I was looking at a phrase book today and I came across the word "diphthongise" (as in "don't diphthongise vowels.") Well, I didn't have the foggiest idea what that meant so I had to go look it up. To "diphthongise" means to "glide" or run 2 vowel sounds together. http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/diphthongterm.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llanfairpwllgwyngyll I thought the short version was difficult enough to say, check out the longer version.
floxipacinipilafacation . meaning a long word or phrase that talks about nothing..talking just to talk
Please, tell us what is the pukka-spelling you meant and we'll correct it for you ! (I'm so drained from work today that it's the only thing I feel able to do).
SESQUIPEDALIAN And here is mine : accidie, acedia : (Theology) spiritual sloth; apathy; indifference Acedia : sloth; spiritual torpor or indifference; apathy.
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you.†(Ps. 139:13-18 ESV) ______________ Human communication in two-way talk can achieve a meeting of minds, a sharing of understandings and thoughts, of feelings and wishes. Shared thoughts and feelings, understood agreements and disagreements, make humans the only animals that genuinely commune with one another Even though they signal their emotions or impulses to one another, other animals remain shut out from each other. They do not commune with one another when they communicate. The human community would not exist without such communion, which would not exist without human conversation. This century has also seen the production of computer-like machines that are eulogistically referred to as artificial intelligence machines. Their inventors and exponents claim for them that they will soon he able to do everything that the mind enables human beings to do. Their claim goes further than predicting that these machines will someday simulate characteristically human performances of all sorts, such as reading and writing, listening and speaking, as well as calculating, problem solving, and decision making. It predicts that the machine performance of these operations will be indistinguishable from the human performance of them. Three centuries ago, a famous French philosopher, René Descartes, countered this prediction by asserting that would always remain at least one thing that would rate the performance of machines from that of human beings. This one thing, which machines would never be able to simulate so successfully that machine and human performance would be indistinguishable, Descartes said, was conversation. For him that was the acid test of radical difference in kind between humans and brutes as well as between men and machines. In Part V of his Discourse on Method, Descartes conceded that intricate machines might be constructed to simulate successfully the performance of other animals—brutes by virtue of their lack of intellect, reason, or the power of conceptual thought. If there were machines possessing the organs and outward form of a monkey or some other animal without reason, Descartes agreed that “we would not have any means of ascertaining that they were not of the same nature as those animals.†And in another place he wrote: It is a very remarkable fact that there are none so depraved or stupid, without even excepting idiots, that they cannot arrange different words together, forming of them a statement by which they can make known their thoughts; while, on the other hand, there is no other animal, however perfect and fortunately circumstanced it may be, which can do the same. This does not merely show that the brutes have less reason than men, but that they have none at all, since it is clear that very little is required in order to be able to talk. A central thesis in the philosophy of Descartes was that matter cannot think. It was, therefore, quite consonant with the whole tenor of his thought to use machines—purely material mechanisms—as a challenge to his materialistic opponents. Here is the passage in which he hurls that challenge at them. I quote only the first part of it. If there were machines which bore a resemblance to our body and imitated our actions so far as it was morally [i.e., practically] possible to do so, we should always have two very certain tests by which to recognize that, for all that, they were not real men. The first is that they could never use speech or other signs as we do when placing our thought on record for the benefit of others. For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if it is touched in a particular part, it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part, it may exclaim that it is being hurt and so on. But it [could] never happen that it [would] arrange its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do. What Descartes is here saying, as I understand it, stresses the almost infinite flexibility and variety of human conversation. If over a long period of time two human beings were continuously engaged in two-way talk with one another, interrupted only by brief periods of sleep, it would be impossible to predict with certainty what turns such conversation would take, what interchanges would occur, what questions would be asked, what answers would be given. It is precisely this unpredictability that makes human conversation something that programmed machinery will never be able to simulate in a manner that renders it indistinguishable from human performance. The twentieth century revision of Descartes’s dictum, that matter cannot think, is as follows: all the wizardry of man’s technology will never be able to shape matter into truly thinking machines. I attempted to explain why this is so in the speech that I have placed in Appendix I. I think I have there demonstrated that machines will never-never in the whole of future time—be able to engage in anything like human conversation. Instead of repeating the argument here, I refer the reader to Appendix I for that demonstration. Readers persuaded by my argument will share my conclusion that only human minds, intellects with the power of conceptual thought, can engage in conversation with one another. Two-way talk that can end in a meeting of minds will always remain the irrefutable evidence that man is radically different in kind from brute animals and artificial intelligence machines. _________________ I will attach Appendix I in another conversation, later. I don’t want this to be overwhelmingly long. From, “How to Speak, How to Listenâ€, by Mortimer J. Adler.
