is the reason we can have differences in values.

See Full Post and Comments

A New Job

"Hello, I'm Thomas Bade."

"Welcome to Littleridge High, Mr. Bade. Please, have a seat."

"Thank you."

See Full Post and Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts