(Part 3) Best linguistics reference books according to redditors

George Lakoff will help you understand conservatives (and swing voters) better than any pundit ever could.
He also does a great job of explaining the moral nature of politics, and how liberals can formulate better moral arguments to persuade what he calls "bi-conceptual" voters.

Edit: The poll referenced in this very post is one of many examples I've seen in recent years of actual data backing up Lakoff's theories. When combined with recent studies showing the differences between the parts of the brain liberals and conservatives use to process political/moral issues, Lakoff's concepts are dead-on.

Actually it is because of accent differences, particularly in a group of 5 vowels, but because they can be so subtle most people don't realise they're picking up on it. Linguist John McWhorter goes into that in this book.

Philosophy isn't simply "musing on the nature of things." I believe the field of philosophy you have in mind here is metaphysics, and, while metaphysics may be defensible in its own right, it's certainly not the only area of philosophy. One of the fields that I find particularly exciting right now is philosophy of language. A big research interest in the field is how we can go from not having genuine meaning and understanding in our practices to having it. This has been one of the trickiest problems in philosophy to date, but after Wittgenstein, philosophers have made some serious progress on the issue which is now converging with empirical science.

One of the top scientists working on the question, Michael Tomasello, who does a bunch of comparative psychology experiments with either apes or young children trying to make sense of intentionality and meaning. In his book Origins of Human Communication he draws heavily from 20th century philosophers such as Wittgenstein, H.P. Grice, and David Lewis. It is not simply that he says "Oh, I showed that these guys (who were just idly musing) turned out to be right. Yay Science!" Rather, he explicitly uses their work (mostly Grice) as models in his theorizing that helps make sense of his empirical data.

Philosophy has a history of doing things like this, charting the way for new fields of scientific study. There's also serious philosophical work to be done within existing scientific fields. Philosophy of biology and philosophy of physics are active fields, and usually the work in these fields focuses around trying to sort out difficult conceptual issues that arise in the empirical research. Typically the philosophers in these fields are experts in that scientific field, they know all of the relevant scientific literature, and often work in conjunction with scientists. It's certainly not just idle musing.

It's actually not the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis that you're concerned about here. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is about linguistic relativity leading to conceptual, and thus experiential, relativity. You can reject this relativity and still hold that language is necessary for conscious experience in the full blown sense that humans have, but think (contra Sapir/Whorf) that language shares a basic enough generalized form to avoid complete conceptual relativity. This is in fact the position I hold. You might want to check out Sellars' [psychological nominalism] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_nominalism) with respect to this (although "consciousness" as it's currently formulated in the philosophical literature was not a very standard term at the time Sellars was writing and so he didn't speak to this problem directly).

As for your second question, if one takes anything from the work of the latter Wittgenstein, then no, since the sort of conceptual capacities necessary to invent a language, such as an understanding of the function of labeling can only make sense to one who has been inducted into a language. A good ontogentic story of human language which draws heavily from this Wittgensteinian point is given in Michael Tomasello's book The Origins of Human Communication reviewed here.

Also, there was a post on this a while ago that might be of interest.

I did my MA in language acquisition and am raising a trilingual kiddo, and I endorse most of what /u/peachykeenz has written.

> I am just worried that my kid won't speak English to me. How do I make sure that this doesn't happen?

That might happen occasionally, but it's not harmful or unusual. There are a variety of possible reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of fluency, so don't worry.

You could pretend not to understand the child's other languages to sort of force the issue, but you'd have to be strictly consistent in never giving up the ruse. Kids easily figure that sort of thing out. Even the best-laid family language strategies can go awry (and they usually do).

Kids have strengths and preferences in how they express themselves, just like in everything else. It's more common than not for one language to be more dominant than the other(s), especially in certain domains (or "zones" as peachykeens put it). All of this tends to wax and wane over time. All completely normal.

You have a few years to read up on any of this before your child becomes verbal, if you're so inclined. Authors to look for include Baker and Paradis. Baker has a layman's guide written in Q&A format that I found pretty good when I read it a few years ago. Hope it helps!

For people interested in Native language revival, I heartily recommend getting to know the Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival (AICLS). They partnered with UC Berkeley to create the first Breathe of Life program, for people learning languages with no living speakers.

They came up with the The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, by Leanne Hinton and Ken Hale, which is great material no matter what language you are studying.

David Harvey invented ACORNS, a free computer program that allows you to test yourself on the language you are studying.

