4 ms·

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal

by Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago

belter 3y ago
That is why I said the main point of the comment still stands, both in form and semantics...
- darkerside 3y ago
  In defense of a point I wasn't making, I have to ask if you actually read the article you shared. It describes claims of people saying the Eskimos have 9, 48, 100, or 200 words for snow, and points out these are all in conflict. It then goes on to remar that even if it were true, it's understandable since snow is a huge part of their culture, which reinforces the point that I _was_ making. Hardly a debunking!
  - belter 3y ago
    "...The prevalence of the great Eskimo snow hoax is testimony to falling standards in academia, but also to a wider tendency (particularly in the United States, I'm afraid) toward fundamentally anti-intellectual "gee-whiz" modes of discourse and increasing ignorance of scientific thought..." "...Some time in the future, and it may be soon, you will be told by someone that the Eskimos have many or dozens or scores or hundreds of words for snow. You, gentle reader, must decide here and now whether you are going to let them get away with it, or whether you are going to be true to your position as an Expert On Language by calling them on it..."
    - darkerside 3y ago
      He yammers on for pages about the poor quality of sources that make the claim, and then utterly fails to provide any sources that dispute it. He also says that it would make so much sense as to be "mundane and unremarkable". > Among the many depressing things about this credulous transmission and elaboration of a false claim is that even if there were a large number of roots for different snow types in some Arctic language, this would not, objectively, be intellectually interesting; it would be a most mundane and unremarkable fact. If so, the burden of proof falls on him to prove it's not the case. The whole thing comes off as a fun rant about how it's not such a big deal even if true, while never actually addressing its truthfulness. How's this for sources? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow > Krupnik and others charted the vocabulary of about 10 Inuit and Yupik dialects and concluded that they indeed have many more words for snow than English does. Central Siberian Yupik has 40 terms. Inuit dialect spoken in Canada's Nunavik region has at least 53, including matsaaruti, for wet snow that can be used to ice a sleigh's runners, and pukak, for crystalline powder snow that looks like salt. Within these dialects, the vocabulary associated with sea ice is even richer. In the Inupiaq dialect of Wales, Alaska, Krupnik documented 70 terms for ice including: utuqaq, ice that lasts year after year; siguliaksraq, a patchwork layer of crystals that form as the sea begins to freeze; and auniq, ice that is filled with holes. Similarly, the Sami people, who live in the northern tips of Scandinavia and Russia, use at least 180 words related to snow and ice, according to Ole Henrik Magga, a linguist in Norway. I find it annoying that anyone would imply it's unintellectual to consider this possibility based on such an intellectually vacuous article as the one you shared.
- avarun 3y ago
  I have to ask once again if you know what apocryphal means. Your comment added nothing, since it appeared it was informing 'darkerside' that the fact he mentioned isn't true, but he already knew that given his use of the word 'apocryphal'. If you just wanted to add the link you didn't need to say "Apparently a hoax" — that had already been mentioned in the conversation thus far.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocryphal

belter 3y ago

That is why I said the main point of the comment still stands, both in form and semantics...

darkerside 3y ago
In defense of a point I wasn't making, I have to ask if you actually read the article you shared. It describes claims of people saying the Eskimos have 9, 48, 100, or 200 words for snow, and points out these are all in conflict. It then goes on to remar that even if it were true, it's understandable since snow is a huge part of their culture, which reinforces the point that I _was_ making. Hardly a debunking!
- belter 3y ago
  "...The prevalence of the great Eskimo snow hoax is testimony to falling standards in academia, but also to a wider tendency (particularly in the United States, I'm afraid) toward fundamentally anti-intellectual "gee-whiz" modes of discourse and increasing ignorance of scientific thought..." "...Some time in the future, and it may be soon, you will be told by someone that the Eskimos have many or dozens or scores or hundreds of words for snow. You, gentle reader, must decide here and now whether you are going to let them get away with it, or whether you are going to be true to your position as an Expert On Language by calling them on it..."
  - darkerside 3y ago
    He yammers on for pages about the poor quality of sources that make the claim, and then utterly fails to provide any sources that dispute it. He also says that it would make so much sense as to be "mundane and unremarkable". > Among the many depressing things about this credulous transmission and elaboration of a false claim is that even if there were a large number of roots for different snow types in some Arctic language, this would not, objectively, be intellectually interesting; it would be a most mundane and unremarkable fact. If so, the burden of proof falls on him to prove it's not the case. The whole thing comes off as a fun rant about how it's not such a big deal even if true, while never actually addressing its truthfulness. How's this for sources? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow > Krupnik and others charted the vocabulary of about 10 Inuit and Yupik dialects and concluded that they indeed have many more words for snow than English does. Central Siberian Yupik has 40 terms. Inuit dialect spoken in Canada's Nunavik region has at least 53, including matsaaruti, for wet snow that can be used to ice a sleigh's runners, and pukak, for crystalline powder snow that looks like salt. Within these dialects, the vocabulary associated with sea ice is even richer. In the Inupiaq dialect of Wales, Alaska, Krupnik documented 70 terms for ice including: utuqaq, ice that lasts year after year; siguliaksraq, a patchwork layer of crystals that form as the sea begins to freeze; and auniq, ice that is filled with holes. Similarly, the Sami people, who live in the northern tips of Scandinavia and Russia, use at least 180 words related to snow and ice, according to Ole Henrik Magga, a linguist in Norway. I find it annoying that anyone would imply it's unintellectual to consider this possibility based on such an intellectually vacuous article as the one you shared.
avarun 3y ago
I have to ask once again if you know what apocryphal means. Your comment added nothing, since it appeared it was informing 'darkerside' that the fact he mentioned isn't true, but he already knew that given his use of the word 'apocryphal'. If you just wanted to add the link you didn't need to say "Apparently a hoax" — that had already been mentioned in the conversation thus far.