HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moscoso@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Innocuous Punch)
Subject: Dialects and the weather
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:32:05 GMT

Hello,

	I'm currently enrolled in a linguistics course (~intro), and someone
brought up an interesting question based on something they once heard.

	Basically, the question was, Is there any correlation between dialects
(at the time, we mentioned southern U.S. dialects) and average temperature/
elevations/rainfall/anything having to do with weather?

	Could warmer weather demand less physical exertion, thus pushing those
inhabitants nearer the equator to smooth out their daily speech, ending in
longer vowel sounds/etc...?
	A thought that occured to me was that maybe, indirectly, weather played
an important role in determining how long the average person spent out of
doors.  Thus, more time spent communicating outdoors may require more volume,
thus more strain on the voice, and possibly a window to an evolved language.
...Within my limited knowledge of southern dialects, I would guess the speech
patterns would be easier to produce and sustain for long, louder periods of
time.

	Conversely, more time spent indoors would require shorter speaking
distances.. lower volumes, and more energy could be placed on production of
more "nasal-like" vowel sounds, sharpness of consonants, etc...

	Being quite interested in this, I would appreciate any references or
ideas on the matter.  Have there been any studies done on this?

--
-ivan		Disclaimer: These opinions do not necessarily represent those
			    of the CCSO, necessarily.  Necessarily is the key
			    word here:  necessarily...
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Clinton transition
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:52:54 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <727687368snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
[ez012344@ucdavis.edu impression of the inauguration coverage as capitalistic]
>
>Perhaps we would be more inclined to stand back away from it a little,
>and make some sort of observation on the event within a wider context.
>
Wider context is fine, but ought it include humour?
Yours ROTFLing,
Dan
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: keeping groups clean
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:46:33 GMT
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.

karen@bberry.ru.ac.za (karen) writes:

>It would be really great if this anthro group could be keep up
>standards which other groups seem to have lost some time again.
>WIth regards to this perhaps debates on "boring" etc can be kept to
>a more appropriate forum .....  It seems pointless to try to get
>people to contribute to a specialist interest group when those
>writing to it are going to resort to writing on topics which are
>best kept out of it.

Perhaps a subgroup could be created: sci.anthropology.junk

The other choice -- sure-fire -- is to go for moderation. But you
are right that a specialist group will invariably be trafficked
by junk if left to access by those who believe their every word
is everyone else's especial interest.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:13:30 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <727510995snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING!
>
Hi Gil, I see the tranquillisers are working.

When my sister didn't like what I was saying, she used to stick her fingers
her ears while shouting 'boring boring ...' etc.  I used to try to point
out that sticking your fingers in your ears is quite enough.  You don't
have to shout as well.

Have you thought of using a kill file?

-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','
From: kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Kyrsten Swazey)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:24:22 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center

gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

>My only argument has been that all these indicators that ovulation is
>taking place in human females are sufficient to have the hypothesis
>that in human females ovulation is hidden rejected.

>In other words, sufficient evidence is plainly available that we are
>obliged to accept the null hypothesis. Whether you subsequently wish
>to act against me in some way, or have undue aspersions cast upon my
>reputation, is an entirely different matter.

>I would suggest to you that your public attempts to do so would rather
>reflect upon you finally, yes?

>Gil

I am not sure how i see that human female ovulation is *not* hidden.
"Discharge" is not necessarily indicative of ovulation; there are other
factors which also produce this. To any given female, then, this is a
tenuous indicator of ovulation, during many cycles not obvious to me at
least.  Being female, i can say that the only indicator i may rely on is
a brief sharp pain in my right side at what i have come to believe is
the moment of ovulation.
Variations in diet, excercize and sleep patterns will cause every part
of my cycle to go haywire, yet i do not think that this is a visible
phenomena.  
I think the fact that it is my own body and i can not always tell when I
am about to menstrate, much less when I am fertile, says a lot.
Certainly with much attention the time of ovulation and its indicators,
such as a change of body temperature, can be discerned.  However, it is
*not* readily apparent and *can* only be discerned through close
attention and/or study.

--kyrsten
From: delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Dialects and the weather
Date: 26 Jan 93 06:27:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: pith.1k2ljtINNo71
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

In article <C19yHw.Fx0@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> moscoso@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Innocuous Punch) writes:
>Hello,
>
>	I'm currently enrolled in a linguistics course (~intro), and someone
>brought up an interesting question based on something they once heard.
>
>	Basically, the question was, Is there any correlation between dialects
>(at the time, we mentioned southern U.S. dialects) and average temperature/
>elevations/rainfall/anything having to do with weather?

