New Worlds : How to build a ‘perfect’ language

IBM correcting Selectric IIi typewriter predominantly used by Eppie Lederer as Ann Landers in her home office, 1950. (Photo by Chicago History Museum/Getty Images)
It’s well known that JRR Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings cycle to create people to speak the languages he had invented. But, in the television age, artificially created or invented languages – we call them “conlangs” – have been gaining increasing attention with the popularity of television series such as Star Trek and Game of Thrones, and films such as Avatar.
Fantasy and science fiction are the ideal vehicles for conlangs. Marc Okrand, an American linguist whose core research area is Native American languages, invented Klingon for Star Trek, while Paul Frommer of the University of Southern California created the Na’vi language for Avatar.
The fantasy series Game of Thrones involved several languages, including Dothraki and Valyrian, which were created by David J Peterson, a “conlanger” who has invented languages for several other shows. Most recently, fantasy thriller The City and The City featured the language Illitan, created by Alison Long of Keele University in the UK.
I teach how to construct languages and one question my students usually ask is: “How do I make a perfect language?” I need to warn that it’s impossible to make a language “perfect” – or even “complete”. Rather, an invented language is more likely to be appropriate for the context – convincing and developed just enough to work in the desired environment. But here are a few things to bear in mind.

 

With the current Big Data and Map reduce there are several online projects that constantly try to play with words Don’t forget the Natural Language processing (NLP) that is intended for even robots or AI to understand Language.

 

A perfect language can actually be a simple software filter that would scan large quantities of all the linguistic texts and identify the recurring patterns in different languages and use this with a new symbolism that can be both read by both human and machine would actually make the whole thing more Perfect and worth while. And don’t forget the amount of jobs and the literature that might get generated albeit be it only digital unless fully accepted by the larger sections of people after all it is something both human and machine can work with together. Instead of being forced onto or Influenced and oppressed upon? Maybe the Next Einstein could use this to influence the next generation for much larger good, peace and prosperity both locally and globally. This could provide a different angle or perspective into the thought process of creating a language even for machine only!

Continue reading “New Worlds : How to build a ‘perfect’ language”

Transhumanism, Tragic Humanism, and The View From Nowhere

A number of scholars of post-humanity (such as Hayles and Wolfe) have argued that transhumanism is an unduly optimistic extension of humanism. I can’t agree – not only is it not optimistic, it is not a humanism. Transhumanism is filled with the anxiety of extinction. It also is enthused enough about non-human flourishing that it marks a departure from humanism (besides: is anything more optimistic than humanism in its enlightenment mode?). Transhumanism’s posthumanist stance is the continuation of enlightenment technoscience in so far as it centralizes human technology, even if it projects the technoscientific breakdown of humanity. However, insofar as its ideas and projected technologies propose an almost panpsychic collapse of mind and matter, it pushes us beyond reductive materialist, secular and humanist arrangements, and points to some interesting new openings.

One way to go about thinking through all this is to consider, as Bialecki and Lowrie have suggested, the figure of anthropos. The human is, as Foucault pointed out, an image built through a series of disciplines (biology, economics, linguistics) that came together in the space of non-transcendental knowledge to capture human activity (life, labor, language). The figure under which that image has been organized is anthropos, combining modern science and humanism in an often fraught relationship.

Continue reading “Transhumanism, Tragic Humanism, and The View From Nowhere”

New Worlds : 23 Places We’ve Found Water in Our Solar System

Oceans, Ices, Vapors: Turns out the Solar System isn’t so parched. We survey the moons and planets where scientists are finding water in all its forms.

Underwater water worlds are no place for vegetarians Sorry folks stay at home no place for vegetarian astronauts because outside planet earth most habitable worlds are Underwater planets without Sunlight so… See ya… (fishetarianism because it is universal and cosmic)

Last week brought the news that Enceladus likely has a warm salty ocean, and that liquid water lurks beneath the surface of Ganymede. These findings are continuing to chip away at the once-held belief that the solar system was dry and barren, bereft of water.

THE HUNT FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE HAS TURNED TO OUR OWN COSMIC BACKYARD

It seems there are few places in the solar systems without some amount of water, whether liquid or solid. There’s even a small amount of water vapor on Venus, something like 20 parts-per-million. And every time a source of liquid water is found or suggested, it brings up the chances of life on that world because of the way water acts as a solvent – facilitating the metabolic processes at the most basic level of life. That’s why the hunt for extraterrestrial life (quite doubtfully of an intelligent sort, though we’ve found some quite remarkable octopuses on Earth) has turned from distant solar systems to our own cosmic backyard.

