explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1709: Inflection

2016-09-16T17:47:34Z

108.162.244.67: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1709
| date = July 20, 2016
| title = Inflection
| image = inflection.png
| titletext = "Or maybe, because we're suddenly having so many conversations through written text, we'll start relying MORE on altered spelling to indicate meaning!" "Wat."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More on Latin conjugation...?}}

While walking, [[Megan]] tells [[Cueball]] that in {{w|inflected languages}} -- such as {{w|German language|German}} -- changes in the spelling of a word changes its meaning, in a predictable way. Megan exemplifies this with how {{w|plural}} forms of {{w|nouns}} are created by sticking an 's' at the end, and {{w|past tense}} of a {{w|verb}} is done by the suffix 'ed'. Megan then explains that this works well in {{w|languages}} which build on {{w|alphabets}}.

She continues to explain that their {{w|Indo-European languages|language family}} belongs to those that are inflected, but the {{w|Modern English|English branch}} is becoming less inflected than it used to be. Specifically this explains why English does not have so many {{w|Latin conjugations}}. A conjugation is a pattern of inflections, describing how a particular group of verbs is altered from its root form to represent different grammatical cases. Only verbs have conjugations (are ''conjugated''), nouns and adjectives are described by declensions (and are ''declined''). All inflected languages can be described by conjugations and declensions, although Latin is one of the most commonly cited, perhaps because Latin grammar was taught for centuries by monotonous rote learning of the conjugations and declensions.

A typical Latin conjugation would be the verb '''amare''', to love

{|
! Present, Active, Indicative
|-
! Singular
!
!
! Plural
|-
!
! Latin
! English
!
! Latin
! English
|-
! 1st person
! 'amo'
! ''I love''
!
! 'amamus'
! ''we love''
|-
! 2nd person
! 'amas'
! ''thou lovest''
!
! 'amatis'
! ''you love''
|-
! 3rd person
! 'amat'
! ''he/she/it loveth''
!
! 'amant'
! ''they love''
|-
|}

(The English singular uses archaic forms to highlight the number and person.) A complete conjugation includes all the tenses (Present, Imperfect, Future, ...), both voices (Active & Passive), and both moods (Indicative & Subjunctive). Other parts of speech - infinitive, participles, gerunds, and so forth - are needed to completely define the verb, but are not usually considered to be part of the conjugation.

Cueball then asks ''Could that mean that English writing might be ripe to become more pictographic?'' Instead of using traditional words, Megan replies with three {{w|emojis}} "Thumbs up" (like), "Applause", and a smiley -- thus showing a pictographic version of the writing which has become more popular in the last years. Emoji has become a [[:Category:Emoji|recurrent theme]] on xkcd.

The writing systems of many languages have both {{w|pictographic}} and {{w|ideographic}} origins. "Pictographic" means that they are pictures of some thing that will remind the reader of either the pronunciation or the meaning of the word. The letter 'A', for example, originated from a word meaning "ox", but was meant to remind readers of the glottal stop (it wasn't until the Ancient Greeks, who didn't have the glottal stop as a distinct phoneme, got a hold of the Phoenician version that it was transferred to the vowel(s) it is today). 'Ideographic' means that they are designed, through pictures, to illustrate some idea. In fact, the three emojis used in the third panel of this cartoon are all ideographic, not pictographic, under this definition. "Thumbs up" (like), "Applause", and the smiley, are all emojis that remind us of a concept of approval.

{{w|Egyptian hieroglyphics}} contain many pictorial elements, some of which are pictographic in the sense that they are meant to represent the thing that they picture, but many are more abstract (ideographic) or are used for their {{w|phonetic}} value (as 'A' was used in early alphabetic systems). Similarly, in the {{w|Chinese character}} writing system, many of the elements have pictographic or ideographic origins; but they are often, and even usually combined in ways that are phonetic and not related to the pictures that were the origins of the characters.

Early modern English (think Shakespeare or the {{w|King_James_Version|KJV}} Bible) used more forms for the tenses than we do today, which can help illustrate the trend away from inflected forms. In contrast, verbs in English today are often conjugated with auxiliary verbs. See below for a details on [[#Modern verb conjugation in English|modern verb conjugation in English]].

The title text points out that some intentional misspelling are used in Internet slang to alter the meaning of a word: "what" becomes "[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wat wat]" to [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wat express] confusion, disgust or disbelief. The title text also uses typographical variation to emphasize the word MORE by using all capital letters. Such emphasis is difficult to show with inflected language alone.

This comic is referenced at 4500 BCE in huge chart of [[1732: Earth Temperature Timeline]]. Acording to that comic it was at that time inflection was invented but just to tease future students so they have to remember a [[#Modern verb conjugation in English|zillion verb endings]].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan, holding a hand up, are seen walking together from afar in silhouette.]
:Megan: Inflected languages change words to add meaning, like "-s" for plurals or "-ed" for past tense.
:Megan: Alphabets—where symbols stand for sound instead of words—work well for them, since you can show the changes through spelling.

