a different set of physical forms

[Lazypierrot]

I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following passages (a) and
(b), one in "this differene in form", the other in "a different set of physical
forms", mean the same thing, or each means a different thing.
In other words, does the "form" in "this difference in form" mean "physical
forms" in the latter passage(b)?


(a) On the surface, signed languages appear to differ radically from spoken
languages. Most obviously, spoken languages make use of sound channels, while
signed languages make use of visual channels. But *this difference in form*
between signed and spoken languages obscures substantial similarities between
the two types of language.


(b) Signed languages share fundamental characteristics of spoken languages but
express them with *a different set of physical forms*. Researchers can use the
contrast between these two language types to understand the process of language
acquisition.

Cordially,

LP

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following passages (a) and
(b), one in "this differene in form", the other in "a different set of physical
forms", mean the same thing, or each means a different thing.
In other words, does the "form" in "this difference in form" mean "physical
forms" in the latter passage(b)?

Yes.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following passages (a) and
(b), one in "this differene in form", the other in "a different set of physical
forms", mean the same thing, or each means a different thing.
In other words, does the "form" in "this difference in form" mean "physical
forms" in the latter passage(b)?
(a) On the surface, signed languages appear to differ radically from spoken
languages. Most obviously, spoken languages make use of sound channels, while
signed languages make use of visual channels. But *this difference in form*
between signed and spoken languages obscures substantial similarities between
the two types of language.
(b) Signed languages share fundamental characteristics of spoken languages but
express them with *a different set of physical forms*. Researchers can use the
contrast between these two language types to understand the process of language
acquisition.

The difference between spoken and signed languages is usually called
"modality," not "form."

"Form" is busy referring to too many other things in linguistics.

PLEASE stop putting asterisks around the words you ask about. They look
like emphasis added to the passages and probably distort judgments.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following
passages (a) and (b), one in "this differene in form", the other in
"a different set of physical forms", mean the same thing, or each
means a different thing. In other words, does the "form" in "this
difference in form" mean "physical forms" in the latter passage(b)?
(a) On the surface, signed languages appear to differ radically from
spoken languages. Most obviously, spoken languages make use of sound
channels, while signed languages make use of visual channels. But
*this difference in form* between signed and spoken languages
obscures substantial similarities between the two types of language.
(b) Signed languages share fundamental characteristics of spoken
languages but express them with *a different set of physical forms*.
Researchers can use the contrast between these two language types to
understand the process of language acquisition.

They do not mean the same thing. In (b), the reference is to the bodily
attitudes used to express a sign. In (a), the contrast is between the
bodily attitudes used in signed languages and the spoken languages that
do not use those bodily attitudes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following
passages (a) and (b), one in "this differene in form", the other in
"a different set of physical forms", mean the same thing, or each
means a different thing. In other words, does the "form" in "this
difference in form" mean "physical forms" in the latter passage(b)?
(a) On the surface, signed languages appear to differ radically from
spoken languages. Most obviously, spoken languages make use of sound
channels, while signed languages make use of visual channels. But
*this difference in form* between signed and spoken languages
obscures substantial similarities between the two types of language.
(b) Signed languages share fundamental characteristics of spoken
languages but express them with *a different set of physical forms*.
Researchers can use the contrast between these two language types to
understand the process of language acquisition.

They do not mean the same thing. In (b), the reference is to the bodily
attitudes used to express a sign. In (a), the contrast is between the
bodily attitudes used in signed languages and the spoken languages that
do not use those bodily attitudes.

I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following
passages (a) and (b), one in "this differene in form", the other in
"a different set of physical forms", mean the same thing, or each
means a different thing. In other words, does the "form" in "this
difference in form" mean "physical forms" in the latter passage(b)?
(a) On the surface, signed languages appear to differ radically from
spoken languages. Most obviously, spoken languages make use of sound
channels, while signed languages make use of visual channels. But
*this difference in form* between signed and spoken languages
obscures substantial similarities between the two types of language.
(b) Signed languages share fundamental characteristics of spoken
languages but express them with *a different set of physical forms*.
Researchers can use the contrast between these two language types to
understand the process of language acquisition.

They do not mean the same thing. In (b), the reference is to the bodily
attitudes used to express a sign. In (a), the contrast is between the
bodily attitudes used in signed languages and the spoken languages that
do not use those bodily attitudes.