No.

>	Could warmer weather demand less physical exertion, thus pushing those
>inhabitants nearer the equator to smooth out their daily speech, ending in
>longer vowel sounds/etc...?
>	A thought that occured to me was that maybe, indirectly, weather played
>an important role in determining how long the average person spent out of
>doors.  Thus, more time spent communicating outdoors may require more volume,
>thus more strain on the voice, and possibly a window to an evolved language.
>...Within my limited knowledge of southern dialects, I would guess the speech
>patterns would be easier to produce and sustain for long, louder periods of
>time.

I hate to be impolite, Innocuous, but we might as well just come out and
say it; this is bullshit.

>	Being quite interested in this, I would appreciate any references or
>ideas on the matter.  Have there been any studies done on this?

This idea was around some in the popular press in the 19th century, but
it didn't take long for people to look around and realize that there is
no correlation whatever between climate and any linguistic patterns.

Scott DeLancey                        delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
From: max@admin.mport.COM (Max)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Cultural Appropriation and the New Age
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:48:50 GMT
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A

leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:


> > 1. The "challenge" is for your own growth and possible survival.

>I was referring to the collective "you", and the "challenge" I meant
>is purely an intellectual, emotional and, if you will, spiritual one. 
>The beatings and punishment I abhor.

>I hereby concede to Mr. Hardwick his point that Christianity has been
>nothing but a massive evil throughout the entire continent of
>Australia for the last two hundred years, and continues to be so.

>The latter.  Any Christian's job is to instruct, not to punish.

>I could make a go at it, but it appears (see below) that my opinion
>doesn't count here.

>Is that what "Stuff you, pal!" means?

>The original point was to clearly distinguish the "New Age" from
>Christianity.  I gather that such analysis cannot be performed here.
>I referred to flame wars in other newsgroups.  I didn't want one here
>too.  And, in the eyes of humanity, I am no one at all.

>I don't recall asking anyone to change the way they do things, to
>suit my morality or anyone else's.  If I have, I apologize - a
>newsgroup is an inappropriate forum for proselytizing.

>All of which, taken together, sounds to me like any question dealing
>with Christianity, even as it pertains to anthropology, is not welcome
>in this group unless it condemns Christianity as evil.  I thought I
>did my best to be inoffensive, respectful, and in pursuit of
>substantive arguments and informational commentary.  Since my best
>efforts in that direction have provoked a negative response, further
>interaction in this forum is pointless.  Goodbye.
>--
>Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | 

hi lee,

your assistance in understanding the position of the your people is much
appreciated. you were very helpful in presenting the views of your "One
True Way" and explaing victorias post to me. it is a shame that you feel
that your desire to discuss the anthopological effect of your religion has
been rsponded to negatively. it is difficult for even the most detached
people to accept the premise that we are the legion of satan because we
dont believe in your variety of cristianity. 

you did present your side as respectfully and as evenly as any view here
ever is, but the basic concept you present is divisive. i even
had a hard time interacting with you reasonably _only because the ideas you
presented were intolerant_. 

see you elseware.

-max


=====================================================================
  \\\///   | 		             | the above represents my 
  //@@\\   | yet another nude biker  | opinion only, and is subject
  // \ \   | 		             | to change. 
  // - \   ----------------------------------------------------------  
    """    | max@mport.com | dod:234 | protect the bill of rights
=====================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:00:47 GMT

gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:


>In article <1993Jan22.003839.9572@eos.arc.nasa.gov> stav@eos.arc.nasa.gov writes:
> > Ovulation in chimpanzees as well as humans is hidden, you can not watch
> > it happen. Howver, in chimps there are physical signs indicating it
> > occurs. This does not happen in humans. There is no external physical
> > indication of ovulation.

That's not quite true. The Billings method of birth control (or
fertility enhancement) uses external indications to detect ovulation.
The main indicator is a change in the consistency in vaginal mucus.
Many (most?) women (and their partners) can learn to identify this
change, though some cannot. It is not usually used alone as an
indicator, but is usually combined with other methods, such as basal
temperature. The change in the character of the mucus is not
a "smelly discharge" as Gil characterises what he seems to think is
an indicator of ovulation.

>What do you mean by no "external physical indication", however?
>Excuse me ladies, no red, swollen vulva with a smelly discharge
>and whatnot? Is that what you would want me to discuss with you,
>were you less "civilised" and gentlemanly?

>Lining up ten women would be an interesting exercise, if we could
>carry it out at an appropriately cross-cultural level of validity
>to be certain of our results (and indeed get away with it without
>causing a riot in each village we visited).

