is it possible to manipulate human genetics naturally or artificially in order to purposefully create a blue hair color gene? a green hair color gene? others? how much genetic manipulation is really possible when money is not an issue? who would appreciate this technology?
made ya look
What is the difference between a creole, a pidgin, and a dialect? Is it possible that dialects are simply pidgins from living and dead languages? When considering North America in particular and the wealth of languages which have died out and the clear abundance of regional dialects, I think it just makes sense that pidgin languages between the two could survive after the death of one or the other languages…Our linguistics book is verbose (new word) and uses way too many different vocabulary words to describe the same thing…it’s like it’s preparing me for some mythical career as an unintelligible writer that nobody reads. Also, synthetic and analytic languages…can pidgins exist between the two? Are pidgin languages more likely to fall into one or the other categories? I predict that pidgin languages would lean more toward the isolating, or analytic, side of the spectrum…Why? Because of the simplicity and ease of transmission of quick ideas. I also predict that more pidgin languages exist in areas of high density of different language spoken (one or more languages) in trade areas, specifically harbors and ports. I would predict that a statistic could be found that may indicate a higher degree of isolating language use in said areas of trade density. It would also stand to reason, then, that distinct dialects may spring and center around former trading posts, thus indicating perhaps a pidgin nature that formerly existed between the colonizer’s language and the groups traded with in that specific area. Also, are there different degrees of syntheticism or isolationism linguistically speaking within one language, differing from one dialect to another or even based on social context or status? If so, yadayadayada…I don’t know why I’m posting this, nobody is reading it or comprehending it. But whatever, now I’ll post some old papers…don’t read further unless you want to read about gender and race crap, I would have worded it better but I have to post this quick since I had to turn it in quick and despite it’s low quality in my eyes (and maybe it’s just taboo shit I would like to have more time to make sure I worded it right) I think it may have a few original ideas so I’d best to post it…Oh, another note, certain varieties of English are approved which include what would usually be described as grammatical errors, many of them, and the dialects seem to be pretty loose with their interpretation of them…you could write in these dialects, (they’re called something else, not dialects, can’t remember) and make a case for certain grammatical ‘errors’ just being dialectical misunderstandings between you and a teacher…marking them down could be a slight against the groups of people they represent and thus be politically incorrect, perhaps earning you an A! Also, you know what? This is a little bit out there…but anyway, here’s an interpretation of a play I had to do…Oh, what I had said before in this was basically a description of the ways in which groups of people, regardless of their age, race, social status, etc. could utilize existing dynamics which demote racism in order to achieve positive social gain while affecting self promotion simultaneously. The concept of using political correctness as a mode of attack in socially normative and yet extortive manners is not unique. Indeed, it has been applied across different taboo items to achieve both legal and illegal gains in what are largely socially visible means. One cruel example would be photographing an individual’s pet in a situation which makes the owner appear to be abusive. This could be especially useful in, for instance, attaining funds for nonprofit animal shelters and donation based similar campaigns.
In “Funnyhouse of a Negro,” author Adrienne Kennedy takes special care to note the presence of a variety of colored objects, particularly those falling along the black and white color spectrum. The intention is relatively opaque, that being to indicate and provide a visual metaphor for the racial segregation and institutional oppression of African Americans in America. The reference goes a little deeper, however, and contains veiled references to colonialism, imperialism, and the social consequences of mixing different cultures to different degrees in a stratified system of power and class. For this paper, special attention will be paid to figures and forms in white satin. This could be construed as somewhat contrary to the initial, more prominent theme of the short play (the theme of blackness). However, as could be expected from a text regarding race and color on a dichotomous spectrum, the one cannot exist without the other (blackness without whiteness, whiteness without blackness). They are relational terms.
