War Room Lounge v65

[Islam Imamate]

He's not an idiot savant. He and his coaches have a realistic understanding of his gifts and limitations as a fighter, so they've worked on developing a style that maximizes his chances to win.
It might seem like an ugly style, but really there are a lot of fighters who aren't ready to handle the kind of physical and mental pressure he can put on them.

He's really honest, first and foremost with himself. I remember when he was still undefeated he flat out admitted it was only a matter of time until he gets KOed with the way he fights.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Question 1: does anyone have a satisfactory definition of "grapheme"?

The tightest definition I found via internet searching is on this page, and is due to "David Crystal":

Graphemes are the smallest units in a writing system capable of causing a contrast in meaning. In the English alphabet, the switch from cat to bat introduces a meaning change; therefore, c and b represent different graphemes. It is usual to transcribe graphemes within angle brackets, to show their special status: <c>, <b>. The main graphemes of English are the twenty-six units that make up the alphabet. Other graphemes include the various marks of punctuation: <.>, <;>, etc., and such special symbols as <@>, <&>, and (£). . . .
​

Question 2: What if anything is wrong with the following analysis?


I find Mr. Crystal's definition unsatisfactory. Following the definition, individual Chinese characters would seem to be graphemes in most or all cases. Indeed, we have here a list of standards for 4700+ characters published under the title of "List of graphemes..."

For example, the character "帥" (handsome) is capable of causing a contrast in meaning. According to the dictionary I referenced above, it should be a grapheme.

If we modify that character by adding only one horizontal stroke (一) to the top of the right half of "帥", we get a character "師" (teacher, instructor). Presumably this stroke is a "smaller unit" than a whole character and it is definitely capable of causing a contrast in meaning, so under Mr Crystal's definition it seems that 師 or 帥 is not a "grapheme" at all. Only the extra stroke (一) would seem to meet that definition.

In Chinese, sometimes the smallest such unit is going to be a single stroke. Other times it's going to be a larger structure that still doesn't constitute a character (generally, 部首). There are also cases in which a full character could meet the definition (e.g., 口). I'm thinking the concept of "grapheme" might just be a sloppy idea resulting from excessive reliance on western languages/thought and/or lack of imagination among the people who invented it. It's also possible that there are superior definitions out there to Mr. Crystal's.

You'd be a real hit at parties if people ever invited you to them

 

[Prokofievian]

Question 1: does anyone have a satisfactory definition of "grapheme"?

The tightest definition I found via internet searching is on this page, and is due to "David Crystal":

Graphemes are the smallest units in a writing system capable of causing a contrast in meaning. In the English alphabet, the switch from cat to bat introduces a meaning change; therefore, c and b represent different graphemes. It is usual to transcribe graphemes within angle brackets, to show their special status: <c>, <b>. The main graphemes of English are the twenty-six units that make up the alphabet. Other graphemes include the various marks of punctuation: <.>, <;>, etc., and such special symbols as <@>, <&>, and (£). . . .
​

Question 2: What if anything is wrong with the following analysis?


I find Mr. Crystal's definition unsatisfactory. Following the definition, individual Chinese characters would seem to be graphemes in most or all cases. Indeed, we have here a list of standards for 4700+ characters published under the title of "List of graphemes..."

For example, the character "帥" (handsome) is capable of causing a contrast in meaning. According to the dictionary I referenced above, it should be a grapheme.

If we modify that character by adding only one horizontal stroke (一) to the top of the right half of "帥", we get a character "師" (teacher, instructor). Presumably this stroke is a "smaller unit" than a whole character and it is definitely capable of causing a contrast in meaning, so under Mr Crystal's definition it seems that 師 or 帥 is not a "grapheme" at all. Only the extra stroke (一) would seem to meet that definition.

In Chinese, sometimes the smallest such unit is going to be a single stroke. Other times it's going to be a larger structure that still doesn't constitute a character (generally, 部首). There are also cases in which a full character could meet the definition (e.g., 口). I'm thinking the concept of "grapheme" might just be a sloppy idea resulting from excessive reliance on western languages/thought and/or lack of imagination among the people who invented it. It's also possible that there are superior definitions out there to Mr. Crystal's.

Seems like there are composition rules to the chinese characters, and thus those would be the graphemes. Chinese characters aren't always just logograms but they can sometimes influence pronunciation as well and guide the reader in how the word is pronounced, if I'm not mistaken. That would be the smallest unit that can alter the meaning.

In any case I very highly doubt that mandarin of all languages was overlooked by linguists. Sure, they incorporated cuneiform but the most commonly spoken first language in the world? Let's ignore that.

 

[JDragon]

Question 1: does anyone have a satisfactory definition of "grapheme"?

The tightest definition I found via internet searching is on this page, and is due to "David Crystal":

Graphemes are the smallest units in a writing system capable of causing a contrast in meaning. In the English alphabet, the switch from cat to bat introduces a meaning change; therefore, c and b represent different graphemes. It is usual to transcribe graphemes within angle brackets, to show their special status: <c>, <b>. The main graphemes of English are the twenty-six units that make up the alphabet. Other graphemes include the various marks of punctuation: <.>, <;>, etc., and such special symbols as <@>, <&>, and (£). . . .
​

Question 2: What if anything is wrong with the following analysis?