Here’s the breakdown of all the water we know about in the solar system, and what form it comes in.

Oceans
All But Confirmed:

Europa

Europa

  • Gravitational force : 1.315 m/s².
  • Escape velocity : 2.025 km/s .

Continue reading “New Worlds : 23 Places We’ve Found Water in Our Solar System”

ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ಒಕ್ಕೂಟದ ಇತಿಹಾಸ

https://youtu.be/tDfxiFRM61w

ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ಯೂನಿಯನ್
ನವೆಂಬರ್ 1, 1993 ರಂದು ಮ್ಯಾಸ್ಟ್ರಿಚ್ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದಿಂದ ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ಯೂನಿಯನ್ (ಇಯು) ಅನ್ನು ರಚಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಇದು ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಮತ್ತು ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಒಕ್ಕೂಟವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಸದಸ್ಯರ ಆರ್ಥಿಕತೆಗಳು, ಸಮಾಜಗಳು, ಕಾನೂನುಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಕೆಲವು ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಭದ್ರತೆಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ ನೀತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಕೆಲವು ಜನರಿಗೆ, ಇಯು ಹಣವನ್ನು ಹರಿದು ಮತ್ತು ಸಾರ್ವಭೌಮ ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಸರಿದೂಗಿಸುವ ಒಂದು ಅತಿರೇಕದ ಆಡಳಿತಶಾಹಿಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಇತರರಿಗೆ, ಸಣ್ಣ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳು ಎದುರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸವಾಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಲು ಇಯು ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮ ಮಾರ್ಗವಾಗಿದೆ – ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆ ಅಥವಾ ದೊಡ್ಡ ದೇಶಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮಾತುಕತೆ – ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಧಿಸಲು ಕೆಲವು ಸಾರ್ವಭೌಮತ್ವವನ್ನು ಶರಣಾಗಿಸುವುದು.

ಅನೇಕ ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಏಕೀಕರಣದ ಹೊರತಾಗಿಯೂ, ವಿರೋಧ ಬಲವಾಗಿ ಉಳಿದಿದೆ, ಆದರೆ ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳು ಒಕ್ಕೂಟವನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಲು, ಕೆಲವೊಮ್ಮೆ ಪ್ರಾಯೋಗಿಕವಾಗಿ ವರ್ತಿಸುತ್ತವೆ.

ಇಯು ಮೂಲಗಳು
ಮಾಸ್ಟ್ರಿಕ್ಟ್ ಒಪ್ಪಂದದಿಂದ ಒಂದೇ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ಯುರೋಪ್ ಒಕ್ಕೂಟವು ರಚನೆಯಾಗಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ 1945 ರಿಂದಲೂ ಕ್ರಮೇಣ ಏಕೀಕರಣದ ಪರಿಣಾಮವಾಗಿ, ಒಂದು ಹಂತದ ಒಕ್ಕೂಟವು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು ಕಂಡುಬಂದಾಗ ವಿಕಸನ, ಮುಂದಿನ ಹಂತಕ್ಕೆ ವಿಶ್ವಾಸ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಚೋದನೆಯನ್ನು ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ, ಇಯು ಸದಸ್ಯ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳ ಬೇಡಿಕೆಗಳಿಂದ ರೂಪುಗೊಂಡಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಬಹುದು.

ಎರಡನೇ ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಯುದ್ಧದ ಅಂತ್ಯದ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಯೂರೋಪ್ ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಸ್ಟ್, ಸೋವಿಯೆತ್-ಪ್ರಾಬಲ್ಯದ, ಪೂರ್ವದ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್, ಮತ್ತು ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಜಾಪ್ರಭುತ್ವದ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ವಿಂಗಡಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿತು. ಮರುನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಜರ್ಮನಿಯು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಯಾವ ದಿಕ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಮತ್ತು ಫೆಡರಲ್ ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ಒಕ್ಕೂಟದ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಆಲೋಚನೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತೆ ಜರ್ಮನಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಪ್ಯಾನ್-ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ಪ್ರಜಾಸತ್ತಾತ್ಮಕ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಅಂಟಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಆಶಯದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಅದು ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನಿತರ ಇತರ ಐರೋಪ್ಯ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗಳು, ಎರಡೂ ಹೊಸ ಯುದ್ಧವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಸ್ಟ್ ಪೂರ್ವದ ವಿಸ್ತರಣೆಯನ್ನು ವಿರೋಧಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

Continue reading “ಯುರೋಪಿಯನ್ ಒಕ್ಕೂಟದ ಇತಿಹಾಸ”