:[Zoom in on the two as Megan turns her head back towards Cueball and spreads her arms out.]
:Megan: Our language family is inflected, but the English branch has lost most of its inflection over the millennia. It's why we don't have all those Latin conjugations.

:[Cueball speaks as they walk on and Megan replies with three orange-yellow emoji: Thumbs Up Sign pointing right, Clapping Hands Sign pointing up left with two times three small lines to indicate the clapping and Smiling Face With Blushing (red) Cheeks and Smiling Eyes. Below given the closest match possible as of the release of the comic.]
:Cueball: Could that mean English writing is ripe to become more pictographic?
:Megan: <font color="orange">👍 👏 😊</font>

==Trivia==
===Modern verb conjugation in English===
In the table below is a sample of a modern verb conjugation in English.

In all of these conjugations, the only inflections on the main verb "walk" are "-s", "-ed", and "-ing". (The highly irregular helper verbs, "be" and "have", have somewhat more interesting inflections.) And although this table shows only the third person, the first and second person would not introduce any additional words whatsoever; similarly, the table shows only the indicative mood, but the subjunctive and imperative moods would not introduce any additional words, and the conditional mood would only introduce the helper verb "would" (an inflection of the irregular helper verb "will") without any additional inflections on the main verb "walk". If instead we made this table in Spanish (for example), then there would be many more inflections on the main verb (12 in the third-person indicative alone, 45 including all persons and moods, if I didn't miscount).

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Verb: Walk
!Voice->
!colspan="2"|Active
!colspan="2"|Passive
|-
!Tense
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
|-
|Present
|walks
|walk
|is walked
|are walked
|-
|Present progressive
|is walking
|are walking
|is being walked
|are being walked
|-
|Present perfect
|has walked
|have walked
|has been walked
|have been walked
|-
|Present perfect progressive
|has been walking
|have been walking
|has been being walked
|have been being walked
|-
|Past
|walked
|walked
|was walked
|were walked
|-
|Past progressive
|was walking
|were walking
|was being walked
|were being walked
|-
|Past perfect
|had walked
|had walked
|had been walked
|had been walked
|-
|Past perfect progressive
|had been walking
|had been walking
|had been being walked
|had been being walked
|-
|Future
|will walk
|will walk
|will be walked
|will be walked
|-
|Future progressive
|will be walking
|will be walking
|will be being walked
|will be being walked
|-
|Future perfect
|will have walked
|will have walked
|will have been walked
|will have been walked
|-
|Future perfect progressive
|will have been walking
|will have been walking
|will have been being walked
|will have been being walked
|-
|Conditional
|would walk
|would walk
|would be walked
|would be walked
|-
|Conditional progressive
|would be walking
|would be walking
|would be being walked
|would be being walked
|-
|Conditional perfect
|would have walked
|would have walked
|would have been walked
|would have been walked
|-
|Conditional perfect progressive
|would have been walking
|would have been walking
|would have been being walked
|would have been being walked
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Emoji]]

1734: Reductionism

2016-09-16T14:09:12Z

108.162.244.67: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1734
| date = September 16, 2016
| title = Reductionism
| image = reductionism.png
| titletext = "I've noticed you physics people can be a little on the reductionist side." "That's ridiculous. Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This is a reductionist's explanation}}
[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Reductionism Reductionism] is attempting to explain a complex topic using simple language or concepts. Here the meta joke is Randall is explaining the concept of Reductionism... by not explaining it at all, but rather explaining the origin of each individual letter of the WORD "Reductionism" (or at least the first three letters, the rest are cut off but we are to assume the definition were to continue until every letter were individually explained).

Reductionism is an approach that seeks to understand the world by breaking problems into simpler pieces. That can disregard emergent properties. This comic takes a reductionist approach to understanding the word "reductionism" by giving history of each letter.

In the title text, the speaker tries to show they are not reductionist by saying they have never said a reductionist word; thus argument is self-defeating because reductionism is an emergent property of sentences, not a trait of single words.

==Transcript==

:REDUCTIONISM n.1."R" is a letter with
:origins in the egyptian hieroglyphics. "E"
:stands for a vowel sound normally
:represented by "I" until the 1500's. "D" is

:[Title text]
:"I've noticed you physics people can be a little on the reductionist side."
:"That's ridiculous. Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said."

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-15T12:37:39Z

108.162.244.67: Woops

Sun in sunglasses is also in whatif "Into the sun" and I'm 99% sure this is not the only xkcd appearance of that... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 11:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is Randall using JPEG for the second time in a row? Gosh, the comics look horrifying when zoomed in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.67|108.162.244.67]] 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1733: Solar Spectrum

2016-09-15T12:35:21Z

108.162.244.67:

Sun in sunglasses is also in whatif "Into the sun" and I'm 99% sure this is not the only xkcd appearance of that... --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.119|162.158.86.119]] 11:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is Randall using JPEG for the second time in a row? Gosh, the comics look horrifying when zoomed in. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.67|108.162.244.67]] 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1701: Speed and Danger

2016-07-01T19:47:23Z

108.162.244.67: /* Why only 4 examples? */ new section

;Worst Comic
I think this might be a strong contender for worst comic on xkcd. Although [[1384: Krypton]] definitely makes for stiff competition. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.102|108.162.216.102]] 14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there something this is referencing? [[User:Saklad5|Saklad5]] ([[User talk:Saklad5|talk]]) 14:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The worst? Have you looked at the first few hundred? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 15:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this comic is actually enlightening on a certain (albeit narrow level). People frequently lack a proper sense of perspective, and this comic illustrates this fact. While we might say "Wow, that Indy car is really moving fast!", it pales in comparison to other vehicles that some fortunate few travel in.
:And I totally wanted to learn that from a '''comic''' that's supposed to be humorous... --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 16:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

[[1699]] and [[1680]] would like to have a word with you. Also [[1675]].
Actually, all of the last 25 or so comics would. I really don't know how the xkcd forums put up with being 500x smarter than all the comics they praise every day. [[User:Youforgotthisthing|Youforgotthisthing]] ([[User talk:Youforgotthisthing|talk]]) 17:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

;Sarcasm
Is sarcasm to be encouraged in explanations? “Here, Randall makes the '''truly astounding''' observation that the danger of a crash is directly proportional to its speed….” [Emphasis mine.] ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)''
:In this case it's definitely warranted...Jesus Randall, this wouldn't exactly have been hard to make funny/interesting. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 15:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well a rocket to achieve orbit hits about 18,000 MPH http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html
Where as NASCAR is only ~200 MPH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_car_racing
Formula 1 is only ~257 MPH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car#Top_speeds
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.68.71|162.158.68.71]] 16:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm kinda shocked Randall didn't reference Star Trek for this comic, considering the number. - Michael C. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.85|141.101.98.85]] 17:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

== Why only 4 examples? ==

Why not put things like biking, driving a regular car, WWI planes, WW2 planes, supersonic jets, satellites, Apollo, New Horizons...

Talk:1697: Intervocalic Fortition

2016-06-23T11:27:09Z

108.162.244.67: /* Why not use ( pronounced: "yews") fortition on eferything in an interfocalic context, not just 'V's? */

The idea, stated in the alt-text, that "meh" was created by writers of "The Simpsons", is incorrect. "The Simpsons", however, was responsible for widely popularizing it. See [http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/09/06/meh_etymology_tracing_the_yiddish_word_from_leo_rosten_to_auden_to_the_simpsons.html] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh] [[User:Dubaaron|Dubaaron]] ([[User talk:Dubaaron|talk]]) 04:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:Is it really saying that ''The Simpsons'' created the word? All it says is that it introduced the word, which does not seem to imply that it didn't exist before. If I introduce a friend of mine to another person, I most likely did not just create that other person, and there is no reason to believe that it should be any different for words.[[User:Mulan15262|Mulan15262]] ([[User talk:Mulan15262|talk]]) 13:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
::I don't think that "writers on The Simpsons decided to mess with future linguists" means "writers of The Simpsons introduced the word". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.13|108.162.221.13]] 14:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"The" ends in a lax vowel, and it's the most ubiquitous word in the language, so that rule is wrong. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.10|108.162.221.10]] 04:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

: I've always seen "lax vowel" referring to full (unreduced) vowels. When unstressed, the vowel in "the" is reduced (/ðə/), and when stressed it's tense (/ði:/). [[Special:Contributions/188.114.109.66|188.114.109.66]] 05:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

:: Furthermore, the lax vowel is only used if 'the' is followed by another syllable, and so the utterance will not be lax-vowel-final. {{unsigned ip|162.158.2.219}}

::: How does that matter? The rule as stated was about the ending of words, not of utterances. [[User:Huttarl|Huttarl]] ([[User talk:Huttarl|talk]]) 19:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Rules exists in reality, not as statements made by mathematicians or Randall. The actual rule is '' English doesn't allow utterances to end in a lax vowel''. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.13|108.162.221.13]] 22:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

::::: But isn't "meh" an utterance in and of itself, and therefore a violation of that rule anyway? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.58|173.245.54.58]] 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