I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

I interpret that use of "attitude" to mean "posture" or "position of the
body".

That seems to be the original sense of the word.
OED:

1. In Fine Arts: The ‘disposition’ of a figure in statuary or
painting; hence, the posture given to it. (Now merged in sense 2.)
1668...

2.
a. A posture of the body proper to, or implying, some action or
mental state assumed by human beings or animals. to strike an
attitude: to assume it theatrically, and not as the unstudied
expression of action or passion.
a1731...

d. Dance. A posture or disposition of the body; spec. a form of
arabesque.
1721...

3. Settled behaviour or manner of acting, as representative of
feeling or opinion.
1837...

4.
a. attitude of mind n. deliberately adopted, or habitual, mode
of regarding the object of thought.
1832...
<etc>

[John Varela]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:27:04 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following
passages (a) and (b), one in "this differene in form", the other in
"a different set of physical forms", mean the same thing, or each
means a different thing. In other words, does the "form" in "this
difference in form" mean "physical forms" in the latter passage(b)?
(a) On the surface, signed languages appear to differ radically from
spoken languages. Most obviously, spoken languages make use of sound
channels, while signed languages make use of visual channels. But
*this difference in form* between signed and spoken languages
obscures substantial similarities between the two types of language.
(b) Signed languages share fundamental characteristics of spoken
languages but express them with *a different set of physical forms*.
Researchers can use the contrast between these two language types to
understand the process of language acquisition.

They do not mean the same thing. In (b), the reference is to the bodily
attitudes used to express a sign. In (a), the contrast is between the
bodily attitudes used in signed languages and the spoken languages that
do not use those bodily attitudes.

I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

I interpret that use of "attitude" to mean "posture" or "position

Many of which, such as a raised eyebrow or a grimace, would apply
equally to both signed and spoken communication.

I take "difference in form" here to mean aural vs visual
transmission and no more.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
That seems to be the original sense of the word.
1. In Fine Arts: The disposition of a figure in statuary or
painting; hence, the posture given to it. (Now merged in sense 2.)
1668...
2.
a. A posture of the body proper to, or implying, some action or
mental state assumed by human beings or animals. to strike an
attitude: to assume it theatrically, and not as the unstudied
expression of action or passion.
a1731...
d. Dance. A posture or disposition of the body; spec. a form of
arabesque.
1721...
3. Settled behaviour or manner of acting, as representative of
feeling or opinion.
1837...
4.
a. attitude of mind n. deliberately adopted, or habitual, mode
of regarding the object of thought.
1832...
<etc>

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 07:53:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know whether the two "form(s)" in the following
passages (a) and (b), one in "this differene in form", the other in
"a different set of physical forms", mean the same thing, or each
means a different thing. In other words, does the "form" in "this
difference in form" mean "physical forms" in the latter passage(b)?
(a) On the surface, signed languages appear to differ radically from
spoken languages. Most obviously, spoken languages make use of sound
channels, while signed languages make use of visual channels. But
*this difference in form* between signed and spoken languages
obscures substantial similarities between the two types of language.
(b) Signed languages share fundamental characteristics of spoken
languages but express them with *a different set of physical forms*.
Researchers can use the contrast between these two language types to
understand the process of language acquisition.

They do not mean the same thing. In (b), the reference is to the bodily
attitudes used to express a sign. In (a), the contrast is between the
bodily attitudes used in signed languages and the spoken languages that
do not use those bodily attitudes.

I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

I interpret that use of "attitude" to mean "posture" or "position of the
body".
That seems to be the original sense of the word.

I just recently witnessed two people struggling with that word. They
were discussing Star Trek, and apparently wondered if "attitude
control" was techno-babble. They did come to the correct conclusion
that "altitude control" would make no sense in space, but even thinking
about that indicated to me that they had no clear idea of what
"attitude" means in this context.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Quinn C
They did come to the correct conclusion
that "altitude control" would make no sense in space

I thought those spaceships had very large engines (of some kind) which
pointed directly aft.

In order to accelerate in the desired direction you would first need to
point the nose of the ship in that direction.

That task would require attitude control.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Quinn C
They did come to the correct conclusion
that "altitude control" would make no sense in space

I thought those spaceships had very large engines (of some kind) which
pointed directly aft.
In order to accelerate in the desired direction you would first need to
point the nose of the ship in that direction.
That task would require attitude control.