At this point I would like to point out that I do not think that a dichotomous mapping of race, that is basing it on two extremes, either provides and accurate picture of peoples’ heritages nor encourages harmony but instead creates injustices and perpetuates the institutions which restrict individuals in the world. The author, while simultaneously providing a politically charged and shocking dialogue in regards to the concept of ‘blackness,’ shaking the reader with a confrontational and confusing tone that brings to light issues for peoples of black skin tone and/or mixed race that may not generally be addressed by the naive and ignorant populace, is also painting a picture of the ‘blackness’ in ‘whiteness’ (and subsequently the ‘whiteness’ in ‘blackness’). Much of the world has so long believed they are all descended from different individual races and prehistorical integration did not occur. This is the same populace rationalization that has propagated naive and racist beliefs for centuries. The general public’s passion for the concept of a ‘thoroughbred,’ one who represents some ‘pure’ aspect of race, one descended from a bloodline that has not mixed, is ridiculous (and in fact genetically impossible). The romanticized concept of a ‘seed’ for ‘whiteness’ or ‘blackness,’ the idea that all people of one phenotype are descended from one mythical ancestor, is unrealistic at best. Additionally, we all know that humans cannot procreate without a partner, so how many ‘seeds’ have there been? It is an infinitum. There is no clear point in time that one could find in which peoples of different ancestries were not mixing (although the restrictive categories used to be more specific and this broad concept of overarching ‘whiteness’ and ‘blackness’ did not permeate, unite, and divide cultures more so that nationalist and tribalist cultures until extremely recently in historical terms). If one views a demographic map of skin tone, it is a gradual progression rather than a sharp line. This is because the world is so large and, for much of human history, travel over long distances was impossible. Technological advances and the convenience of modern travel, however, allow for this to happen on a much larger scale. People from vastly different geographic regions are now able to meet. This leads to, amongst other things, cultural differences, cultural assimilations, interracial children (the labeling of which generally promotes the false and divisive concept of race), and more. The great irony is that the color of skin, so long used as the dividing line between large groups of people, is relatively fluid and a poor indicator of sameness. There are black skinned people in Australia, are they descended from the same people as Africans? Skin color is a superficial trait and has long been falsely used to define sameness, a point of division utilized by colonial institutions of power maintenance.
This is not to say that institutions and the powerful are the only ones who engage in these tactics. Indeed, the various creation myths that exist in different tribal cultures (for the purpose of definition, the term tribal is the best to use here and groups that so often extricate themselves as higher and more sophisticated than ‘tribes’ should not be considered such for the purposes of this paper. In other words, the British people are a tribe, the Jesuits are a tribe, the Freemasons are a tribe, everything is a tribe) seem to serve the specific purpose of division and segregation from outsiders, implying some rite to existence provided by some ancestor long ago that gives his or her descendants justification for exclusion. However, the exclusion is not and has never been absolute. There have always been people coming and going from groups, peripheral folks who thrive at the border. The concept of the Roma gypsies stems largely from this ‘fringe’ motif (an entire textbook could be written on the outsiders of groups and at what point they begin to constitute another group. Also one could question whether the folks that float from one group to another could be considered their own separate tribe and whether the peripheral and in betweeners in one group share traits with the peripheral and in betweeners from other groups and so on and so forth). Power structures are at play here, and while the definition of race is one variable amongst these groups it is not the only one. It is worth looking at what causes people to move from group to group.
At this time the actual question to be acknowledged in this paper should be addressed. The significance of the white satin must be noted. It is key to realize that the author and the narrator are two (or perhaps more depending on the narrator’s mental health) different people with differing interpretations of the world. While the narrator glorifies ‘whiteness’ and demonizes ‘blackness,’ the author does not do the same. Whiteness is emphasized and glorified by the narrator but not necessarily by the author. The stage directions which begin the play describe the white satin as ‘cheap.’ This could be a metaphor. This is all speculation, but it is for this reason that certain key concepts of race have been briefly addressed. To truly address these and provide an accurate picture would take years. It is worth noting here that there are many elements which factor into individuals choosing to have so called ‘interracial’ children. The narrator is clearly the product of at least one interracial union . Her insecurities may distract the untrained eye from what is perhaps the true message of the play. The narrator emphasizes the lack of quality of her ‘black’ ancestry, but it is the belief of this paper that the author, Adrienne Kennedy, intended to emphasize the lack of quality of the narrator’s ‘white’ ancestry. This is somewhat acknowledged by Raymond and the Landlady at the end of the play, at which point they refer to the narrator’s European ancestry as a ‘white whore.’ The white satin throughout the play symbolizes ‘whiteness,’ but not the sort of pure, Victorian ‘whiteness’ that Sarah indicates. No, rather this indicates a common ‘whiteness,’ a fringe ‘whiteness.’ The politics of interracial children are complicated today and were even more so in the past. In a time in which the stigma of race carried huge social connotations, ‘white’ people who engaged in relations with ‘black’ people often did so for complex social reasons and with strange results. Referred to as ‘trash,’ these white people lived on the fringe of ‘whiteness.’ There are many things at work here. White people who associated with other races in manner outside the status quo (that being dominance and oppression) could conceivable have been outcast from their own social groups. As referenced vaguely in the play, ‘black’ people with a desire to be accepted by ‘whites’ may have seen the possible of intergenerational social mobility via the integration of bloodlines. In other words, the stigma of ‘blackness’ could have been combatted by attempting to have interracial children. With such techniques existing in the world as ‘skin bleaching’ today, it would not be a farfetched concept that a father or mother would take certain approaches to providing their children with an easier life. However, on the other side of the spectrum, what would drive the ‘white’ people to allow their children to come into the world with a distinct disadvantage (that of ‘blackness’ in a racist world)? There are many factors here, not the least of which is exclusion from the ‘white’ race. This harkens back to the ‘fringe’ discussion. What is often not discussed is that the ‘white’ race has long excluded individuals who would appear white and has done so for a variety of reasons. Jewish people and the Roma are two examples that are often cited, but they are not the only groups. The prominence of the church has led to a vast forced exodus of members of the ‘white’ race. In fact, this exodus prompted much of the emigration from Europe and subsequent colonization of other countries. It is not so much that whites were coming to America as that they were fleeing Europe. One hypothesis for the reason behind the emigration could be that they were fleeing religious persecution, but this still leaves questions. For one, what, specifically, were they being persecuted for? Why did they require different beliefs? What did they disagree with in regards to the status quo? There are many possibilities, not the least of which, in my opinion, is sexuality (but that’s a topic for another paper). Regardless, it can be concluded that those white individuals who emigrated away from Europe were the ones that were least desired (for further possibility of proof take a look at the Australian prison colonies). In the case of North America, a great many people from a breadth of locations in Europe combined. At some point, they stopped being Irish and German and left their nationalities behind, adopting a new, conceptual status of ‘whiteness.’ This ‘whiteness’ was an arbitrary institutional dividing line, the purpose of which was only to limit class mobility and maintain a system of oppression which benefitted, who else, the aristocracy. This artificial concept had deep seeded implications, however, as demonstrated in the play.
Having said all this, it is worth looking directly at the meaning of the white satin. It is possible that the white satin represents misplaced worship of sorts. The narrator is viewing whiteness through a soft focus lens and seeing it for what the institution claims it is. Satin is common, whether it is white or black. Those on the fringe between whiteness and blackness could have been many different things, but is it possible that the ‘blacks’ present in that fringe were seeking social mobility? The ‘whites’ could have been altruists, concerned with changing an unjust system, but it is also likely (considering the stigma they would inevitably face for engaging in such behavior) that they were the whites that were socially excluded for one reason or another. The implication here is that Sara’s white ancestry is ‘trash,’ that it is not the glorified kings and queens that the ‘white’ race claims to be descended from but rather the criminals and pirates we all know (some of) them to be. Raymond, the Jewish boyfriend, has a unique point of view regarding this subject. In my opinion, the play is ironic, displaying Sara’s belief that she is descended from a royal white and a black criminal when in fact she is more likely descended from an African king and white peasants (as noted by Raymond at the end of the play). The irony is that the black man did not rape the white woman but that the white man raped the black woman. The figure(s) in white satin represent the spectre of whiteness as a concept.
Next paper, also provoked, it’s the institution’s doing, I’ll tell you more about that later if you are born yet…
And, oh yeah, here’s this little BS quip, it’s a survey prop for my linguistics class, I’m not too proud of it but I think it has one or two valid thoughts, I’m gonna work off of this, but, you know, survey’s are like assholes, everybody has…wait, it’s something like that.
Do people abbreviate words that aren’t normally abbreviated, and, if so, does this serve a specific linguistic function? Do people abbreviate differently when around different social groups? Do people abbreviate based on situational factors or surrounding phonemes? Does context, both for the individual and the word, indicate a higher or lower frequency of abbreviation? These are two questions to be partially addressed and discussed via survey. The survey will seek to define roughly the situations and circumstances that lead to abbreviation and how these abbreviations may then transcend grammatical standards to become part of the status quo in regards to acceptable language usage both globally and within social confines. Additional topics to be discussed include verbalization of written abbreviations and the functions that these serve. Abbreviations should not be inclusive of acronyms and contractions but rather a separate category altogether and the division of these three items will be discussed. To conclude, this survey will function to determine the factors behind abbreviation.
