Philfiki

21 year old Asian Studies student, aspiring linguist, martial artist, and circus performer.

“You realize that everything the police are doing in Ferguson is carefully calculated, right? They’re purposely turning peaceful protests into riots. They’re purposely committing violence to incite violence. From saying ‘We won’t be answering 911 calls,’ which is a very clever way to set themselves up to be able to say, ‘We were afraid for our safety - any call could really be an ambush, our lives were in danger’ right down to the camouflage and the military tanks and wearing more body armor than a soldier in a war zone. Its exactly why they’re going for a media blackout - yet allowing certain photos through - they WANT you to see their tanks. They want you to see their riot gear. They WANT you to see a war-zone. They’re trying to sell the world the idea that this community is inherently and constantly a source of violence and turmoil - they want you to think that they [the police] are being attacked daily in a place so vicious they need full body armor. You know why? Because then, at the end of the day, you might just be able to believe the story they’re going to spin. They’re going to tell you that this (white) officer goes to work in this war zone every day - that he spends every working moment in constant fear for his life. They’re going to tell you that Michael Brown attacked this officer. And then they’re going to bring up everything that has happened in the aftermath and try to use it to convince you that he shot that little boy because he was afraid for his life. They’re setting up a defense. You mark my words, they’re trying to set up a defense.”

My mom’s take on what’s going on in Ferguson (via actualbanshee)

Your mom isn’t wrong. That’s why it’s so important to keep the signal going. Too many are silenced with lies and fear and if they cannot speak then we have to do it for them.

(via auntpol)

If they want to see a riot, try acquitting Darren Wilson, then they’ll have a fucking riot on their hands. A nation-fucking-wide one.

Mark those words.

(via wickedestwitchofthewest)

Anonymous asked: nikki minaj is a gross fuck who is overly sexual and uses too many swear words I'd rather listen to something decent like mozart.

shitrichcollegekidssay:

image

Mozart - “Leck mich im Arsch” - Canon in B flat for 6 Voices, K. 231 / K. 382c

ok.

thisismyplacetobe:

A ‘Ring of Fire’ solar eclipse is a rare phenomenon that occurs when the moon’s orbit is at its apogee: the part of its orbit farthest away from the Earth. Because the moon is so far away, it seems smaller than normal to the human eye. The result is that the moon doesn’t entirely block out our view of the sun, but leaves an “annulus,” or ring of sunlight glowing around it. Hence the term  “annular” eclipse rather than a “total” eclipse.

science-of-noise:

r-colored:

caramelblackness:

visionarywateringhole:

thaxted:

nerdfaceangst:

theafrocentricasian:

World’s languages traced back to single African mother tongue: scientists.
New Zealand researchers have traced every human language — from English to Mandarin — back to an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.
Scientists say they have traced the world’s 6,000 modern languages — from English to Mandarin — back to a single “mother tongue,” an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.
New research, published in the journal Science, suggests this single ancient language resulted in human civilization — a Diaspora — as well as advances in art and hunting tool technology, and laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures.
The research, by Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand, also found that speech evolved far earlier than previously thought. And the findings implied, though did not prove, that modern language originated only once, an issue of controversy among linguists, according to the New York Times.
Before Atkinson came up with the evidence for a single African origin of language, some scientists had argued that language evolved independently in different parts of the world.
Atkinson found that the first populations migrating from Africa laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures by taking their single language with them. “It was the catalyst that spurred the human expansion that we all are a product of,” Atkinson said, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Atkinson traced the number distinct sounds, or phonemes — consonants, vowels and tones — in 504 world languages, finding compelling evidence that they can be traced back to a long-forgotten dialect spoken by our Stone Age ancestors, according to the Daily Mail.
Atkinson also hypothesized that languages with the most sounds would be the oldest, while those spoken by smaller breakaway groups would utilize fewer sounds as variation and complexity diminished.
The study found that some of the click-using languages of Africa have more than 100 phonemes, or sounds, whereas Hawaiian, toward the far end of the human migration route out of Africa, has only 13, the Times reported. English has about 45 phonemes.
The phoneme pattern mirrors the pattern of human genetic diversity as humans spread across the globe from sub-Saharan Africa around 70,000 years ago.
Source: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/science/110415/language-science-linguistics-mother-tongue-english-chinese-mandarin-africa

This gives me LIFE from people who insist all languages (ALL no matter what) derive from latin bases.