I downvoted your comments here, until I upvoted them. Because they need to be visible, as I think there is some confusion about academic feminist studies and how it serves to underpin a lot of contemporary identity studies work in academic circles that work on cultural issues. That said, there's a lot of truth to what /u/aescolanus has said and I'm surprised to see it downvoted so hard on a sub that tries to foster a greater discussion of what it means to be a man.

> It's not unreasonable to argue that some feminist activists are anti-male, including some on this board.

> You seem to show a strong bias against male activists, and for feminist activists.

One of the problems here is that almost everyone in press release reaction pieces like these is labeled an "activist" on Reddit or other popular discussions of feminism or feminist theory.

Now, an activist isn't necessarily confrontational AdviceAnimal fodder. Nor is a scholar unable to be an activist, as if activism is something base and below their PhDs. But we're talking about scholars here. Things like this proposed center are not lobbying firms, grassroots organizers, or policy shops.

And it is very true that many of the fundamental premises of academic masculine studies are based in academic feminism. They are related. Academic feminism gives us the idea that gender identity and function can be thought of as constructed by history and society. This is an extremely valuable tool for inquiry. Without using this premise, how do we even talk about men's issues? What discourse do we have to explain that the idea of the Manly Man, the Patriarchal Man somehow can hurt those of us in the arts? Those who are short? Those who are sensitive? Those of us who are victims of abuse? Should we ignore the decades of work by philosophers, sociologists, psychologists and cultural critics just because they are "feminists"?

Now of course, many of the people on the board of directors for this center aren't academics, such as Steinem, Fonda, Gov. Kunin or Ensler. Why? Visibility. Connections. Networking. Read some of Kimmel's scholarly work, or David A. J. Richards, R. W. Connell, and other masculinity scholars -- men and women alike -- and ask what it would mean for someone like Steinem to be nodding in agreement with the work going on there (despite her stated beefs with academic writing and it's "obscure" language, which I think was more of a bit of rhetorical posturing than a genuinely valid criticism). Legitimacy is a big deal. And these individuals were huge movers and shakers who fit into a larger narrative of women's rights and civil rights that changed a lot of things for the better.

Read through scholarly journals and books published by University Presses and the like. Consider that the "Steinem-level" voice for men's issues (male or female) will likely be reading these works as foundational texts.

Want to read a woman feminist author writing what I think is probably one of the best masculinity studies monographs I've read to date? Try Cynthia R. Daniels, "Exposing Men". (And hey, she's at Rutger's too, dontchaknow.)

Seriously though. Before you bash this as a sham institute, please read deeply to see what the arguments are and what evidence is being used. Read critiques, reviews, and rebuttals by peer scholars. Institutes like these can offer the funding for young thinkers to take a risk in writing something new or being away from the classroom, and opportunities for fresh scholarly voices to publish things that might not fit elsewhere.

Feminism and masculinity studies have a lot in common. Perhaps it's hard to tell by the feminists or MRA's who march or picket on street corners or haunt online discussion boards, but then again we're talking about an academic center for study. Admittedly, unless you know where to look and have the library resources to find the relevant journals, you're likely not hearing any of this conversation. And that blows. For everyone. (So maybe Steinem was onto something...)

Azar's Understanding and Using English Grammar

I've used it with many intermediate and advanced learners from many language backgrounds. It gives very good examples, has great exercises, and explains the usage of the tricky grammar well, but it doesn't always supply the rules behind the usage, so the teacher needs to figure out how to best do that.

I'd recommend 'Through the Language Glass' by Guy Deutscher, if you haven't already come across it.

It's a 'pop linguistics' book, not really something you could cite in an essay, but it's a great introduction to the history of linguistic relativism and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. There's lots of fun information about the evolution of colour terms, and cultural and cognitive differences between languages that refer to time, space, and gender in different ways.

It also takes you through, chronologically, how certain positions on the subject developed, so you get to see the argument swinging back and forth over the years (and it debunks a lot of myths about what people think the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is!).

Although the book does take an overarching stance on relativism, it's presented in a pretty neutral way. I read it before starting my undergrad and it was invaluable in making me think carefully about how to frame an argument and present both sides.

He wants to be a linguist--I think he would also enjoy the etymologies in the Oxford English Dictionary. I suggest taking him to a public library and sitting him down with a copy of the OED and going through a few definitions (penetrate would be a good start).

You've definitely got a linguist on your hands--if he also gets interested in computers and/or programming, he will have a lot of jobs waiting for him after he gets through college.

Please PM me if you want more help/advice.