And a Civil War Paper I forgot to post:
Similarities between the Antebellum North and South
While it is undeniable that the Antebellum South and the Yankee North, comprising the pre-Civil War United States of America, exhibited stark differences in ideology, it is also equally undeniable that they shared remarkable similarities economically, societally, politically, and culturally. This paper aims to demonstrate, with clarity, the similarities exhibited by those peoples that would go on to make up both the Union and Confederate armies during a divisive point in American history (that being the Civil War). While certain politicians during the time of the Civil War and immediately preceding it claimed that the Civil War was an inevitable, irrepressible force bearing down upon the unionized ‘States,’ historians have frequently noted the frequency of so called ‘brother on brother’ combat, pitting actual relatives against one another in brutal hand to hand, cavalry, rifle, and a burgeoning artillery based warfare. Border zones often featured such divisions amongst families and, while the war may have been inevitable, the North and the South still demonstrated similarities in the realms of economics, politics, culture, and society.
The first half of the 1800s yielded substantial growth in the South but particularly in the North. Economically speaking this was good news for the young United States of America, and despite political differences based on issues ranging from slavery to railroad subsidies and even federalism, the North and South enjoyed relative peace during a period of rapid expansion westward during this period in time. Early in its existence, the United States made land grabs such as the Louisiana Purchase and received large portions of the American Southwest and California as concessions during the Mexican-American War. Pioneers pushed westward and settled a territory up to and exceeding four times that of the original United States. Per capita income was stratified for urban and rural Americans yet still continued an unparalleled growth. All Americans did not share equally in the profits, however, and in both the North and the South a rampant policy of economic exclusion and institutional racism directed towards what would later be known as the African American people kept ‘white’ America rolling in money. Increased urbanization was particularly prominent in the Northern, non-slavery states, and a boom in technology and immigration changed the manner and mode of living for many. The South would follow suit, though through much resistance as older wealthy plantation owners were hesitant to give up an agrarian albeit slave labor based system in which they had seen much success. Regardless, populations in the South migrated towards urban areas as well, though less so in what is known as the Deep South. Despite increased rate of urbanization, however, much of the United States still lived and worked in rural areas, and it is because of this reason that the States saw higher economic gains (and population gains, not to mention decreased levels of illness and disease) than their European counterparts. While economic gains in the South were based primarily upon agricultural exports as compared with the North’s predominantly textile based exports (manufactured utilizing technological advances from the Industrial Revolution and large factories), the two both benefited greatly from the abundance of resources in the western hemisphere. Additionally, advances in the category of the steamboat, road building, arms manufacturing, and railroad technologies played major roles in all states economies. Altogether, while it is undeniable that the North and South had economic differences in pre-Civil War times, it is still true that the majority of their mutual growth was achieved due to similar economic benefits and practices.
Other similarities between the North and South during the pre-Civil War era include those in the realm of politics. While the North did contain abolitionist movements it was still largely racist in practice and many Northerners continued to vote Democrat despite the newly founded Republican Party. The Whig Party and its former members held some sway, particularly in border regions which required compromise, but the grand majority of Whigs converted to the Republican Party after a disastrous 1842 election. The North and South differed in beliefs regarding slavery, education, federalism, railroad subsidies, and expansion, but these were ‘small potatoes’ when taken in conjunction with universal (white male) suffrage, democratic republicanism, and overall constitutional adherence. Despite political divides within the United States government, the majority of Americans shared relatively similar beliefs politically speaking during the era preceding the Civil War.
Despite the exaggerated differences portrayed in much of the popular media in modern times, the North and South of the United States of America shared much culturally and societally during pre-Civil War times. Both were overwhelmingly racist, and though abolitionist movements existed in the North the prevailing belief of white supremacy remained. This is demonstrated in legislation and segregation as well as the underwhelming nature of the abolitionist movement itself. Numbers of freed-men in the Northern United States were still low in relation to the number of enslaved African Americans in the South as well as whites (property owners or otherwise) on both sides of the Mason-Dixon. Whites in the North and the South were predominantly Protestant, although an influx of Catholics in the North changed these demographics in the years before, during, and after the Civil War. Literacy began to spread, more so in the North and among affluent, well to do white land owners in the South. While it may be argued that the concept of capitalism exists in the economic and political realms, this is not strictly fact to the point of excluding societal and cultural realms, and wealthy, successful merchants in both the North and South, often subscribing to Whig-Republican principles, experienced rapid change in culture due to industrial growth. Americans also experienced a universal increase in domesticity. Women played larger and larger roles in society with decreased risk of disease and the subsequent decrease in the amount of time and energy necessarily devoted to child rearing. With a decrease in need for labor (at least among white Americans), methods of restricting pregnancy, or ‘birth control,’ became a necessity. The most prominent of these was known as ‘coitus interuptus,’ and involved a rapid cessation of intercourse in order to demote pregnancy. This form of contraception was utilized by both the North and South. Altogether, the cultural and societal similarities, which included language and a majority of lifestyle and religious practices, outweighed much of the differences between the North and South in pre-Civil War America.
Overall, the Antebellum North and South shared more similarities than they exhibited differences during the time leading up to the Civil War. This is demonstrated in economic circumstances, particularly the technological advances that lead to the rapid growth of the States and the abundance of resources. The divergence of economic tendencies and practices was a major contributing factor to the secession of the Confederate States, however this factor alone cannot be considered large enough to spark a war, especially when examining the stark differences that exist between states economically today both domestically and abroad. Culturally and societally, the North and South did exhibit differences, but the similarities they share are greater. These include language, religious practice, beliefs regarding race, and many other factors. It is for this reason that the Civil War is so frequently referred to as the ‘Brother Against Brother’ war. Politicians in the North and South differed in belief, and it is for this reason that this category, that of the political, is the one in which the North and South shared the fewest similarities. However, it is debatable whether the majority of the voting populace was informed about these issues. Additionally, the listed differences between the North and South are minimal, most of these being attributed to the regions but actually stemming from ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans. Also, when one takes into account the unheard voice of the slave population in the South, the South itself may have, on average, been more similar to the North than ever before considered. When taken into account and altogether, these economic, political, societal, and cultural factors hardly point to a schism between peoples, especially when one considers the degree of familiarity and interrelatedness shared by individuals in both the North and South. The vast amount of differences was political, yet these were not exhibited by the people but rather by the politicians and military officials themselves. It is nice to imagine a North that was friendly and accepting of African Americans, a contrast to the vision of the South so often presented, but the fact remains that African Americans did not achieve much equality until the Civil Rights Movement a century later, and still struggle with exclusion today. Differences between the North and South included population density, primary crops, climate, and social structure, but the differences were not so grand as to be insurmountable. In conclusion, the North and the South in pre-Civil War America were more similar than different and a sharp divide between individuals in rarely attributed as a causational factor for the Civil War.
 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(New York: Harper, 1992), 6.
 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(New York: Harper, 1992), 6.
 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(New York: Harper, 1992), 7.
 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(New York: Harper, 1992), 9.
 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(New York: Harper, 1992), 19.
 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(New York: Harper, 1992), 30.
 James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(New York: Harper, 1992), 35.
Alright, enjoy, I’m out of here, no I didn’t get into grad school and no, nobody will publish my stuff, but if you bite it you bought it, got it? Haha, just kidding, but for real, if there’s any dignity left in the world and plagiarism isn’t absolutely rampant thus making the entirety of the system hopeless and collapse inevitable, a favorable event at this point in my life and from this vantage point outside of the castle no doubt, then at least you know I posted this…Oh, and it’s unintelligible on purpose when it is, just because.
Had to write a paper today discussing linguistics, figured I’d post it up here…idk what I was talking about, but I’ll elaborate on it later when I’m not freaking trippin ballz man.
Linguistics Introductory Paper
The study of linguistics is a pursuit for the strong minded. Linguistics examines communication and the various modes which it exists but usually seeks to examine the verbal portion, or spoken language, specifically. The nonverbal nature of communication, however, cannot be overlooked, especially considering that the two (verbal and nonverbal communication) often occur in concert. In my own personal life, I have noticed many different modes of communication, specifically on a linguistic (or human language based) level. More than just the divisions between languages, these different modes occur within languages and with alternative forms of language. Language and the study of linguistics, in my opinion, should not be restricted to the formal study of spoken language, but, rather, in order to achieve a more dynamic and whole view of language, should be examined in conjunction with all forms of human symbolic communication. Words are often manipulated in order to achieve multiple meanings. This paper seeks to pose questions which relate to the field of linguistics and set a parameter and perimeter from which to explore the field while simultaneously making reference to my own personal experiences with linguistics. Included within this paper is my own personal knowledge of linguistics. The interpretation of communication is a fascinating field and the depth with which the field of linguistics encompasses meaning contains many questions which, upon evaluation, may indicate or lead to the discovery of worldly truths.