OK we all agree that language is code and divine code at that because Jehovah taught Adam to speak. now we all know how the bible says be transformed by the renewing of the mind. and faith comes by hearing the word of god. so I'm not talking about a bible code here. I'm saying that the entire bible is the ultimate computer program for our minds written by god by inspiration.. all except the ten commandments that he wrote in person! the ultimate code is the bible and my guess is that it has such power that it can alter human DNA in a repairing way. so that the word of god spoken and received by another is way more than good advice. it is the code that runs your mind and body causing them to function as god intended.
Hi jehovahisgod, 1 Timothy 4: 8 For bodily training is beneficial for a little; but godly devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life now and that which is to come. I think this scripture is in line with your thinking here. Have a blessed day.
Hi all, Living in faith and trust in Jehovah and Jesus and the word is good for us right? However we also know that there is something far better waiting for us in the future. Because now we have: Romans 8: 18 Consequently I reckon that the sufferings of the present season do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. 19 For the eager expectation of the creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. 23 Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom. 24 For we were saved in [this] hope; but hope that is seen is not hope, for when a man sees a thing, does he hope for it? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we keep on waiting for it with endurance. So we wait with endurance for the completed hope. Have a peaceful day. Joe
a psychotherapist can cause physical and chemical changes to the human body.. with words. why is it hard to believe that Jehovah god designed the bible to program the mind and body to function correct? men who are trained in written medical programs do it all the time.. and its plain fact that hereditary DNA) can be enhanced in future generations by making the parents more healthy.. would you not agree that the offsprings of long generation Christian families are born more healthy both in mind and body? I say its the written word of god that helps to do that.
The written Word with the spirit guiding us. Isaiah 30: 21 And your own ears will hear a word behind you saying: “This is the way. Walk in it, YOU people,†in case YOU people should go to the right or in case YOU should go to the left. Even this being the wonderful case that our Father loves us His written word shows that we still have a sinful nature and all will die until the Kingdom actually begins ruling. Then and only then will the benefits that we hope for will be complete. Joe
Here is an example of a translation of Hebrew, into English. How is it to be read and understood? Is Amittai the prophet? Or is Jonah the prophet? And, who was from Gath-hepher? “. . . which He spoke through His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was of Gath-hepher.†(2 Ki 14:25 NASB ) “. . . spoke through his servant Jo′nah the son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath-hepher.†( 2 Ki 14:25 NWT )
Hi Tsaphah, Huh? where did that come from and why? knowlledge of the sayings of men is of some benefit. Is not knowledge by means of the spirit of truth of more benefit? Do I misunderstand your intent? Please explain in scriptural terms please. May you have peace. Joe
Ok......gonna guess from off the top of my head here. My money is on......both Jonah and Amittai are prophets. I think the phrases "son of Amittai" and "prophet from Gath-hepher" are used to identify Jonah. Wallflower
Hi Tsaphah: This is what I refer to as a triple designation. It is three ways to describe the same individual, but it is oh so much more, as it tells us (in a very consistent code) how many symbolic fulfillment's are held in the prophecy to follow. The whole Bible is written in this consistent code. To read more about this see http://truebiblecode.com/code.html#c6a frank