I find Mr. Crystal's definition unsatisfactory. Following the definition, one might consider individual Chinese characters to be graphemes in most or all cases. Indeed, we have here a list of standards for 4700+ common characters published under the title of "List of graphemes..."

For example, the character "帥" (handsome) is capable of causing a contrast in meaning. According to the published list I referenced above, it should be a grapheme.

If we modify that character by adding only one horizontal stroke (一) to the top of the right half of "帥", we get a character "師" (teacher, instructor). Presumably this stroke is a "smaller unit" than a whole character and it is definitely capable of causing a contrast in meaning, so under Mr Crystal's definition it seems that 師 or 帥 is not a "grapheme" at all. Only the extra stroke (一) would seem to meet that definition.

In Chinese, sometimes the smallest such unit is going to be a single stroke. Other times it's going to be a larger structure that still doesn't necessarily constitute a character (generally, 部首). There are also cases in which a full character could meet the definition (e.g., 口). I'm thinking the concept of "grapheme" might just be a sloppy idea resulting from excessive reliance on western languages/thought and/or lack of imagination among the people who invented it. It's also possible that there are superior definitions out there to Mr. Crystal's.

Wiki says

An individual grapheme may or may not carry meaning by itself, and may or may not correspond to a single phoneme of the spoken language.

Graphemes include alphabetic letters, typographic ligatures, Chinese characters, numerical digits, punctuation marks, and other individual symbols. A grapheme can also be construed as a graphical sign that independently represents a portion of linguistic material.[2]

Therefore yes, these would all be graphemes then.

 

[waiguoren]

You'd be a real hit at parties if people ever invited you to them

Come on baby. I expect you to do better than parroting @Gandhi's lines.

Seems like there are composition rules to the chinese characters, and thus those would be the graphemes.


Chinese characters aren't always just logograms but they can sometimes influence pronunciation as well and guide the reader in how the word is pronounced, if I'm not mistaken. That would be the smallest unit that can alter the meaning.

You're saying that characters themselves are graphemes? How do you respond to the objection in my other post?

帥 and 師

are two characters with completely different meanings. The only written difference is that the right-hand character adds a horizontal stroke. This extra horizontal stroke has a name in Chinese (一橫), is found in 1000s of characters, and is part of a standard set of "radicals" (部首) that e.g., the Chinese government recognizes. So in this case why is that stroke not a "grapheme"?

Wiki says

An individual grapheme may or may not carry meaning by itself, and may or may not correspond to a single phoneme of the spoken language.

Graphemes include alphabetic letters, typographic ligatures, Chinese characters, numerical digits, punctuation marks, and other individual symbols. A grapheme can also be construed as a graphical sign that independently represents a portion of linguistic material.[2]

Therefore yes, these would all be graphemes then.

The definition that Mr Crystal gave indicates that a grapheme is "the smallest unit capable of causing a change in meaning." Therefore the standard character 師 cannot be a grapheme under this definition since the horizontal stroke on the right side changes the meaning of the character and is smaller than the whole character.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

None of these drug companies will ever pay the true price for the damage they've caused to the country.

They don't have enough cash for it.

Yea no fucking shit.

They have quite the brilliant racket...

Get millions and millions hooked on opiates and make huge profits off that, and then prescribe opiate blockers or "anti-opiates" like Suboxone and make huge profits off that.

It's pretty twisted. Nino Brown and Tony Montana have nothing on the pharmaceutical companies

 

[LMP]

Anyone familiar with Omaha?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Anyone familiar with Omaha?

The steaks?

 

[Prokofievian]

You're saying that characters themselves are graphemes? How do you respond to the objection in my other post?

帥 and 師

are two characters with completely different meanings. The only written difference is that the right-hand character adds a horizontal stroke. This extra horizontal stroke has a name in Chinese (一橫), is found in 1000s of characters, and is part of a standard set of "radicals" (部首) that e.g., the Chinese government recognizes. So in this case why is that stroke not a "grapheme"?

No, I'm saying the syntactic and phonemic radicals in that case are the graphemes.

There are also pure pictograms in Chinese, which don't work that way. So what counts as a grapheme is contextual as I imagine it would be in many transitional forms of writing that still had logograms as well as some more evolved cuneiform.

 

[Sketch]

You'd be a real hit at parties if people ever invited you to them

I would invite @waiguoren to a party, the party in my pants.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I would invite @waiguoren to a party, the party in my pants.

I heard from a reliable source that @waiguoren has a surgically implanted baboon uterus

 

[Fawlty]

We're going to find this David Crystal, and we're going to fuck him up.

 

[Fawlty]

I heard from a reliable source that @waiguoren has a surgically implanted baboon uterus

Rogan next podcast: "I read somewhere that we were already implanting gaboon pineal glands inside of uteruses."

 

[Jack V Savage]

I heard from a reliable source that @waiguoren has a surgically implanted baboon uterus

If you must have a baboon uterus implanted in you, surgery is probably your best option.

 

[LMP]

The steaks?

The shitty Nebraska city

 

[Fawlty]

The shitty Nebraska city

Stay away from the beach. The shooting death rate there is insane.

 

[LMP]

Stay away from the beach. The shooting death rate there is insane.

Sounds like my sort of place

 

[LMP]

Really just wondering if the downtown is worth the time

 

[Fawlty]

Really just wondering if the downtown is worth the time

The feeling is mutual

 

[LMP]

The feeling is mutual

That hurts, super deep down inside.