> > Seems to me you are misconstruing menstruation with ovulation.

>Not at all, although you have perhaps entered this thread late. I have
>twice now quite explicitly stated that I am referring to Pre-menstrual
>Tension (PMT) as the most commonly visible indicator that ovulation is
>taking place, raising the query in why in certain identifiable social
>traditions such indication is regarded as an illness, or behavioural
>abberation.

Gil, about how many days prior to menstruation do you think ovulation
occurs in humans? For how many days prior to menstruation do women typically
experience PMT? The former is about 10-12 days, and the most fertile time
is a few days before and a few days after that. As I understand it
(and being a male I must confess to a lack of direct understanding),
PMT usually occurs for a few days before menstruation, and would
be a poor indication of fertility, and in most cases would be a reasonably
reliable indicator of infertility.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: mccomt@aix.rpi.edu (Todd Michel McComb)
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:20:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.003839.9572@eos.arc.nasa.gov> Lowell Staveland writes:
>previously Gil Hardwick writes:

>You flame because your words are pointedly inflammatory, instead of
>factually refuting. 

That is your opinion.  Gil has presented facts of his experience.

>>This *IS* the specialist forum sci.anthropology, and in that context
>>I don't know that science asks "why" anything at all. Why is the moon,
>>for heavens sake? It just is, isn't it?.

>If science simply said it just is, then there would be no need for
>science, because there would be no question. Why searches for root
>causes. How examines the process between cause and effect. You statement 
>is ludicrous from an empirical perspective.

How about the question 'what happens?'  Answers to that in various
circumstances might actually be interesting -- even central to anthropology.

What makes you think there are 'root causes?'

Why do I think this is one of the most absurd concepts in science?  Why do
I suspect that a 'process' is hoked up nonsense to make people feel important?
Why do I believe that an empiricist can describe experience without asking
'why?'  Why, in fact, would a strict empiricist care anything about why
anything?

There are relationships among things.  There are complex links of connection
which circle upon themselves and within themselves.  There are incredible
subtleties of shade and form.  But there are no root causes and there is
no why -- other than the universal.

>These last two paragraphs are not worth commenting on. However, i suggest
>you rethink your emphasis on accepting the world at face value.

I note that you do comment on them.  I also suggest you rethink your emphasis
on not accepting the world at face value, or at least defending the abstraction
inherent in causality on empirical grounds.  Or would that interfere with that
nice government funding?

T. M. McComb
From: dlytle@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU (Don Lytle)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: The Association for the Study of Play conference
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:56:46 GMT
Reply-To: dlytle@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: oavax.csuchico.edu


                 *****   ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS   *****

                             TASP 1993 - St. Paul, MN
                     The Association for the Study of Play
      April 22 - 24, 1993 * The St. Paul Hotel * St. Paul, Minnesota

   The Association For The Study of Play (TASP) will hold its 1993 annual meetings in St. Paul, Minnesota.  The conference will begin Thursday and continue   until Saturday, April 24. There will be featured speakers, playshops, and forums for the discussion and presentation of   research papers on all aspects of play research, theory, performance and behavior.
    For the past twenty years TASP conferences have provided  a  mechanism by  which  researchers in diverse fields have the opportunity to share ideas  and  interact  in  a friendly and collegial atmosphere.
   Papers and proposals for panel sessions or tutorials related to the broad  study of play are invited.  Sessions include, but are not limited to:
 - Humor, laughter
 - Computer and cyperspace play
 - Folklore
 - Children's play behavior
 - Cross-cultural play
 - Body work and play art
 - Performance 
 - Anthropology of festive play
 - Sport
 - Literary playfulness

Deadline for submission of abstracts is February 5, 1993.

Send abstracts (100 word maximum), audio-visual needs, and registration fees  ($60 professional and $20 student made payable to TASP) to:

Dr. Don Lytle
Department of Physical Education
California State University, Chico  95929-0330. 
Bitnet/E-Mail: DLYTLE@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU; FAX: 916 898-4932; 
Phone: {916} 898-6617 or 898-6373 {message}
From: karen@bberry.ru.ac.za (karen)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: keeping groups clean
Distribution: y
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 20:35:19 GMT
Organization: kudu mail/news uucp point

