Editing 1734: Reductionism

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 23: Line 23:
 
As it happens, every letter of the {{w|Latin alphabet}} (the writing system used by the {{w|English language}} and many other languages) is ultimately derived from {{w|Egyptian hieroglyphics}}, not just "R". But maybe the same sentence is used for all the {{w|consonants}} as the only word in the explanation for "D" is "is"; the same that starts the explanation for "R".
 
As it happens, every letter of the {{w|Latin alphabet}} (the writing system used by the {{w|English language}} and many other languages) is ultimately derived from {{w|Egyptian hieroglyphics}}, not just "R". But maybe the same sentence is used for all the {{w|consonants}} as the only word in the explanation for "D" is "is"; the same that starts the explanation for "R".
  
The second letter that is explained is "E", a {{w|vowel}}. In modern English spelling, the letter "E" is used – alone or in combination – to represent a number of different vowel sounds (compare "gene", "bed", "crepe"). In the word "reductionism", the "E" can be pronounced as /ɪ/ ("riductionism"), /iː/ ("reeductionism") or /ə/ ("ruductionism"), depending on dialect and emphasis, but the comic is talking about the sound used to pronounce the letter itself, /iː/ ("long E"). It explains that this vowel sound was normally represented with the letter "I" until the 1500's. This is a reference to the {{w|Great Vowel Shift}}, a change in the pronunciation of many English vowels around that time. Before then, a word like "see" was pronounced /seː/ (approximately "seh", with no diphthong), while a word like "bite" was pronounced /biːt/ ("beet"). So in modern English pronunciation, the "long E" sound is the same as what the "long I" spelling used to represent.
+
The second letter that is explained is "E", a {{w|vowel}}. In modern English spelling, the letter "E" is used – alone or in combination – to represent a number of different vowel sounds (compare "gene", "bed", "crepe"). In the word "reductionism", the "E" can be pronounced as /ɪ/ ("riductionism"), /iː/ ("reeductionism") or /ə/ ("ruductionism"), depending on dialect and emphasis, but the comic is talking about the sound used to pronounce the letter itself, /iː/ ("long E"). It explains that this vowel sound was normally represented with the letter "I" until the 1500's. This is a reference to the {{w|Great Vowel Shift}}, a change in the pronunciation of many English vowels around that time. Before then, a word like "see" was pronounced /seː/ (approximately "seh", with not diphthong), while a word like "bite" was pronounced /biːt/ ("beet"). So in modern English pronunciation, the "long E" sound is the same as what the "long I" spelling used to represent.
  
 
In the title text, two people are speaking. The first speaker has noticed that "physics people can be a little on the reductionist side". (Randall would consider himself a physicist). The presumed physicist then says that it is a ridiculous notion. He challenges the other to "Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said." But by claiming he is not a reductionist by focusing on the individual words (which, even/especially in the case of "reductionist", are never used ''solely'' by reductionists) he is asking for an impossible comparison to be made, when proof of reductionism is clearly an emergent property of a fuller sentences, if not whole discourses. By insisting on focusing only upon individual words in this manner the speaker likely proves themself a reductionist, in the very act of trying to refute this accusation.
 
In the title text, two people are speaking. The first speaker has noticed that "physics people can be a little on the reductionist side". (Randall would consider himself a physicist). The presumed physicist then says that it is a ridiculous notion. He challenges the other to "Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said." But by claiming he is not a reductionist by focusing on the individual words (which, even/especially in the case of "reductionist", are never used ''solely'' by reductionists) he is asking for an impossible comparison to be made, when proof of reductionism is clearly an emergent property of a fuller sentences, if not whole discourses. By insisting on focusing only upon individual words in this manner the speaker likely proves themself a reductionist, in the very act of trying to refute this accusation.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)