Edit: He might enjoy these books:

http://www.amazon.com/History-English-Language-6th-Edition/dp/0205229395/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1377654532&sr=8-2&keywords=english+a+history

http://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192801481/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377654559&sr=8-1&keywords=very+brief+introduction+linguistics

http://www.amazon.com/Professor-Madman-Insanity-English-Dictionary/dp/0060839783/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1377654605&sr=1-1&keywords=the+madman+and+the+professor

The trope page mentions this

https://www.amazon.com/Through-Language-Glass-Different-Languages-dp-0099505576/dp/0099505576/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology is an astounding collection of contemporary work in metaphysics. As you may guess from the title, the focus of the essay is on metaphysics itself.

Ted Sider's introduction in his book Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time also does a pretty good job of explaining contemporary analytic metaphysics.

As you might expect, you get what you pay for with these books. For one, they're not the most durable. Second, thrift books are going to be very bare bones. For instance, there aren't any supplements in the Dover edition of The Prince. In all honesty, it's not worth the $3 unless you just like to physically hold a book. You could get the exact same thing online, for free, at a website like Project Gutenberg.

Now, if you spend a bit more money, there are very good editions of the classics. Take, for instance, Cambridge University Press' edition of The Prince, which you can get for $15. It comes with an introduction by one of the world's leading scholars on political philosophy, notes on the translation, and copious footnotes to provide context and further information to the reader. These features are important, especially for novices who might not know the historical context of the book or who might want suggestions for further reading.

On another note, I wouldn't call classics like The Prince and the Republic history books. They're certainly historical, but they're not history books. You might get better answers to your question over at /r/askphilosophy.

Instead of reading the classics, my suggestion would be for you to read a history book about the classics, something like Anthony Kenny's New History of Western Philosophy, which is a great introduction to the topic.

In my seminar on the philosophy of language we used this one. It's a pretty good collection of key articles.

Let's take a look at a few of the citations:

Cockburn, Cynthia. (2007). From where we stand: war, women’s activism, and feminist analysis. New York: Zed Books

Summary:

"This original study by the, the product of 80,000 miles of travel by the author over a two-year period, examines women's activism against wars as far apart as Sierra Leone, Colombia and India. It shows women on different sides of conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Israel refusing enmity and co-operating for peace. It describes international networks of women opposing US and Western European militarism and the so-called 'war on terror'. Women are often motivated by adverse experiences in male-led anti-war movements, preferring to choose different methods of protest and remain in control of their own actions. But like the mainstream movements, women's groups differ - some are pacifist while others put justice before non-violence; some condemn nationalism as a cause of war while others see it as a legitimate source of identity. The very existence of feminist antimilitarism proposes a radical shift in our understanding of war, linking the violence of patriarchal power to that of class oppression and ethnic 'othering'"


Cowen, D. (2008). Military Workfare: The Soldier and Social Citizenship in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Summary:

Despite the centrality of war in social and political thought, the military remains marginal in academic and public conceptions of citizenship, and the soldier seems to be thought of as a peripheral or even exceptional player. Military Workfare draws on five decades of restricted archival material and critical theories on war and politics to examine how a military model of work, discipline, domestic space, and the social self has redefined citizenship in the wake of the Second World War. It is also a study of the complex, often concealed ways in which organized violence continues to shape national belonging.

What does the military have to do with welfare? Could war-work be at the centre of social rights in both historic and contemporary contexts? Deborah Cowen undertakes such important questions with the citizenship of the soldier front and centre in the debate. Connecting global geopolitics to intimate struggles over entitlement and identity at home, she challenges our assumptions about the national geographies of citizenship, proposing that the soldier has, in fact, long been the model citizen of the social state. Paying particular attention to the rise of neoliberalism and the emergence of civilian workfare, Military Workfare looks to the institution of the military to unsettle established ideas about the past and raise new questions about our collective future.

Cowen, D. and A. Siciliano. (2011). Surplus Masculinities and Security. Antipode. 43(5): 1516-1541.

Abstract:

In this paper we investigate geographies of military recruitment and urban policing as key domains for both the management of surplus populations and the extraction of surplus value. Drawing on research in North America and the UK, we explore the emerging institutions, social technologies, and political economies that constitute a racialized and gendered geography of what we term “securitized social reproduction”. We suggest that so-called “redundant” populations of underemployed racialized men are at the centre of contemporary politics of security. We explore the increasingly productive role of surplus populations in security industries, and the resurgence of public masculinities that seek to both valourize and discipline subjects and populations. This resurgence of masculinity is taking shape through both the expansion of security industries and the entanglement of police and military force. This paper suggests that a focus on ‘surplus’ highlights the geographies and profits at stake in securing social reproduction.