It would be really great if this anthro group could be keep up
standards which other groups seem to have lost some time again.
WIth regards to this perhaps debates on "boring" etc can be kept to
a more appropriate forum .....  It seems pointless to try to get
people to contribute to a specialist interest group when those
writing to it are going to resort to writing on topics which are
best kept out of it.
Does anyway actually know how many people are reading this group?
It seems that the article by Gill and the response there to will
hasten the demise of a news group which could be of both interest and
use to those interested and mature enough to have adult discussions
on the subject matter of anthropology.
From: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:53:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.C1FJHp.H0A
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1993Jan20.170643.10946@eos.arc.nasa.gov> kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Kyrsten Swazey) writes:
>It's such a blatant thing i had not thought about it.  Your point is
>well-taken and I agree that we should attempt to "shake down" our
>sciences and expose and re-work everything tainted my unthinking
>cultural biases. (Of course, i would think that previous European biases
>would be replaced with out own, but at least that would keep things
>moving...;-) 


Okay, firstoff, I've studied a bit of anthropology and I happen to live with
someone beginning her career as an anthropologist, and I've started to get just
a little irked with one thing:  Cultural bias as a "taint".



C'mon folks, cultural bias is no more a "taint", a "pollution", or a "stain"
as the constraints imposed on particle physics by the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle is a "taint".  Cultural bias simply IS.  It is part of the limiting
conditions under which research in a field has to be done.  The best solution
would not be to "eliminate" cultural bias--this is pragmatically impossible--
but to simply become aware of it and try to compensate for it with rugged
theoretical constructions and the introduction of alternative cultural biases
to compensate (much like we study electrons alternatively as both particles 
and/or waves).  However, the moralistic approach I've seen in my tiny look
at anthropology doesn't look to me like it will do much good.




>However, I am a bit dismayed as to your comments... It seems that there
>really *is* a lot wrong with the status quo, *but* how is a beginning
>student to know the difference between real information and biased
>accounts of reality?  Do you have any constructive suggestions?  Are you
>saying that the comparison of humans to chimpanzees or even humans to
>other humans is invalid?  Or merely that it something we do not need to
>dwell upon?
>Where should one go to find culturally un-biased accounts?



1:  There is no "real information".
2:  All accounts are "biased".
3:  There are no "culturally un-biased accounts".


At least, these are things I learned as an undergraduate while studying
BIOLOGY, of all things.


I leave you with a quote:


"I began to study science because I had a love of certainty and a wish to
 discover the unvarnished truth about the universe.  I now realize that this
 is quite like becoming an archbishop to meet girls."  --speaker forgotten.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Dialects and the weather
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:04:53 GMT

In article <C19yHw.Fx0@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> moscoso@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Innocuous Punch) writes:
>Hello,
>
>	I'm currently enrolled in a linguistics course (~intro), and someone
>brought up an interesting question based on something they once heard.
>
>	Basically, the question was, Is there any correlation between dialects
>(at the time, we mentioned southern U.S. dialects) and average temperature/
>elevations/rainfall/anything having to do with weather?
>
>	Could warmer weather demand less physical exertion, thus pushing those
>inhabitants nearer the equator to smooth out their daily speech, ending in
>longer vowel sounds/etc...?
>	A thought that occured to me was that maybe, indirectly, weather played
>an important role in determining how long the average person spent out of
>doors.  Thus, more time spent communicating outdoors may require more volume,
>thus more strain on the voice, and possibly a window to an evolved language.
>...Within my limited knowledge of southern dialects, I would guess the speech
>patterns would be easier to produce and sustain for long, louder periods of
>time.
>
>	Conversely, more time spent indoors would require shorter speaking
>distances.. lower volumes, and more energy could be placed on production of
>more "nasal-like" vowel sounds, sharpness of consonants, etc...
>
>	Being quite interested in this, I would appreciate any references or
>ideas on the matter.  Have there been any studies done on this?

I am not sure if it Benjemin Whorf himself, or some of his followers who proposed
this idea.  I read about it many years ago.  Whorf is a philosopher that claimed
thought depends on language and there were special thoughts that could only be
expressed in special languages.  His favorite example was the Hopi language that
has some unusal tense constructions and blurring between nouns and verbs.

An extension of this that the physical expression of words, i.e. sound, has
some connection with their meaning.  I remember some treatise on vowel length and climate.

Some religious philosophies, e.g. Tibetan Buddhism, have similar ideas.

Worf's ideas have pretty much been discounted by later philosphers.
The Chinese language is a counter example.  The superficial claim
is Chinese had no tenses (actual there are two tense markers)
and Chinese thoughts aren't rooted in time then.  Nothing could be
further from the truth.  It is as clear as in English when or
whether something has happened.
Also there are very few concepts that cannot be translated from one language into
from one language into another, although the translation may be
less concise.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology