Abdullah Wazir’s Post

https://lnkd.in/gsRJNTcs How interesting words are...and more interesting is the definition of a word is embodied within its cultural and social use.

I get irrationally excited when linguistic news headlines come across my feed. "Phonological leveling" is the process by which communities of practice begin to sound like one another over periods of extended contact. I wrote a term paper for my Arabic Dialectology class about the process of pidginization, creolization, and de-creolization vs Second Language Acquisition in scenarios of protracted cultural contact, and several of the authors I cited are referenced in the underlying paper this article discusses (see comments for a link to the actual paper referenced by the news article). https://lnkd.in/e4-pRcVT

🌐Discovering the Sacred Sounds of Language 🌐 In the realm of cymatics, the study of visible sound and vibration, an astounding discovery was made by Hans Jenny in 1967. It was observed that the vowels of ancient languages such as Sanskrit and Hebrew, when vocalized, formed patterns that closely resembled the letters themselves! This phenomenon was not replicated with modern languages, leading to captivating discussions around the concept of a “sacred language.” Could there be a physical basis to the belief that sacred mantras and texts possess healing properties? This research opens up avenues for exploring the tangible impacts of sound on matter and the potential for language to influence well-being.

Decoding Concord: Plural-Form Nouns with Singular Meanings #1. Some Nouns are Plural in form, but Singular in meaning. They should be followed by Singular Verbs: The latest news on climate change is concerning. "Latest news" represents a single set of information, and it is followed by a singular verb. Physics is a challenging subject for many students. "Physics" is a subject name that is singular in meaning and takes a singular verb. The United Nations plays a crucial role in global diplomacy. "United Nations" refers to a single entity and thus takes a singular verb. The Beatles was a legendary band. "The Beatles" is a plural noun for a group but is treated as singular when referring to the band as a single entity. #2. When a Plural number applies to heights, weights, distances, or amounts of money, it is treated as Singular and takes a Singular Verb: Thirty kilometers is quite a distance to run in a marathon. Plural numbers referring to distances are treated as singular and take a singular verb. Twenty dollars is all I have in my wallet. Plural amounts of money, like "twenty dollars," are treated as singular and take a singular verb. #3. The Introductory ‘there’ takes a Singular or a Plural Verb,  depending upon the number of the 'Real Subject': There is a delicious cake on the table. "There" is followed by a singular verb because the real subject, "cake," is singular. There are several colorful balloons in the room. "There" is followed by a plural verb since the real subject, "balloons," is plural. If you find my posts valuable, consider resharing and following. If you are interested, you can also sign up for my newsletter from my website link above.

What can be accomplished by simply thinking things through is astonishing... The term atom is a misnomer. Derived from the Greek word ἄτομος (átomos), it means indivisible and turns out to be cataclysmically mislabeled. However, one can forgive the error as the developer of the original atomic theory was a 5th-century BC philosopher named Leucippus. Yes, you read that correctly. The idea that the Universe is made of tiny particles moving within a void and that these particles form the building blocks of all matter, flowed from the mind of an ancient philosopher rather than the laboratory of a modern scientist. Credited by Aristotle with developing the theory of atomism, Leucippus's work was developed and expanded by Democritus and Epicurus. Through nothing more than thoughtful analysis of naked-eye observations, they arrived at remarkably detailed descriptions of the elemental functions of material. By application of reason and logic, the ancients put together a picture of the world at the atomic level that is boggling in its accuracy. Over 2,000 years later, as technology allowed, scientists used the ancient theory as a guidepost for modern research.

The theory of gravitational force is only a partial theory and it can't be called as Universal Theory regarding matter and challenging the existing norms with alternative models will be provided. The fundamental and core theory will answer all queries in life and that is through stastic laws and dynamic laws of the Universe. The noted theory of gravitational force may apply mainly the matter is out of bio-force too. The truth is not the gravitational force. It is beyond the same. The meta physical bio-force predominant theory will replace the established gravitational theory and it's concepts. Nash Thomas, 3/11/2024, 12.08 AM, Kadammanitta, Kerala, India. The content is copyrighted (c).

