Where did that come from?

A physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it.  No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.  On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.  As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.  At least that is what is supposed to happen, but you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation. 

– STEPHEN HAWKING, A Brief History of Time

The passage from Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is characteristic of the scientific method and proving a hypothesis as it relates to a discourse in physics or astronomy.  Neither formal legal language nor conversational dialogue, Hawking’s voice is neutral, hypothetical philosophy that does not describe a specific physical theory.  Without prior knowledge of Karl Popper’s work or what he means to this passage, only that his last name is synonymous with a catalyst for physical change in those kernels that stem from a cob, the reader gathers that this philosopher of science has provided extensive study on scientific theory based on century-old principles of Aristotle and Galileo.  The reader senses a register, a connection between the physics and philosophy of Hawking and his study of Popper.  This passage could be a must read before an endeavor in research of physics, astronomy, and chemistry.  Even biology.  All prior knowledge aside, the reader knows who Stephen Hawking is from the byline and title of this passage.  Surely he must be qualified to discuss proving or debunking a theory.

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking depends on synthetic categories through reliance on abstract nouns like “a physical theory” or “a philosopher of science.”  A physicist is not bound to poetry in his words for there is poetry in physics.  This passage demonstrates a dependence on the verb to be.  This passage does not contain colorful language just as it contains no specific matter.  However, it contains a definitive method for theoretical consideration.  Ask why.  Pontificate.  Hawkins wants the reader to increase his confidence in his ability to scientifically reason.  The scientific method utilizes a prediction with abstract nouns, an observation that better describes those nouns through adjectives and prepositions.  Not until the scientist arrives at a theory will he build a cohesive, factual report with concrete verbs.  This method is very much like technical writing and reporting on procedural order to arrive at a functional finished product.

Hawking uses adjectives in this narrative sparingly with but a few abstract nouns.  Any description is subjective and applies to one’s relative understanding of physics, philosophy, or Hawking himself.  The syntax of the passage relies on all the senses but none of them simultaneously.  Since this passage describes existence and proving a hypothesis through theory, philosophically there are no senses without new endeavor based on past experience and proving what is correct and what might be error.  Hawking wants us to question events through scientific thinking and reasoning.  The verbs in use express his message through linear factual evidence, even though there is no active matter for consideration.  The paragraph is principle and theorem awaiting particles to set in motion.  We know this by its verbs in use—is, disprove, has emphasized, are observed, is found, is supported, to happen, can always question.  If we were to apply the scientific method to a specific matter, then we would see motion or chemical reaction and would describe it using different terms.  The semantics of the Hawking paragraph demonstrate connection and convey the possibility if moving the matter forward.  There is no imagery or sound in this refrain, much like the depths and darkness of the universe. There is not existence until there are elements in need of spark.

Derivatives, phonemes, and nerds in the middle

Who doesn’t love a nerd? A bully doesn’t love a nerd.  A bully is jealous, envious, and otherwise ruthless in his or her behavior around this figure.  Have you ever met a mean nerd, a bully nerd?  Presented, celebrated, heralded, ugly, sexy—nerds even have aura!  Nerds are never mean or cruel.  They don’t always wear glasses.  Nerds come with beards, nose rings, tattoos, buzzed heads, and wild afros.  There are countless thousands of famous nerds.

The origin of the word is important in the discussion of ‘affixation’ in our language.  Sometimes called derivation, affixation is part of the construction of new words in our collective English language.  Affixation utilizes prefixes, roots, and suffixes—phonemes.  The prefixes can provide double duty, but it’s the suffixes to these constructed compound words that make each one conditional, unique, and interesting.