Daniels, Cynthia. (2006). Exposing Men: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Summary:

Exposing Men examines how ideals of masculinity have long skewed our societal--and scientific--understanding of one of the pillars of male identity: reproductive health. Only with the recent public exposure of men's reproductive troubles has the health of the male body been thrown into question, and along with it deeper masculine ideals. Whereas once men's sexual and reproductive abilities were the most taboo of topics, today erectile dysfunction is a multi-billion dollar business, and magazine articles trumpet male reproductive decline with headlines such as "You're Half the Man Your Father Was." Cynthia R. Daniels casts a gimlet eye on our world of plummeting sperm counts, spiking reproductive cancers, sperm banks, and pharmacological cures for impotence in order to assess the true state of male health. What she finds is male reproductive systems damaged by toxins and war, and proof piling up that men through sperm, pass on harm to the children they father. Yet, despite the evidence that men's health, as much as women's, significantly affects the vitality of their offspring, Daniels also sees a society holding on to outdated assumptions, one in which men ignore blatant health risks as they struggle to live up to antiquated ideas of manliness.




Those don't sound like biased citations at all (they do).

I study topology and I can give you some tips based on what I've done. If you want extra info please PM me. I'd love to help someone discover the beautiful field of topology. TLDR at bottom.

If you want to study topology or knot theory in the long term (actually knot theory is a pretty complicated application of topology), it would be a great idea to start reading higher math ASAP. Higher math generally refers to anything proof-based, which is pretty much everything you study in college. It's not that much harder than high school math and it's indescribably beneficial to try and get into it as soon as you possibly can. Essentially, your math education really begins when you start getting into higher math.

If you don't know how to do proofs yet, read How to Prove It. This is the best intro to higher math, and is not hard. Absolutely essential going forward. Ask for it for the holidays.

Once you know how to prove things, read 1 or 2 "intro to topology" books (there are hundreds). I read this one and it was pretty good, but most are pretty much the same. They'll go over definitions and basic theorems that give you a rough idea of how topological spaces (what topologists study) work.

After reading an intro book, move on to this book by Sutherland. It is relatively simple and doesn't require a whole lot of knowledge, but it is definitely rigorous and is definitely necessary before moving on.

After that, there are kind of two camps you could subscribe to. Currently there are two "main" topology books, referred to by their author's names: Hatcher and Munkres. Both are available online for free, but the Munkres pdf isn't legally authorized to be. Reading either of these will make you a topology god. Hatcher is all what's called algebraic topology (relating topology and abstract algebra), which is super necessary for further studies. However, Hatcher is hella hard and you can't read it unless you've really paid attention up to this point. Munkres isn't necessarily "easier" but it moves a lot slower. The first half of it is essentially a recap of Sutherland but much more in-depth. The second half is like Hatcher but less in-depth. Both books are outstanding and it all depends on your skill in specific areas of topology.

Once you've read Hatcher or Munkres, you shouldn't have much trouble going forward into any more specified subfield of topology (be it knot theory or whatever).

If you actually do end up studying topology, please save my username as a resource for when you feel stuck. It really helps to have someone advanced in the subject to talk about tough topics. Good luck going forward. My biggest advice whatsoever, regardless of what you study, is read How to Prove It ASAP!!!

TLDR: How to Prove It (!!!) -> Mendelson -> Sutherland -> Hatcher or Munkres

Copied from a previous post, not all may be applicable:

YouTube Lessons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPGAbctSHuY

Inuktitut language magazine: https://www.itk.ca/category/inuktitut-magazine/

The Language of the Inuit: Syntax, Semantics, and Society in the Arctic https://www.amazon.com/Language-Inuit-Semantics-McGill-Queens-Northern-ebook/dp/B00LXKBGO0

Grammatical Sketch of Yupik Eskimo (pdf): http://library.alaska.gov/hist/hist_docs/docs/anlm/05265040.pdf

Let's Learn Eskimo (pdf): http://library.alaska.gov/hist/hist_docs/docs/anlm/00434517.pdf

Inupiat - Eskimo Dictionary (pdf): http://library.alaska.gov/hist/hist_docs/docs/anlm/200078.pdf

The Aleut Language (pdf): http://library.alaska.gov/hist/hist_docs/docs/anlm/02057447.pdf

West Greenlandic Grammar: http://b-ok.org/book/1204269/0c8288

Instant Immersion Level 1 - Inuktitut Greenlandic https://www.amazon.com/Instant-Immersion-Level-Inuktitut-Greenlandic/dp/B005IHV7XO

http://icor.ottawainuitchildrens.com/node/15

There are many good analytic introductions to philosophy of language, including Martinich and Sosa and Soames.

No problem!

Philosophy of time is an enormous area!

Not only are there many distinct positions that attempt to address the scientific and philosophical questions in different ways, there are different positions regarding the very method by which we should attempt to answer these questions! Some of these certainly overlap.

What do I mean by this?

Putting it roughly:

There are those who tend to think that we should use science to answer these questions about time. All we should care about is what observations are made; we should only care about the empirical data. These people might point to the great success of our best scientific theories that refer to 'time', such as those in physics, including; Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Entropy (The Arrow of Time), and even Quantum Theory, but also those in neuroscience and psychology, where our perception of time becomes relevant (such as the Inference Model of Time and the Strength Model of Time). So we have notions of physical/objective time, and subjective/mental time. We may talk about time slowing down around a massive body such as a black hole, or time slowing down when a work-shift is boring or when we're experiencing a traumatic event.

But there are also those who tend to think that we should use not just science, but also uniquely philosophical methods as well. Conceptual analysis is one such method; one that involves thinking very carefully about our concepts. This method is a distinctically a priori method (A priori is just philosophical jargon meaning; "Can be known without experience," for example, the statement "All triangles have three sides"). These people think we can learn a great deal about time by reflecting on our concepts about time, our intuitions about time, and the laws of thought (or logic) and how they relate to time. This philosophical approach to answering questions about time is distinctively metaphysical opposed to the former physical and cognitive theories about time.

Of course there are many who may see the use in all of these different approaches!

Recommendations:

Physics:

Hawking, S 1988, A Brief History of Time: From The Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Books, Toronto; New York. [Chapters 2, 9 & 10. Absolute Classic, little dated but still great read]

Gardner, M 1988, Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments, W.H. Freeman, UK. [Chapter 1]

Greene, B 2010, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, W. W. Norton, New York. [Chapter 2 is a great introduction for Special Relativity]

Physics and Metaphysics:

Dainton, B 2010, Time and Space, 2nd edn, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal; Ithaca N.Y. [Chapters 1-8, 18, 19 & 21. This book is incredible in scope, it even has a chapter on String Theory, and it really acknowledges the intimate connection between space and time given to us by physics]

Metaphyics:

Hawley, K 2015, Temporal Parts, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/temporal-parts/>. [Discussion of Perdurantism, the view that objects last over time without being wholly present at every time at which they exist.]

Markosian, N 2014, Time, The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/time/>.

Hunter, J 2016, Time Travel, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/timetrav/>.

Callender, C & Edney, R 2014, Introducing Time: A Graphic Guide, Icon Books Limited, UK. [Great book if you want something a bit less wordy and fun, but still very informative, having comprehensive coverage. It also has many nice illustrations and is cheap!]

Curtis, B & Robson, J 2016, A Critical Introduction to the Metaphysics of Time, Bloomsbury Publishing, UK. [Very good recent publication that comes from a great series of books in metaphysics]

Ney, A 2014, Metaphysics: An Introduction, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London; New York. [Chapters 5 & 6 (Chapter 4 looks at critiques of Metaphysics in general as a way of answer questions and Chapter 9 looks at Free-will/Determinism/Compatiblism)]

More advanced temporal Metaphysics:

Sider, T 2001, Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, Oxford New York. [Great book defending what Sider calls "Four-Dimensionalism" (this is confusing given how others have used the same term differently) but by it he means Perdurantism, the view that objects last over time without being wholly present at every time at which they exist.]

Hawley, K 2004, How Things Persist, Clarendon Press, UK. [Another great book: It's extremely similar to the one above in terms of the both content and conclusions reached]

Some good Time travel movies:

Interstellar (2014)

Timecrimes (2007)

Looper (2012)

Primer (2004) [Time Travel on drugs]

12 Monkeys (1995)

Donnie Darko (2001)

The Terminator (1984)

Groundhog Day (1993)

Predestination (2014)

Back To the Future (1-3) (1985-1990)

Source Code (2011)

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Disclaimer: I have no formal education on ancient philosophy, how have I read through the works in their original or in translation, most of this is regurgitated from Sir Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy, which is selling on Amazon for a bargain price of $30, along with some Wikipedia information and my interpretation. If someone with better knowledge can elaborate in better, more accurate detail, please do so.

Okay, I twisted the facts a little, it was more like he was the first that we have documentation for who saw the connection between evidence and theory. For example, in politics, while Plato talked about ideal cities in Reppublic, Laws and Timaeus, imagining societies that does not rely on money, Aristotle did his research, and compared and contrasted the constitutions of Greek city-states against each other. From there he categorized constitutions into monarchy, aristocracy, etc.