Reblogging this for three reasons:
1) It’s awesome and worth knowing
2) It makes sense when you think about, you know, the whole history of human development (from a NOT white supremacist perspective at least)
3) To add that if anyone ever tries to say that all languages are derived from Latin [insert choked sound of disbelief and anger] you can inform their ignorant (probably racist) asses of this: Latin, as far as languages go, is an INFANT. It’s part of a subset of Indo-European languages and MOTHERFUCKER EVEN ENGLISH ISN’T ONE OF ITS DERIVATIVES. (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and Portuguese are, as well as lots of their related languages and dialects, that’s it.) Latin isn’t even remotely old enough to be a mother language. It’s like saying alpacas were the original dinosaurs or some bullshit.

HUH! You dont FUCKING SAY?
WILL YOU LOOK THE FUCK AT THAT! 

Not surprising, but this is cool information!

as a linguist I am rooting for african languages since they are one of the most if not actually the most diverse language families but I can also tell you that historical linguistics is very bad at knowing things for sure and atkinson has yet to prove that language isolates definitively come from anywhere. like this is a very attractive concept to me but as a student of linguistics he’s been reported to use a broad metric that doesn’t really make any sense in terms of theories of language mutation - also tones are not phonemes
would go more into depth as a syntax-oriented student but alas, mobile
tl;dr - my heart says yes but my knowledge of linguistics says we’re not ready for a commitment

Agreed.  I would add, though, that IF all languages were found to be from a single root, that root would almost certainly have been found in Africa for statistical reasons:
In genetic dispersion models (genetic in the linguistic and biological sense), the area with the most diversity is usually located close to or correlated with the probable origin of the ultimate parent.
How freaking likely is it that humanity migrated out of Africa mute for thousands of years only to invent language somewhere else and somehow send it back home despite the fact that extra-African genetic inflow to especially eastern and southern Africa is limited compared to the rest of the world?
That is, if Proto-World was actually a thing, it was probably an African thing.
That’s a big if, though.  A single-root world language family model would be correlated with, but not identical with a human genetic tree model, as language ≠ genes, and language is spread by mechanisms of privilege and prestige in a way that biological identifiers do not (e.g. the archeological record suggests that Germanic languages may have spread into Europe not by conquest and interbreeding as much as by patron-client relationships between chiefdoms).  In certain areas of the world, this correlation gets thrown off by knots where the people show relatively low genetic diversity compared to their linguistic diversity (e.g. the Balkans, the North Caucasus, Taiwanese aboriginals to name a few).  In a Proto-World model, these areas would seem to have been “staging areas” from which certain subfamilies of the world language might have branched off, and it becomes difficult to reason why this kind of “punctuated equilibrium” type of linguistic dispersion would have happened, whereas a multiple-origin model doesn’t have that problem.
The 50,000 to 70,000 YBP figure also doesn’t quite add up, as humans had spread as far as South and Southeast Asia by 50,000 years ago, and had made as to the Near East by 125,000 years ago.  If the first language appears, say, even at the Horn of Africa, it still had a lot of people who had spread out ahead of it, and it seems unlikely they would have picked up this language by contact with future waves of migrants.  If there was a single Proto-World, I would think it would have had to evolve earlier than that.
We should also keep in mind that the time elapsed since when Proto-World would have been a feasible concept is pretty mind-blowing in terms of historical linguistics.  Proto-Indo-European has been dated to about 5-6 thousand years ago, less than a tenth of the “Proto-World time,” and even the nature of that language is fraught with uncertainty and controversy.  It may be that even if there was a single Proto-World, we just don’t, in the absence of a time machine, have the tools to say anything about it.

science-of-noise:

r-colored:

caramelblackness:

visionarywateringhole:

thaxted:

nerdfaceangst:

theafrocentricasian:

World’s languages traced back to single African mother tongue: scientists.

New Zealand researchers have traced every human language — from English to Mandarin — back to an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.

Scientists say they have traced the world’s 6,000 modern languages — from English to Mandarin — back to a single “mother tongue,” an ancestral language spoken in Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago.

New research, published in the journal Science, suggests this single ancient language resulted in human civilization — a Diaspora — as well as advances in art and hunting tool technology, and laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures.

The research, by Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand, also found that speech evolved far earlier than previously thought. And the findings implied, though did not prove, that modern language originated only once, an issue of controversy among linguists, according to the New York Times.

Before Atkinson came up with the evidence for a single African origin of language, some scientists had argued that language evolved independently in different parts of the world.

Atkinson found that the first populations migrating from Africa laid the groundwork for all the world’s cultures by taking their single language with them. “It was the catalyst that spurred the human expansion that we all are a product of,” Atkinson said, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Atkinson traced the number distinct sounds, or phonemes — consonants, vowels and tones — in 504 world languages, finding compelling evidence that they can be traced back to a long-forgotten dialect spoken by our Stone Age ancestors, according to the Daily Mail.

