AgentMuffin at 14:35, 16 May 2024

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 In the comic the ''n'' refers to {{w|noun}} and the "1." indicate that this is the first of more than one entries about the word.
-The meta joke is that Randall is attempting to define the word ''Reductionism'' by taking the reductionist approach to its extreme. He thus breaks the word into its 12 individual letters explaining the origin of each individual letter, acting as if the word was nothing more than the "sum" of all its letters. In doing so he entirely fails to explain the actual meaning of the word.
+The meta joke is that Randall is attempting to define the word ''reductionism'' by taking the reductionist approach to its extreme. He thus breaks the word into its 12 individual letters explaining the origin of each individual letter, acting as if the word was nothing more than the "sum" of all its letters. In doing so he entirely fails to explain the actual meaning of the word. (Maybe a reader could guess the meaning based on how the entry is written&hellip; or maybe the whole dictionary is written like this, making it practically useless.)
 The entire entry number 1. could in principle have 12 phrases one for each of the letters R, E, D, U, C, T, I, O, N, I, S and M, but here only the first two for R and E are included, the third (D) only just starts when the entry is cut off at the bottom of the panel. It could be argued that the two I's could share one explanation, but as a reductionist you might not even notice that the I had already been explained.
@@ 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".
-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/ ("rih"ductionism), /iː/ ("ree"ductionism) or /ə/ ("ruh"ductionism), 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.
 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.

1734: Reductionism - Revision history

AgentMuffin at 14:35, 16 May 2024

Theusaf: Reverted edits by Donald Trump (talk) to last revision by CRLF

Donald Trump: Reverted edit by anti-crap user

CRLF: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Donald Trump: Crapped page

CRLF: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: haha your js cant stop my js

CRLF: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: haha your js cant stop my js

Davidy22: Reverted edits by Explain xkcd server admin (talk) to last revision by Davidy22