Sameness and difference The capacity to recognize how things are the same as and difterent from one another is essential in order to stabilize the flux of experience. This requirement holds even for the grandly speculative vision of Martin Heidegger. In fact, the notion of sameness is especially crucial to the ontology of Heidegger's middle and later periods. Its importance as applied within a concrete setting may be exemplified by the following claim: "Metalanguage and Sputnik, metalinguistics and rocket technology are the same."! At first glance, such a claim may perhaps be dismissed as just another virulent specimen of the Heideggerian penchant for abusing language. What does Sputnik have to do with metalanguage? And are those who study metalinguistics and those who study rocket technology in actuality studying the same discipline? The predication of "the same" could not possibly be meaningful in this context. But to reject so abruptly Heidegger's usage of sameness presupposes that (a) we know what he means by sameness and that (b) we also know that whatever he means by sameness is either false or so beset by difficulties as to be unworkable. It may well testify to what we know and what we don’t know about sameness and difference ? Ref White 1980

We dare question opposition and ultimatum we make suggestion by interpretation and not by verbatim. Clarification needs elucidation from annotation to illumination not with a burden but with a soul. We whisper into a heart it is a mind that emotions chart neural pathways with impressions on it untold secrets impressed upon it. Differentiating works out slow meticulous minds lifiting the blinds like an archeologist digs and grinds equating us to the sum of a whole. Clarification needs elucidation from annotation to illumination not with a burden but with a soul.

Bhāskara II, also known as Bhaskaracharya, was an Indian mathematician and astronomer who lived from 1114 to 1185 CE. This places him roughly 900 years ago, not 1200 years ago. While Bhaskara II made significant contributions to mathematics and astronomy, the idea that he formulated the law of gravity in a manner similar to Sir Isaac Newton is not accurate. Bhaskara II wrote extensively on astronomical phenomena and made observations related to gravity. For instance, in his work "Siddhanta Shiromani," he discussed how objects fall towards the Earth due to a force of attraction. He also acknowledged the Earth's gravitational pull, which shows his understanding of the concept of gravity. However, his work did not include the mathematical formulation and universal law of gravitation that Newton later developed. Sir Isaac Newton, an English mathematician and physicist, is credited with formulating the law of universal gravitation. This law, which mathematically describes the gravitational attraction between two masses, was first published in his seminal work "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) in 1687. In summary, while Bhaskara II had an understanding of gravitational forces, it was Newton who formalized the law of universal gravitation with a precise mathematical framework. https://g.co/kgs/SyiKEj8

Broadening the Structural Boundaries of Contemporay Sciences: How ideally the whole universe is lurking in the space is v. much discussed yet still polemic: for some, If the magical majesty of our contemporary science just lies in the contingency factor ever-present in all universe, then sacred seems sensational, belief turning into a situational and optional a matter Here in physics Heisenberg's ungovernable and interchangable particle's mass-velocity composition as a result of its stringy electromagnetic nature of atoms. In mathematics too an automated yet ungovernable anarchic cosmic complexity lead us to conclude an unpredictable scientific outcome. But is the nature as processed as is/has been posed as an act of self-structured regulatory cosmic authority replacing all formal (g)Gods with utopianoic scientificity. This sudden regulation of cosmic energy be a universal principle of all cosmic affairs then. Well, if such is the liquidation of quantum physics and mathematics, then it all depends on which theoretical framework one wishes to choose and use, the only possible scientific answer be everlasting mystical probability. One of the most philosophical, tautological, and Linguistics implications the question has, that if gravity is a really a force. Aristotle's terrestrial gravity, plotemy' earth as the center of universe, Copernicus idea of the Sun as the center of the universe, or Laplase's everwhere gravitational potential field, the iconic momentum conservation by Einstein as he has changed altogether the bebate over the authenticity of the idea of gravity as a force believed as previously by also somehow equvocated by Newton under 'action at distance' model. Hence, for both, Not a force but a geometry of the space and time is the gravity. The synchronized vibration of gravitons explained the quantum gravity of Einstein as gravity not a force but a geometry, as consequences of of mass and energy, whereas Newtonion idea is based on mass gaining a distance in result of the push of another mass. Yet lately detection of the gravitational waves by international group of scientists. Does it really matter that though looking something is now understood different than being something as afterall Newtonion and Einsteinion gravitational mystery has been reconciled now though certainty of the claim is still debatable as the final answer for highly mysterious gravity: if its really a force, or geometry or even the buzzing of quantum particles, the amswer is No Answer because this is how the science itself works. Physics is not everything by its own principles unless atleast a single common definition of the nature of gravity is agreed upon. Apart from the cultural and historical implications all this debate has, for me the best answer lies in asking again: what's out there?