Communication has long been based upon seemingly arbitrary symbols. We commonly think of verbal communication, chunks or bites of individual sound pieces generated through various means orally. These sounds are representative of items, actions, and states when combined with one another, but are simultaneously meaningless when solitary (except in select cases). Known as phonetics, these sounds can be strung together in many different fashions to achieve similar goals, as is demonstrated by the diversity of different languages present in the world around us. These phonetic sounds, however, are not the only manner in which one can construct the symbolic nature of a language. Basically, meanings are given words which symbolically represent the meanings (as randomly ascribed by the one who ‘coins’ the word). These sonic symbols of meaning, words, can be broken up into many sounds which have different meanings, sometimes none at all, when standing alone. To complicate matters further, words must be given to the concepts of these sounds. In other words, somebody had to invent the word ‘word’ at some point, a herculean intellectual pursuit and achievement.
In regards to my own personal feelings about language, I do not show preference to one over the other. I am a fluent speaker of English, though through no fault of my own. I have taken French classes and find the language to be aesthetically pleasing, but this is purely subjective and is a matter of personal taste more than anything. I have experience with Spanish (or at least the local colloquial dialects of it) and enjoy it as well, though I stumble through it. I am somewhat embarrassed to use languages in which I am not fluent. I have been to France and Mexico, but again, I am a native English speaker as is all of my family (though some have spent stints in Europe and Latin America). All in all, my linguistic background is one sided and the only real diversity I have linguistically occurs in my usage of slang and other dialectical formats.
Converse to phonetics, nonverbal communication can transmit a point, idea, or concept via nonverbal means. Specifically in the instance of American Sign Language, gestures are utilized in order to manufacture similar bits of language. Similar to spoken English, the units that make up American Sign Language, the individual gestures and parts of gestures which make up larger words, can be broken down and recombined infinitely in order to manufacture new words, thus allowing the language to produce new words to represent new concepts. The divisions, however, must be tailored to the medium of nonverbal communication. Thus a language could conceivably be constructed from various indicative response items in any sense medium (think of blinking once for yes and twice for no and you have the foundation of binary code). This is interesting to examine particularly when discussing the difference between the human transmission of communication (most frequently spoken or written language) and the animal transmission of communication. The animal version seems highly inferior at first and in fact seldom seems to communicate at the level of sophistication that human language achieves. However, it’s goal is seldom left unaccomplished and it is undeniable that within the grunts, roars, wags, stomps, and whines exists deeper meaning.
Could communication be achieved through smell? Many members of the animal kingdom convey information via olfactory sensation, but could an entire language be constructed based upon smell? This is interesting to examine. We already know that touch can play a key role in communication, specifically in transposing other forms of communication, such as sign language as in the famous case of Helen Keller. Can language be similarly transposed across other sensory mediums? It would be interesting to note the neurophysiological differences between communication in verbal and nonverbal formats. Can meaning be conveyed via taste? Conversely, one could approach from a functionalist standpoint and argue that single senses are impossible to isolate from one another and that evaluating verbal communication without evaluating nonverbal communication modes is flawed at best and impossible at worst. It is worth noting that there are a multitude of ways in which communication can be achieved in any one medium. For example, Japanese and English are very similar, all things considered, yet each still requires specialized knowledge and practice in order to fluently communicate. Also, language can be translated into at least two separate visual formats, those being writing and sign language. Even within one language, communication can be difficult and syntax, grammar, meaning, and semantic meaning differ greatly across region, culture, generation, and many other factorial categories. Someone from one region of Mexico may speak an entirely different and almost unrecognizable dialect of Spanish when compared with individuals from Chile or Spain or Canada.
To conclude, there are many different factors involved in linguistic analysis. Sociolinguistically, many questions remain to be answered. Ancient languages and alternative modes of communication may exist and evaluation of linguistics in conjunction with other forms of communication could yield fascinating discoveries. More than simply why accents and dialects exist (did ‘the Fonz’ really play that large of a role on pop culture and therefore the American lexicon of language when he hit the juke box and said ‘aaaa’), linguistics examines communication at a highly specialized level amongst human beings.
Hahaha, I’m not going to talk about gun control, except that I’m sure that there’s a couple rednecks who know how to build their own guns so I don’t think we can ever completely get rid of them…I mean, you can’t eradicate an idea. Some of those assault weapons do seem like a little bit much for civilians, but not everyone in this country is a civilian, and liberties and all that, I don’t know. I bet that gun sales go up if discussion about gun control goes up, though, crazy world. Anyway, I just wanted to leak that line.