Відео

Nejsem Tibeťan. Nemám naladěné ucho na až takovou exotiku (*). Nicméně: Léta praktikuji - řekl bych - pasívní muzikoterapii poslouchám hudbu, kterou nazývám nikoliv relaxační, ale meditační. Není to mainstream. Je hříchem tento klenot (a spoustu dalších) poslouchat jako zvukovou kulisu. Pro mne je to nejlepší anxiolytikum, účinnější nežli farmakologické preparáty (a že jsem jich vyzkoušel ! naposledy Xanax / Frontin / Neurol) zkuste si vyčlenit něco přes 6 minut na ua-cam.com/video/hN_q-_nGv4U/v-deo.html (takhle si představuji pocity při nirváně) ____________________________________________________ (*) Nevím jak, ale tahle skladba Joea Bonamassy (a violoncellistky) mě má ve své moci. Tak tou exotikou to nebude. ua-cam.com/video/HM1M6p1fiUM/v-deo.html

I want to go there for Erasmus 🌝

no medialní show by byla , taky listky a urny . co tak pohled s hlediska voliče. co tak zavést volební systém který by strany motivoval dávat na kandidátky lidi s podporou voličů ... u voleb s hlediska výsledků by měl byt nejdůležitější hlas voliče. V česku je spíš důraz na tu uřední ( centrální ) proceduru. volební systém , zvlášt , na místní urovni by měl být především transparentní . řekl bych že i v česku by mol fungovat systém který by voliči umožnoval dat reálný hlas víc , tak 2,3,4 , kandidátum.

Výborné informační videjko.🙂👍

Moc děkuji za vaši dlouhodobou práci.

To byl můj oblíbený učitel, i když česky ho slyším mluvit až teď :)

Super

In this engaging introductory talk there is one point which it seems to me deserves further clarification. At 26.23 the lecturer asks: "So, what would limit the number of words in a language?" and a young man answers: "Usage." This is basically true, but a broader perspective is required if we are fully to grasp the issue of word-stock. One must first of all keep in mind that man is a living being subject to the same laws of nature as other animal species. From this follows that, like other animals, he is endowed with certain biological properties. Of these properties the most important as regards language (and word-stock specifically) are his mental faculties and his sensory organs. They determine how one perceives words, how he learns them and also provide explanation for the fact that once learned some words can be retrieved and used over and over again, whereas others are forgotten. To begin with the sensory organs, the primary sense in the reception of words is hearing. This is so until one learns to read, and so for the illiterate hearing remains the only channel through which they can perceive words, whereas a literate person relies primarily on his sight, whilst hearing for him is relegated to the secondary role. Both, the illiterate and the literate, live a certain span of years, a certain number of days, and in each of these days only part of the time is devoted to the language input. The language input is therefore limited, both in its daily ration and as the sum total in one´s lifetime. Its quality also varies, depending on what one reads or to whom one talks. Some simple statistical facts naturally follow: Basic words, i. e. words belonging to the core vocabulary (like "bus", "get", "she"), inevitably come up more often than words that are not as frequent (like "pusillanimous", "indite", "guerdon"), and so it is more probable that in a given speech or a piece of writing one hears or reads the word "bus" rather than the word "pusillanimous". As the time of the language input and hence the input itself is limited, it is inevitable that there is a large number of words one comes across only seldom, if ever. And here we get to the question of mental faculties. In order to retain a perceived word, to acquire it, it is necessary to store it. For the storage of words a part of the language processing network of human brain known as memory (specifically, declarative memory) is responsible. Genetic variation plays a role here: some people are born with a better memory, others with a worse memory. People with better memory find it easier to remember words, that is to say: of two people, one with a better memory, the other with a worse memory, who both in a given span of time (say, a year) come across the word "guerdon" three times, the one with a better memory is more likely to learn the word. Better memory also prevents forgetting words. The part of memory responsible for acquiring new words deteriorates with age, noticeably after one reaches full maturity (late twenties), whereas the ability to store and retrieve the vocabulary remains intact until old age. Memory correlates with intelligence and intelligence correlates even more closely with general language ability. Intelligent people read more, because they are fast readers, and they prefer to read writings rich in information. Writings rich in information are rich in vocabulary. Obvious conclusions follow: A median person is exposed to a median language input. Part of this input are words which he processes with a memory of median capabilities and as a result has a median vocabulary of some 30,000 words. If we take a random other speaker of the language, his vocabulary is broader or scantier or the same, depending on his intelligence and how much high-quality writing he has read and how versatile he is in his career and hobbies, but to a considerable extent the vocabularies of the two persons will overlap. We can now add the third speaker with his vocabulary, the fourth and so on, the vocabulary of each speaker representing a set and all the sets put together forming a Venn diagram. The word-stock of a given language then is the sum of all words (of that language, not foreign words) at least one speaker of the language knows. Languages with more speakers naturally have larger word stock than languages with a handful of speakers remaining. An explicit answer to the question quoted at the begging is as follows: The limits are: i) genetic disposition of man, which determines the median language ability and limits the amount of sensory input; only minor (?) modifications are possible within species-specific boundaries through selection pressure (e. g. fertility rate per IQ); given the point iii) below, it is an obvious implication that a median individual vocabulary is roughly 30,000 words and not, say, 30,000,000. ii) the number of speakers of the given language; iii) exposure to language, in early age through speech, later through avid reading of high-quality literature (this of course affects the individual at first, but eventually redounds on the population) and through work in a number of different fields/occupations. For practical purposes it is as well to prescind from the view of the word stock as all the words at least one of the speakers knows and to think rather in the terms of percentiles and ask oneself: "What are all the words at least 5 per cent of the population know?" This is in fact hardly a more practicable approach; an expedient is to turn to a language corpus. Here, we can easily find an answer to a reflection like this: "Lets take a corpus (novels, poetry, non-fiction, academic literature, newspapers, restaurant menus, etc.) of 5,000,000,000 words, or roughly 20,000 books of 600 pages each, and make a list of all words (except for proper nouns) that come up at least 20 times. I do not know the number of words selected this way, but I think 150,000 to 200,000 is a fair estimate.

To je uzasne, to bylo nahrane v den mych narozenin !