I just noticed Q wrote ALTITUDE not ATTITUDE.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Quinn C
They did come to the correct conclusion
that "altitude control" would make no sense in space

I thought those spaceships had very large engines (of some kind) which
pointed directly aft.
In order to accelerate in the desired direction you would first need to
point the nose of the ship in that direction.
That task would require attitude control.

I just noticed Q wrote ALTITUDE not ATTITUDE.

I caught on after reading this message, and then added my comment to Sam.

/dps "quick, aren't I?"

[Quinn C]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Quinn C
They did come to the correct conclusion
that "altitude control" would make no sense in space

I thought those spaceships had very large engines (of some kind) which
pointed directly aft.
In order to accelerate in the desired direction you would first need to
point the nose of the ship in that direction.
That task would require attitude control.

Exactly. Attitude control always made sense to me, and I never had the
idea there could be a mix-up with altitude. If you wonder about that,
then you probably don't know what "attitude" means in this context.

I guess you did indeed overlook the letter L (as PTD seems to think,
too), because it wasn't useful to quote only that part without the
rest.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Quinn C
They did come to the correct conclusion
that "altitude control" would make no sense in space

I thought those spaceships had very large engines (of some kind) which
pointed directly aft.
In order to accelerate in the desired direction you would first need to
point the nose of the ship in that direction.
That task would require attitude control.

Exactly. Attitude control always made sense to me, and I never had the
idea there could be a mix-up with altitude. If you wonder about that,
then you probably don't know what "attitude" means in this context.
I guess you did indeed overlook the letter L (as PTD seems to think,
too), because it wasn't useful to quote only that part without the
rest.

Yep. Bang to rights.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Quinn C
They did come to the correct conclusion
that "altitude control" would make no sense in space

I thought those spaceships had very large engines (of some kind) which
pointed directly aft.
In order to accelerate in the desired direction you would first need to
point the nose of the ship in that direction.
That task would require attitude control.

Those big engines are for altitude control. And they make changes plane.

/dps "no additional OMS burn required at this time"
(but keeping a station requires some effort, either from STS or Soyuz)

[s***@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:53:44 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

[...]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

Wonderland or Looking Glass, no?

/dps

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by s***@gmail.com
[...]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

Wonderland or Looking Glass, no?
/dps

Looking Glass.

Gilbert and Sullivan has "stained glass attitudes" in Patience.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

Wonderland or Looking Glass, no?

Looking Glass.
Gilbert and Sullivan has "stained glass attitudes" in Patience.

I assumed orants (what Wilde would appreciate).

[CDB]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by s***@gmail.com
[...]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by
"attitudes"? (Cf. the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All
That* -- a reference that whooshes me entirely.)

Wonderland or Looking Glass, no?
/dps

Looking Glass.
Gilbert and Sullivan has "stained glass attitudes" in Patience.

See below, maybe.

And there was a book by Angus Wilson.

'"Anglo-Saxon attitudes" is a phrase originated by Lewis Carroll in
Through the Looking-Glass (1871):
"All this was lost on Alice, who was still looking intently along the
road, shading her eyes with one hand. 'I see somebody now!' she
exclaimed at last. 'But he's coming very slowly—and what curious
attitudes he goes into!'

(For the Messenger kept skipping up and down, and wriggling like an eel,
as he came along, with his great hands spread out like fans on each side.)

'Not at all,' said the King. 'He's an Anglo-Saxon Messenger—and those
are Anglo-Saxon attitudes. He only does them when he's happy.'"

Wilson uses part of this quotation at the front of his novel. Lewis
Carroll is referring to a ninth- to eleventh-century style in English
drawing, in which the figures are shown in swaying positions with the
palms held out in exaggerated positions.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Attitudes

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't think that's right -- or, what do you mean by "attitudes"? (Cf.
the "Anglo-Saxon attitudes" in *1066 and All That* -- a reference that
whooshes me entirely.)

Wonderland or Looking Glass, no?

Could well be!

I don't recall that Tenniel took the opportunity to draw Hengist and
Horsa looking as though they'd stepped off the page of an Anglo-Saxon
ms., with arms every which way and maybe legs akimbo [sic].