::::::Truth is, as a general rule in most languages phonotactic constraints don't apply to exclamations and onomatopoeia. The lax vowel constraint however has a historical reason (mostly lengthening of vowels in word final position) but makes very little sense synchronically now that (historical) "long" and "short" vowels are very different from each other, so it may be the case that the language is evolving to allow lax vowels in final position. By the way, if we express this rule using the term "lax vowels" then yes, we have to exclude /ə/ from lax vowels because it actually appears quite often in final position (even more so in non-rhotic varieties) in words such as coda, comma, Buddha, etc. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.172|188.114.102.172]] 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

:::What the? That can't be right... {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.102}}

Questions. Is this happening in (American) English? is "adverb" becoming /adferb/. Any other examples?[[User:Zeimusu|Zeimusu]] ([[User talk:Zeimusu|talk]]) 05:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
: I scanned some 'v' words and didn't see much. A plural of [http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000293.html dwarf] discussion; similarly wharf splits into both wharfs and wharves. 'Halving' might benefit in the sense that the 'l' is silent so it sounds like 'having' and might be more clear as 'halfing'. I've also noticed a smattering of YouTubers writing "could of/should of" instead of contracting 'have', i.e, "could've/should've". [[User:Elvenivle|Elvenivle]] ([[User talk:Elvenivle|talk]]) 06:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
::The pronunciation of both ''of'' and ''’ve'' is /əv/. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.13|108.162.221.13]] 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:No, I don't think this is really happening. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.77|141.101.98.77]] 11:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:"Adverb" doesn't have an intervocalic "v". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.13|108.162.221.13]] 14:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
::No, but the prank as stated in the comic "V's in the middle of words" applies to "adverb". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.178|108.162.237.178]] 15:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:Yes, [[1677|absolutely]]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.220|108.162.237.220]] 19:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks, have added the comic you referenced, [[1677: Contrails]] to the explanation. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's quite surprising to see Randall misusing apostrophes to form plurals (i.e. V's and F's instead of the correct Vs and Fs).  – [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.41|141.101.98.41]] 19:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
:That's one of those gray/grey areas where the "rules" for apostrophes aren't firmly in place. Typographically, the apostrophe is (often) used to form plurals of lower case letters ("i's" and "m's" for clarity over "is" and "ms") and this exception tends to get carried over to capital letters, numbers, and symbols though the need for insuring clarity is reduced. It becomes a matter for style manuals rather than grammar manuals: do you follow the exception -- or the exception to the exception?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]] 21:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If they can't see through such transparent trickery, they must not be very cunning linguists. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.102|108.162.216.102]] 02:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If one applies this pronunciation to the title of comic, it becomes "Interfocalic fortition". Could this have any real meaning in optics, between lenses and their foci? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.73|141.101.81.73]] 03:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the mock German accent angle should be mentioned? [[User:Ehusmark|EHusmark]] ([[User talk:Ehusmark|talk]]) 07:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
:Yes, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that in German and dutch the V is always pronounced as F. And the V sound only comes into these languages trough W, which is not called double U but double V. Since I'm not from either country I would prefer someone with more knowledge about this to make the note. But it seems relevant for the explanation to me... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
::I personally don't think it's really relevant, also given that it's not entirely true that "German and dutch the V is always pronounced as F". As for German, orthographical <v> is almost always pronounced [f] at the beginning of a word, but there are many loanwords that are exceptional in this respect, and in the middle of the word it is most often pronounced "v". As for Dutch, while many varieties have merged <v> and <f> into [f], standard Dutch has three distinct pronunciations for <f>, <v> and <w>. The last two in particular are both pronounced as "v-like" consonants: <v> is pronounced [v] and <w> is pronounced [ʋ], a sound which is kind of between English V and W, think of the way some people with a speech impediment or children may pronounce R in English. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.172|188.114.102.172]] 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone has written as an example: ''"Luffing" instead of loving'' where it would be more correct to write lofing according to the rule of the comic... Any reason for this "error" or should it just be corrected? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
:It's a (pseudo)phonemic transcription of how the word "loving" would be pronounced if the "v" were replaced by "f" in pronunciation. "loving" has a (relatively) idiosyncratic spelling, but it is actually pronounced as "luvving" /ˈlʌvɪŋ/, replacing the V with F in writing would produce a word that would be likely to be pronounced rather like "loafing" /ˈləʊfɪŋ/. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.172|188.114.102.172]] 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

== Why not use ( pronounced: "yews") fortition on eferything in an interfocalic context, not just 'V's? ==

I.e. 'Z' becomes 'Ss' and that wierd French-sounding G sound (as in Jean luc) I can never remember the name of becomes 'sh'.

I.e. cifilissation.

Talk:1697: Intervocalic Fortition

2016-06-23T11:23:20Z

108.162.244.67: /* Why not use ( pronounced: "yews") fortition on eferything in an interfocalic context, not just 'V's? */ new section