| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | So is Gretchen McCulloch xkcd's resident linguist now? Is there going to be character page for her like Cory Doctorow? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.136|172.68.129.136]] 23:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC) | | So is Gretchen McCulloch xkcd's resident linguist now? Is there going to be character page for her like Cory Doctorow? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.136|172.68.129.136]] 23:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
| − | :I'm hoping so! We could call it "Gretchen McComics." [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.74|172.69.34.74]] 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::That's probably not in compliance with whatever stylebook we have here but I love it. [[User:Captain Video|Captain Video]] ([[User talk:Captain Video|talk]]) 04:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Could it really be the same Gretchen? The time periods of the two comics are thousands of years apart. And the title text of "True Name of the Bear" says she was devoured. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 06:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Maybe it is meant to remind us of her from the other comic, but given the settings and no mention of her name, it cannot be determined that it is her. Great to include mention of the other comic in the explanation, but not in the transcript. Also it cannot be said that there is a real person in this comic (unless of course you think of God as a real person? But even if you consider him a person, then people may debate you on how real he is ;-) Have updated the transcript and categories. And no we should not make a category on her based on two comics, especially not when it is not clear it is her in this one. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :If there's a third comic with a linguist drawn like that, I'd suggest calling the character "Gretchen" as a convenient handle regardless of whether it is or isn't Gretchen McCulloch. --[[User:Pi one|Pi one]] ([[User talk:Pi one|talk]]) 02:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Wait, how could a linguist exist before there were languages to study and compare? Is this the omphalos hypothesis popping up again? [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 02:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :They have one language. Presumably, she attempts to thoroughly study that one. This would technically make her a grammarian, but since they don't have contact with any other language, this proto-language wouldn't need make any distinction between grammarians and linguists, so "linguist" would be an appropriate translation. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.49|162.158.79.49]] 05:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::I think it is worth mentioning the paradox in the explanation. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :There's also the possibility that the word "linguist" didn't exist before that moment. "What the hell's a linguist?" "Who is hells?"
| |
| − | :Very astute observation - I take it you are a cunning linguist? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.35|141.101.104.35]] 20:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Defining "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" {
| |
| − | "colorless green ideas" existing is 0 .
| |
| − | List of all existing "colorless green ideas" that don't "dream furiously" contains 0 elements.
| |
| − | True.
| |
| − | } [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.60|141.101.77.60]] 06:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Defining "more people have been to Russia than I have" {
| |
| − | if(Have "I" ever been to Russia?){
| |
| − | "More than 1 people have been to Russia.".
| |
| − | } else {
| |
| − | "More than 0 people have been to Russia.".
| |
| − | }
| |
| − | }, so something like {
| |
| − | "At least 1 person that is not me has been to Russia.".
| |
| − | }. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.60|141.101.77.60]] 06:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :"I possess a number of people as chattel", i.e. servants and/or slaves. (That number could be zero?) "The number of people who have gone to Russia exceeds this value." [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.168|141.101.77.168]] 10:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What colour is invisible ink? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.140|172.69.55.140]] 10:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Any colour you wish, so long as its [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGBA_color_model alpha is zero]! [[User:Davidhbrown|Davidhbrown]] ([[User talk:Davidhbrown|talk]])
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Regarding this line: "A world with only one language would make travel and global communication much easier, but for those with an interest in linguistics, it would be deeply limiting, as there would be only one language to study."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It may be worth noting that this is actually one of the reasons why God is attributed with being upset at Babel and why language was confounded. An explanation I heard is that God was concerned that all humans being part of one language and one culture resulted in absolutism and stifled the variety of human culture that was intended (this relatively recent explanation compared the people building the tower to Soviet Russia), and so the adding of languages wasn't a punishment ''per se'', but an enforced correction to bring society back to how it was "supposed" to be all along. I made an account to note this - I can note it in the explanation if desired. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.84|172.70.131.84]] 17:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Noah
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is Randall mocking the linguists? [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 08:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
| |
