1957 Linguistics Lecture Series, Ep. 1: Introduction | Henry Lee Smith
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2021
- In this introduction to the series, Henry Lee Smith discusses the importance of language, points out common misconceptions concerning language, and tells what language really is. Explains how the words we use and the way we use them affect the way we think and see the world. Develops the relationship between language, para-language, and kinesics.
Everyone here after seeing that “streets” video, right?
Here
🫡
Hell yeah I'm gonna eat my food to this🍝
Lmao yeah
yarrhhhh
“Women always have more words for color than men…in our culture”
Truly an intelligent academic
Because women can usually see more color on average...It's like saying that Seeing people use more description words than blind people. If course they would, they can fucking see what they are describing unlike a blind person. It doesn't take an intellectual to observe that.
I was thinking the same when I first heard him, but some minutes later 6:23 he explained very well the different color spectrum names and categories some people/cultures can have. At that point of time, men had another perception of colors than women. Even nowadays, a designer has more color spectrum names and categories than a computer programmer with a limited 256-bit color system. And I dare to say that still nowadays, most of the women have a more deep understanding of colors than most of the men.
At nearly 62 years old, thinking I’m an educated man and once again, I’m still being humbled.
A glimpse of life in the late 50s. A very proper lecture reflecting the social attitudes of that time. We have changed a lot.
It's videos like this that give me hope that UA-cam hasn't totally devolved into completely ad-laden crap.
Browse responsibly
This is brilliant and still so applicable--especially the salient critique of approach to cultural disparities in the political theater. Chinese and Western officials are still not connecting conceptually on fundamental levels, and no level of direct translation can bridge between completely alien worldviews.
Thanks for sharing this golden video full knowledge. I had a happy smirk every time Mr. Smith explains something and it connects in my mind.
Odd that they got near 70 year old footage, but I ain't complaining
Great archive. Thank you!
I'm loving this series..
I want more videos like this.. from this Era to the 70s, 80s
Outstanding. I’m hooked. Thanks for posting.
Thanks for uploading!
:)
In Polish crack would be trzask /tshask/ or trach /trax/ not kush or whatever the guy said.
To nie byl nawet prawdziwy polak, akcent nie prawidlowy
@@MentalHealthTreatment I think the biggest plot twist was that ArchiveMC is Polish :} Nice to see you in the comments section!
Where you alive in the 50s to know that kush was not the word for crack? I don' t think so. Go cry somewhere else
@@Lupo.nero.selvaggio Yep, I would have heard that word from my elders, but it so happens that that I have not, because this word does not exist. Maybe it's some kind of Chicago Poglish.
Can't believe that this is pretty much one take. So few cuts and next to no editing
I’m waiting for him to stare at the camera and tell us 9 out of 10 physicians recommend Camel.
13:04 "Sat*n finds always work for idle hands to do" while being on your phone instead of zoning out 😧
Where is the full series?, i only found 7 on youtube :( , there is like a total of 11 or even more
Someone made a playlist with 13, I think. Have you found them all in the past 2yrs?
To me the opposite of theoretical is tangible. Something that is theoretical is of the mind we think it may be that way but it hasn't been proven tangible to me would be we can actually prove this without beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I was just thinking fact. Real, proven things vs hypothetical things.
"Ak-Wah"
for Aqua.
How else do you say it?
The A in Aqua either being pronounced as in Always vs Apple.
@@atsirdsart7386 who says it like "awk-wah"?
He says that only man has invented language. Does this "fact" stand today? Because we know dolphins and other animals communicate, are their forms not considered language?
It gets to be a kind of circular argument, but no, those are not considered languages because of how we humans define language. Communication is not the same as language
I think for it to be a language it needs a set system of words and vocabulary. Animals, as I've understood it, doesn't use words and vocabulary, but instead different tones, intonations etc. in order to emphasize certain situations etc. So as the OP commented, it's just communication and not language
@@LinusE Certain human languages are tonal. The tone of the word can in some cases totally change the meaning of the words.
He us both right and wrong about words. Words do only have one meaning when next to other certain words or simply put when used in any context. Plus there are some funny extremely specific words out there
Wasn't that what he said though?
@@rociopaoloni5080 Welp not sure exactly if he corrects the what he says in the first half of the video as I havent got round to the second half
"color words" - you mean hues?
What emoji is that????
not really moved on in 70 years, has it?
Maybe sometime we actually think about communism as though we could come to grips with it, as though it were alive! Well.. it isnt. - ice cold 🥶😂
Good morning everybody! Of course, every word has particular meaning. Nobody can’t change it. If we say “table” for example. It means a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working etc. And water, pencil, work tables are forms of the table, they are not an another meaning.
Not exactly. It may be hard to understand, but the words and other patterns are the qualias in the probability for certain information. Our brains are intelligent enough to identify it as such; taking your table example, a flat surface with or without legs is likely to be the table, but also can be a solar panel or smth else; also we can use a random object like rock with a flat surface as a table function. And the only way to define a thing is estimate a probability of the context, because it will differ in the other points of space-time. Go to the other continent and most of your context won’t be congruent, therefore brain can’t calculate a probability of information efficiently enough to decrypt it; same goes for a single space but different time, you would find it difficult to talk to the English natives from 17th century.
It seems that you’re referring to consensus instead of meaning. The consensus around the general meaning of a word is indeed conducted by us humans to make communication easier within a particular language, but as portrayed in the video, it is ambiguous when a culture changes or even only a person; the “meaning” of the words is lost, since the consensus has been already showed futile.
Some of the tables mentioned in the video are very different from that definition, not just another more specific form of it, perhaps the most straightforward example is the logarithm table he mentions, which is a type of chart, table referring to a two dimensional chart of cells has a completely different definition than a standard table.