Atkinson also hypothesized that languages with the most sounds would be the oldest, while those spoken by smaller breakaway groups would utilize fewer sounds as variation and complexity diminished.

The study found that some of the click-using languages of Africa have more than 100 phonemes, or sounds, whereas Hawaiian, toward the far end of the human migration route out of Africa, has only 13, the Times reported. English has about 45 phonemes.

The phoneme pattern mirrors the pattern of human genetic diversity as humans spread across the globe from sub-Saharan Africa around 70,000 years ago.

Source: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/science/110415/language-science-linguistics-mother-tongue-english-chinese-mandarin-africa

This gives me LIFE from people who insist all languages (ALL no matter what) derive from latin bases.

Reblogging this for three reasons:

1) It’s awesome and worth knowing

2) It makes sense when you think about, you know, the whole history of human development (from a NOT white supremacist perspective at least)

3) To add that if anyone ever tries to say that all languages are derived from Latin [insert choked sound of disbelief and anger] you can inform their ignorant (probably racist) asses of this: Latin, as far as languages go, is an INFANT. It’s part of a subset of Indo-European languages and MOTHERFUCKER EVEN ENGLISH ISN’T ONE OF ITS DERIVATIVES. (French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and Portuguese are, as well as lots of their related languages and dialects, that’s it.) Latin isn’t even remotely old enough to be a mother language. It’s like saying alpacas were the original dinosaurs or some bullshit.

HUH! You dont FUCKING SAY?

WILL YOU LOOK THE FUCK AT THAT! 

Not surprising, but this is cool information!

as a linguist I am rooting for african languages since they are one of the most if not actually the most diverse language families but I can also tell you that historical linguistics is very bad at knowing things for sure and atkinson has yet to prove that language isolates definitively come from anywhere. like this is a very attractive concept to me but as a student of linguistics he’s been reported to use a broad metric that doesn’t really make any sense in terms of theories of language mutation - also tones are not phonemes

would go more into depth as a syntax-oriented student but alas, mobile

tl;dr - my heart says yes but my knowledge of linguistics says we’re not ready for a commitment

Agreed.  I would add, though, that IF all languages were found to be from a single root, that root would almost certainly have been found in Africa for statistical reasons:

  1. In genetic dispersion models (genetic in the linguistic and biological sense), the area with the most diversity is usually located close to or correlated with the probable origin of the ultimate parent.
  2. How freaking likely is it that humanity migrated out of Africa mute for thousands of years only to invent language somewhere else and somehow send it back home despite the fact that extra-African genetic inflow to especially eastern and southern Africa is limited compared to the rest of the world?

That is, if Proto-World was actually a thing, it was probably an African thing.

That’s a big if, though.  A single-root world language family model would be correlated with, but not identical with a human genetic tree model, as language ≠ genes, and language is spread by mechanisms of privilege and prestige in a way that biological identifiers do not (e.g. the archeological record suggests that Germanic languages may have spread into Europe not by conquest and interbreeding as much as by patron-client relationships between chiefdoms).  In certain areas of the world, this correlation gets thrown off by knots where the people show relatively low genetic diversity compared to their linguistic diversity (e.g. the Balkans, the North Caucasus, Taiwanese aboriginals to name a few).  In a Proto-World model, these areas would seem to have been “staging areas” from which certain subfamilies of the world language might have branched off, and it becomes difficult to reason why this kind of “punctuated equilibrium” type of linguistic dispersion would have happened, whereas a multiple-origin model doesn’t have that problem.

The 50,000 to 70,000 YBP figure also doesn’t quite add up, as humans had spread as far as South and Southeast Asia by 50,000 years ago, and had made as to the Near East by 125,000 years ago.  If the first language appears, say, even at the Horn of Africa, it still had a lot of people who had spread out ahead of it, and it seems unlikely they would have picked up this language by contact with future waves of migrants.  If there was a single Proto-World, I would think it would have had to evolve earlier than that.

We should also keep in mind that the time elapsed since when Proto-World would have been a feasible concept is pretty mind-blowing in terms of historical linguistics.  Proto-Indo-European has been dated to about 5-6 thousand years ago, less than a tenth of the “Proto-World time,” and even the nature of that language is fraught with uncertainty and controversy.  It may be that even if there was a single Proto-World, we just don’t, in the absence of a time machine, have the tools to say anything about it.