Here is a fun-fact kind of paragraph that fails miserably at showing Aristotle's putting theory behind obervation, and it's not even very empirically factual. The nature of Greek philosophy has been to describe the world in terms of abstract, all-encompassing mechanics, and so I would say that Plato did something similar with his constitutions for ideal cities, assuming that its citizens will be happy to live in a state that supports only the most virtuous ways of living, not unlike how fundamentalists think that a state should not allow abortions or same-sex marriage, as the ideal citizen will not get raped or have homosexual tendencies, and even if so, would not give in to these unnatural activities. Such an act would be against justice (it is unjust as the person has no right to do so) and nature. (BTW, Plato was, rare for his time, homophobic, IIRC, and also thought that sex was only for procreation). Probably after looking at the data, Aristotle recognized that a state does not always have the most ideal rulers and citizens, and a constitutional democracy was best. He thought that Plato's constitutions were impractical because the diversity of different kind of citizen is essential, and life in a city should not be like in a barracks. I think he argues from the observation that a state is composed of combined villages to form the city-state, and from there recognized that Plato's state would not satisfy the reasons why people come together to form a state.

But his greatest scientific contribution is in biology, in his treatises, History of Animals, On the Parts of Animals, and On the generation of Animals. He cites earlier writers, accompanied with great scepticism of their claims. He had Alexander send him specimens from all over the world, and Aristotle not only observed the animals but also dissected them. His investigations on animals are quite detailed. The way he forms theory out of observation is by categorization, drawing parallels across organisms; classifying them into genus and species. Where he encountered insufficient evidence he would mention it; on the reproduction of bees, he says, "The facts have not yet been sufficiently ascertained. If ever they are, then we muse trust observation rather than theory, and trust theories only if their results conform with the oberved phenomena." But still there is still some speculation; for example he thinks that bodily features conform to one's disposition.

Admittedly, his methods aren't as developed as our modern scientific method which devises experiments to test theoretical predictions against, but Aristotle's basing theory on observation rather than imagination was the spark. It is a contrast from other philosophers who devise metaphysical systems to explain phenomena when a detailed observation might have painted another picture. At that time, his way of research would have been regarded as another philosophical approach, but today, with the work of Enlightenment thinkers we have matured his method into a formalized, effective system; and so it falls out of the realm of philosophy where questions are asked about uncertain ideas and knowledge, and into science, where theoretical results are induced from observation through formal process we call the scientific method.

Link

More contemporary philosophy is interesting too. A bit more complex but very rewarding. My path into it was religious philosophy so I read people like William Lane Craig, Bertrand Russel, Plantinga, and various bloggers. It's surprising how many bored philosophy grad students have blogs.

For heuristics and biases you'll be fine with anything by Tversky and/or Khaneman. They essentially started the field and then literally wrote the book. For a fusion of philosophy and applied rationality try Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment.

This is brilliant.

This reminds me of the endless epistemology debate about what it meant to "know" and what is meant by "justified true belief" and so on ad infinatum for decades.

It's interesting (and it can be useful), but it's not practical. If you want to actually accomplish anything, you need to learn to get at the truth reliably. Currently, science is doing this quite well, thank you, and I'm cool to just let it truck along and see where it ends up. Let's not cross bridges before we get to them. The scientific method's track record on "discovering the things that are most likely to be true about the universe" is so far way better than any other technique's.

Agreed with the above post, and add A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny. Doesn't seem terribly well-known, but I've found it to be incredibly helpful and much less biased than Russell -- though I haven't read the Copleston, so I can't compare.

Here is what I've been recommended:

Loprieno: Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction (a bit heavy on linguistics, but nothing you can't handle with some basic knowledge)

How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs: A step-by-step guide to teach yourself by Collier and Manley

L'Égyptien hiéroglyphique by Assimil

Middle Egyptian by Allen

Unfortunately, there isn't all that much "real" literature in ME, but it must still be a load of fun. :-)

Ted Sider might be worth checking out.

Here are some Amazon links:

German

Easy

Tintenherz by Cornelia Funke

"Momo" and "Die Unendliche Geschichte" by Michael Ende

Medium

Briefe an einen jungen Dichter by Rainer Maria Rilke

Siddartha by Hermann Hesse Kindle Version

Expert

Der Arme Heinrich by Hartmann von Aue - Different Author

Will finish these later.

At what level? Sutherland's Introduction is good. I also recommend Korner's lecture notes.

