Thread: страдательные причастия прошедшего времени (Very Difficult Question)

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

allow me to present you one example: When I was in Athens in 2007 in one famous amphitheater, called Irodeion, professors from all over the word came to listen ancient Greek music. Instead of notes the partitura was a text, particularly a poem about the love of Zeus with Europe from the Greek mythology. The music was absolutely harmonic (i.e. it was a scale, if I remember well something similar to G minor). The most exciting part however was that at the end a professor of Mathematics from the university of Patra presented that in the same text if it was translated to numbers it included mathematical rules such as: (a+b)^2= a^2+2**b+ b^2. The rules if I remember well were about 50 and included Euclidean geometry, integrals etc. The exciting thing is that this logic was repeated for ancient Greek texts for the period of 500 BC - 400 BC.

I don’t believe texts in Ancient Greek are simultaneously music and sets of mathematical statements. This sounds like a nonsense.
Probably, it was a trick commonly used to impress the public — one can make music out of a random sequence of values (e.g. music of number π).

This resembles the Russian folk tale «Каша из топора» (Axe porridge). A soldier sought lodging for the night. An old pair let him stay at their house. The soldier had no food with him, but the hosts were stingy and refused to feed him. Then the soldier claimed that he can make a dinner for them all out of his axe. He called the dish axe porridge. He put the axe into a kettle. Then he asked hosts for some water and salt. Then he asked for some serials. Finally, when the serials were ready, he asked for some butter and bread. The hosts liked the axe porridge very much, thanked the soldier and believed the dinner felt to their lot for free (because the axe — the ‘main’ ingredient — was soldier’s).
In fact, all the edible ingredients belonged to the hosts, and the axe played no role in the dish (and it didn’t damage, the soldier took it back). It was the soldier who had a dinner for free.

The same is true for the π-music and many similar things. The number π (or the poem text) plays the role of the axe, while the harmony is added by the performers.

As for mathematical formulas encoded in the text, I suppose, it’s a kind of mathematical trick. For example, there exists so called ‘one-time pad encryption’ when an arbitrary sequence of symbols can be interpreted in an arbitrary way. Using such tricks some ‘professors’ claim they decrypted the Bible and found the killer of Kennedy there etc.

The scientific definition of your answer is: data mining (i.e. looking for patents in a big set of data). Nevertheless, in the university of Harvard, in the postgraduate deparment of Classic, has a module called the "Mathematical aspect of Ancient Greeks". Nonsense and Harvard cannot be used in the same sentence (or they can? Personally I am an anti-scientist and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of fakeness). I told you from the beginning I don't want to enter this non-productive dialogue ...

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

I am an anti-scientist

What does it mean?

What does it mean?

I don't believe in the existence of solid scientific rules in social sciences (including anthropology, linguistics). I don't believe that social phenomenon could be explained or understood. But I believe in the prevailance of the dominant paradigm.
The reason why I left my PhD in Finance in the third year is that I became an anti-scientist or more specific a relativist.

Being a biologist and a true follower of evolution theory I think that all social things are just the means of human adaptive changes, just as language itself. It is another strategy from those used by other living beings: instead of adapting to new climat, food etc. we chose to adjust our adaptivness to excellence, having a highly organized society with the means of communication, division of labour etc. For example, for aphis it is necessary to evolve to new species just to start eating another plant, but we, people, can try new food everyday and our means of cooking can convert even most poisonous foods to edible meals.
I do not know about "scienceness" of sociology, psychology and such, but linguistics and anthropology are totally science for me.
I'm sorry for my not very clear explanations, but my English somewhat restrains me from good scientific language.

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

I don't believe in the existence of solid scientific rules in social sciences (including anthropology, linguistics). I don't believe that social phenomenon could be explained or understood. But I believe in the prevailance of the dominant paradigm.
The reason why I left my PhD in Finance in the third year is that I became an anti-scientist or more specific a relativist.

We, who deal with natural or technical sciences professionally, often feel a kind of snobbery about humanitarian and social disciplines. According to our methodological icon Karl Popper, they can not use Scientific Method consistently because due to the nature of their objects, their statements actually can not satisfy Falsifiability criterion (and thus can't be really "scientific").

But among the humanitarian disciplines the Comparative linguistics is one the most respectable in the opinion of many "naturalists" and "techs". Its methodological apparatus is quite solid and exact, and the results are least questionable.

We, who deal with natural or technical sciences professionally, often feel a kind of snobbery about humanitarian and social disciplines. According to our methodological icon Karl Popper, they can not use Scientific Method consistently because due to the nature of their objects, their statements actually can not satisfy Falsifiability criterion (and thus can't be really "scientific")

Some terminology I haven't came across for some years. Just allow me to add an additional opinion, that does not neccesarilly disagree or agree with those mentioned above.
Ludwig Wittgenstein* and his theory of social games are in my opinion the most descriptive, or if you want the dominant paradigm, in Comparative linguistics.
"Ancient Greek can be compared to the lingusitic game with the most comprehend and accurate rules, which cannot be explained based on the current experimental methodolgy due to the lack of context or even understanding of that particual time being ...", "the philosophical theocracy of that time required the structure of a linguistic vehicle so complicated that lead the deliberate alternation of the intrinsic character of the language to a tool of propagandation of mere intelligence so as to exterminate the slighest margin of randomness**, which at that time of naturalism and humanitarism, was considered more or less a disease" - Philosophical Investigation, 1953***

* Perhaps the most influential philosopher of social sciences of the 20th century
** The underlying was done by Wittgenstein on his original book
***Translated from the Greek Version of 1998

Originally Posted by Antonio1986

"Ancient Greek can be compared to the lingusitic game with the most comprehend and accurate rules, which cannot be explained based on the current experimental methodolgy due to the lack of context or even understanding of that particual time being ...", "the philosophical theocracy of that time required the structure of a linguistic vehicle so complicated that lead the deliberate alternation of the intrinsic character of the language to a tool of propagandation of mere intelligence so as to exterminate the slighest margin of randomness**, which at that time of naturalism and humanitarism, was considered more or less a disease" - Philosophical Investigation, 1953***

So basically he thinks that Ancient Greek was a construct of philosopers rather than natural language. And the first people's common Greek was Koine after Alexander?

Originally Posted by Soft sign

This resembles the Russian folk tale «Каша из топора» (Axe porridge).

Thanks for sharing that! In English, and in several other languages, this story is usually called Суп из камня, "Stone Soup," or less often Суп из гвоздя, "Nail soup." In the versions I'm familiar with, many people from the village add just a little bit to the soldier's soup: one gives a carrot, another an onion, another puts in a handful of dried beans, someone offers a beet, an old woman pours in a cup of rice, etc. So the soldier gets a free dinner, but everyone else gets an ALMOST free dinner!