“Similarly, to the slang word nerd, which was invented by Dr. Seuss, slang users have added the suffix –y to create the adjective nerdy and then the suffix -ness to create the abstract noun nerdiness.  In a TV interview about women students’ reluctance to enter scientific fields, the astronaut Sally Ride spoke of the nerdification of the field of computer science. (The Structure of English for Readers, Writers, and Teachers.  Clark. College Publishing. 2010. pp. 24, 25)

If I Ran the Zoo, origin of ‘Nerd’

What if

The list of prefixes standard to the English language give direction for the root and suffix that follow it:  Ad, ac, ag, al, ar, as, ab, ambi, con, col, com, cor, contra, de, di, dis, e, ex, inter, in, il, im, ir, inter, ob, pre, post, pro, re, sub, suf, sup, trans.

What if nerd were added to the Latin choices of roots?  Imagine it in relation to these bits:  Ag, act, ce, ceed, cess, ceive, cept, dict, duce, duct, fend, fer, flect, flex, ject, port, pos(e), riv(e), scend, scent, scrib(e), spic, spect, tain, tend, tract, vert voc.

Consider the possibilities beyond the basic word: Meganerd, übernerd, or ultranerd.  What would these compounds imply:

Ambinerdable, agnerdile, abnerdant, contranerdity, contranerdant, contranerdence, contranerdation, contranerdment, renerdor (a coach), denerdment, subnerdment, subnerdation, disnerdation, imnerdable, imnerdment, internerdance, obnerdation, prenerdment, postnerdive, pronerdment, transnerdation, transnerdity.  My favorite is ambinerdity; the opposite of contranerdity.

Granted, nerd doesn’t hold meaning as a verb like the roots of Latin origin.  But it resonates with a powerful place in the lexicon of literature.  And it can stand alone.

Spin forward

Awake

Tambourines and tangerines,
the changing sky I spy.
A streaking sun, another star,
its distant rays unknown.

Bowing to this present joy,
the jingling notes I play!
Spin citrus, eternal myst’ry,
we celebrate today.

A new year means a new course

Modern English Grammars 1:   Why do I agree?  To appreciate how one actively participates in and contributes to the English language’s linguistic system.

I read, write, study, and analyze literature of all types not just for my own active intelligence, but to appreciate how one actively participates in and contributes to the English language’s linguistic system.  Somewhere along the way, I began to think like an editor, witnessing the polished structure of a body of presented research.  It doesn’t matter what the subject is or the age and experience of the writer.  Sure, in reading another’s work, it is easy to want to first criticize their approach.  But many times I am out of touch with the author so my criticism is meaningless, not to mention arrogant.  

I want to teach to use my ability to coach and understand where a writer is coming from. 

The reason for studying grammar is to improve on what we learned yesterday from reading and writing.  It is a mathematical procedure, a cumulative understanding of what we knew about sentence and paragraph structure yesterday, to build a solid thesis and demonstrate supporting evidence.  Students are subject to rubrics, presented to them with each unit assignment and they in turn might care about what went into the formulation of that rubric—a teacher, a principal, a school superintendent, the Internet—who wrote the rubric? “Why am I doing this?” a student might ask himself.  He should ask himself this. He should care.  And the entire school system will reinforce why he should care.

Young people arrive at school from a myriad of socioeconomic living situations, some with access to books and parental or fraternal tutoring and some with no help at all.  Many children learn to speak (and write) primarily from watching and listening, but not from fully engaging with mentors.  And this is critical to their success in the classroom and the challenge for the teacher.  This is what it means to actively participate and contribute to the English language’s linguistic system:  To understand how our words shape our expression of feelings, to describe a mistreatment from a bully, to properly ask “May I go to the restroom?” to say I’m sorry and really mean it, or to explain the joy of a new discovery without gloat. 

Also, through reading, writing, and studying grammar, a student begins to understand his worldview, to apply the concepts he has learned from grammar to social studies and science, to articulate to a varied audience, to understand the methodology of an actor—to know what in the heck Shakespeare was articulating nearly 500 years ago!

The teacher of the English language is required to listen to and read from his students as if they are all part of a great narrative, each with his or her own diction, inflection, and sense of humor.  It is critical for the teacher to understand and to never condescend, despite the challenges from students to his or her ego.