I'm reading Baugh & Cable's A History of the English Language 6th ed. and I'm really impressed with how well written the textbook is as well as how much I've learned in the first five chapters alone!

> Axler + Evan Chen for linear algebra

> Sutherland + Evan Chen for topology

> Tao analysis I and II for analysis

> Pinter + Evan Chen for abstract algebra

> Evan Chen for complex analysis


Thanks :)


Is this what you're referring to
? link, re the napkin project? That's
a neat idea.


How long have you spent going over them?

Check out the table of contents of a good reader for philosophy of language, such as Martinich and Sosa (see this review for the ToC). Many, though not all, of the works should be individually downloadable through your university library, especially ones originally published as standalone articles; those that are exercepted from books may be less accessible, but you still might find scans of them online, if your google-fu is up to the task.

Of course, a book/ToC like that is quite daunting to the uninitiated, and for this reason it's good to actually acquire the book itself, so that the authors (in the introduction to the book and introductions to each piece of work) can guide you. But you probably don't want to drop $80 or $100 on a book you may not actually need. It may be a good idea to contact the professor and ask which book they plan to use, so that you can get it early, or if there will be no book, then a list of (at least some of) the works that will be covered.

I'm being down-voted, but seriously. This isn't just once in a lifetime. We can repeat this. We have to. Electing Bernie once won't do much this first point . We need to sustain. We need a new generation of politicians like Bernie. That is the only way the liberal vision will survive.

George Lakoff has some great ideas on liberal language that people should read! Language is important! I'll post some links to his works. Incorporate them into your daily life. PM me and I might buy you the books. We need an awaking of liberal frames.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717

http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Blue-Book-Democratic-ebook/dp/B007WT31BM

Little blue book annotations:

http://www.nowforourturn.org/Reframing/The%20Little%20Blue%20Book.pdf

Seriously. The language of the debate is important. I'll be releasing a paper on language of Bernie vs Hillary soon. I'm not respected or good at writing, but I think it has a good few points on the language we use. It's more important that people think.

If you are into rigor, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment is unparalleled. A good teaser for the book is this podcast with the author. If the podcast tagline "An Epistemology for James Randi" appeals to you, you'll like the book. Even if it doesn't, you still might. ;-)

If you actually want to use your skeptical outlook to change the world, one of the authors wrote Why Empathy Matters: The Science and Psychology of Better Judgment. The book explains a lot of modern cognitive science and uses it to give excellent suggestions for how to structure out own lives and our societies use our biases against us to trick us into living something closer to what most can agree is the good life.

http://www.amazon.com/Well-Worlds-End-tale-ebook/dp/B0083Z3CAY/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407764334&sr=1-1&keywords=well+at+the+world%27s+end

https://www.amazon.com/Siddhartha-eine-indische-Dichtung-German-ebook/dp/B004SIXZKC?ie=UTF8&qid=1465056687&ref_=tmm_kin_swatch_0&sr=1-2

Wow, thank you for going in such depth! Thinking about your answer is leading me down a very interesting rabbit hole. In fact, I've just bought Through the Language Glass by Guy Deutscher as a direct result of your comment about the blue sky being a culturally conditioned thing, as I found out he did the "sky is blue" experiment on his daughter (the famous pianist Alma Deutscher) when she was little. He and his wife deliberately didn't mention the sky was blue to her, and she was homeschooled. When they asked her one day what colour it was, she started off with no colour because the sky wasn't a thing. Then she went with white/bright. Then blue.

So, again, thanks...

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Crystallography-Dover-Books-Chemistry/dp/0486678393

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/X-Ray-Crystallography-2-e-Oxford-Chemistry-Primers/0198700970

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crystal-Structure-Determination-Chemistry-Primers/dp/0198559011

Note: make a search before asking, this question has been already posted and answered in this sub in the past.

I just wanted to add that there was a sort of secondary mode of hieroglyphic usage, and from what I remember, I think it developed a good bit later, when Middle Egyptian was being used as the courtly language of the New Kingdom, wherein foreign names were written with the hieroglyphs representing vowels. I want to say it was sometime around the time that they also added the 'L' hieroglyph.

If you want to get into some (REALLY INVOLVED) reading on the subject, Anthony Loprieno has a book on Middle Egyptian wherein he uses known vowel sounds from Coptic and other closely related languages to try and reconstruct the full, vocalic forms of words from Middle Egyptian. You can find that book here: http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Egyptian-A-Linguistic-Introduction/dp/0521448492.

Source: I majored in linguistics and minored in Ancient Egyptian (Near Eastern Languages and Cultures) as an undergrad.

You are beginning with assumptions (unstated assumptions) that are flawed. You assume that language is "correct" or "incorrect" and that is that, but this is patently false. I'd suggest you get this book next time you're at the library: http://www.amazon.com/History-English-Language-6th-Edition/dp/0205229395

I hope you're enjoying the way texting is changing language, because it's only a matter of decades before much of text speak enters standard english. You will sit around and protest, just as a bunch of dead people who don't matter anymore protested every change over the last 1000+ years that made English what it is today (and thereby who shaped what you consider "correct").

• Green Space, Green Time
  
• Spell of the Sensuous
  
  

There are a lot of great reference books out there, but as far as actually learning, I'd look into ESL grammar texts. I personally like Betty Azar, specifically Understanding and Using English Grammar.

Thanks! Here is the book, I'll maybe get it :)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Parents-Teachers-Guide-Bilingualism-Guides/dp/1783091592/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1416675153&sr=8-4&keywords=colin+baker

I've got this Primer, also from Clegg, I've found it's a good one:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crystal-Structure-Determination-Chemistry-Primers/dp/0198559011

Oh wow, that's really interesting! What an intriguing "Eh."

I learned about this first from a book called The Word on the Street by the linguist John McWhorter. Interestingly, McWhorter is black and can write authoritatively and eloquently about the black American dialect, but he doesn't have the dialect either. He's been doing Slate's Lexicon Valley podcast for a while and you can hear him touch on some of these topics in this episode.

He has a new book about the topic too, which I'm eager to read.

Info | Details
----|-------
Amazon Product | The Language of the Inuit: Syntax, Semantics, and Society in the Arctic (McGill-Queen's Native and Northern Series)
>Amazon donates 0.5% of the price of your eligible AmazonSmile purchases to the charitable organization of your choice. By using the link above you get to support a chairty and help keep this bot running through affiliate programs all at zero cost to you.

Almost nobody who works with Egyptian makes any serious attempt to pronounce it correctly. They just use the closest easy-to-pronounce consonants, and stick in whatever filler vowels are natural in their native language. This is partly because we're talking about a language that was spoken a couple thousand years and which had many regional dialects, and so historical pronunciation varied considerably by time and place.

If, however, you want to learn more about the reconstructed pronunciation, then Lorpieno is an excellent choice from a linguistics perspective, and Allen is great if you want a course.

My intro grad class read the following, so I think they're a good place to start:

The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice

https://www.amazon.com/Green-Book-Language-Revitalization-Practice/dp/9004254498

Saving Languages

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Languages-Introduction-Language-Revitalization/dp/0521016525/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=DXKK7FQ77XYXCPQWPVM9

Reversing Language Shift

https://www.amazon.com/Reversing-Language-Shift-Theoretical-Multilingual/dp/1853591211/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480605154&sr=1-1&keywords=reversing+language+shift

When Languages Die

https://www.amazon.com/When-Languages-Die-Extinction-Knowledge/dp/0195372069/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480605172&sr=1-1&keywords=when+languages+die

In addition to many articles, but if it's articles you want, you can't go wrong with anything by Leanne Hinton.

If all you know right now is that you think you're interested in Endangered Languages, then read read read is really the best advice, so you can get an idea of what "the field" entails and start to find what interests you. What part of the world? What language family? What type of work - applied and/or academic? Are you interested more in documentation, description, or revitalization based work (most projects involve all three, but usually weighted a bit more toward one or the other)? And what subfield of linguistics do you want to specialize in? etc.

First line of the book description:
> Blending the spirit of Eats, Shoots & Leaves with the science of The Language Instinct...

o_0 This does not make me want to read this book. OP be warned. Seems like there will be a lot of facepalming involved. I'll probably check this book out anyway (I love to facepalm), but I'd recommend something by Michael Tomasello instead, such as Origins of Human Communication or The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition.

You are limited biologically by age in producing offspring. You are less likely to cause pregnancy the older you are, and your children are at higher risk of birth defects the older you are. I read a book about this in grad school but I can't remember what it's called. I'll try to find it and follow up. I think it's ridiculous and harmful that men aren't properly educated on this. Fertility isn't just about women.

Edit:Found it. It's a sociological study about how male contribution to procreation has conventionally been considered secondary and less important and meaningful than women's.

Just trying to help out.

Pro-tip: You don't need the comma in the first sentence. I think you may have been thinking of rules pertaining to conjunctions.

EDIT: "Pwd" is a common American abbreviation for "Penis Whacking Device", which my name eludes to losing.