Principled Discovery

Jun. 5, 2006

All You Ever Wanted to Know About Ursprache (but were afraid to ask)

OK, I've resisted for over 24 hours, but am now giving in. Please understand I majored in German, I studied there two years and I simply love the study of language. I know I'm weird, but I can curl up with a cup of tea and a good dictionary and be content for hours. Give me an etymological dictionary and, well, you will have lost me for some time. My junior year, I spent hours upon hours researching the history of the word "snide" because my German professor thought it odd that the word "schneiden" (to cut) did not survive in any form in English. I thought just maybe it did...

So when Ursprache became the winning word for the spelling bee...well, how could I not get excited about it? A nice German word on my favorite subject. From Wordsmyth:

Syllables:		Ur-spra-che

Part of Speech		noun
Pronunciation		uhr spra kE ur shpra khE
Definition	1.	(German) the parent form of a language that has been constructed from hypotheses based on analysis of later forms for which there is evidence.

So here is my attempt at helping this vitally important word stick in your mind. Proper English (as opposed to a borrowed word) for this would be protolanguage. How does this work? Let me give you an example. Below is a list of English words and their German cognates. These words have common ancestry. Can you see what shifts are taking place?

Pfad...................path
Pfennig..............penny
Pfanne..............pan

Dieb..................thief
Daume.............thumb
die....................the

gelb.................yellow
gelten.............yield
gestern..........yesterday

Each of these words have a common ancestor whose sounds have shifted over time. The, for example, comes from an old word for the, thiu. These sound shifts follow their own rules, converting an entire class of words at a time. They also occur over geographic regions. Thus you will only see the "pf" in southern German dialects, while the northern dialects have only "p." With this information alone, you should be able to tell where English originated...northern Germany. By studying how known languges have changed over time, linguists can hypothesize what previous languages may have looked like.

What they have largely reconstructed based on this model is called Indo-European and it is the common ancestor to all the European languages, slavic languages, Farsi and the Indian languages.

The most fascinating thing I find in this research is that as we go back in time, language gets more complex. English used to have a rich case system. Can you believe we conjugated our nouns? Like Latin? Of course, if you go back far enough, Latin is related to English as well. We also had more varied and more complex sounds. That igh occuring in so many words used to be pronounced. As was the b at the end of words such as comb and lamb. German, which updates its spelling more often than English, has dropped the archaic "b" but continues to double the end letter (Kamm, Lamm(e)). There also was a curious sound that still exists in some dialects in England that I cannot hope to recreate. But it is represented in the names Floyd and Lloyd. Did you know those are actually the same name? Just two different representations of the same sound that people outside the dialect cannot say or spell.

Research also places the beginnings of this language in the Middle East only a few thousand years ago. Imagine that.

Oh, and about the word "snide." It is certainly a Germanic word, but it does not appear to have stayed with English via the Angles and the Saxons and their trip from Germany to England. It has an unclear history, but appears to have been reintroduced to the languge via the Vikings who harrassed England's northern shores. They used a verb snidera to describe the biting cold of the north wind. It appears that English adopted this, also to describe the wind initially. Eventually, it came to describe certain remarks and manners of expression.

If you are as interested in this as I am, here are some links with some interesting information:

For a brief history of the English language, complete with graphic:
http://www.danshort.com/ie/timeline.htm

For a generic overview of the Indo-European family tree:
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html

For a more detailed overview:
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/language_tree.htm
You can also move your mouse over the highlighted ones and get a bit more info.

This is somewhat technical, but gives some insight as to how this is all figured out in the first place.  
It is written in response to a letter published in Nature that attempted to push back the dates of the language splits and move their origins further East:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000208.html

Another detailed map of the Indo-European family tree.  
You can click on the languages below the graphic to see where each language was spoken.
http://www.danshort.com/ie/

• Comments (2) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Nov. 16, 2005

Maybe a little too political, but it's my blog...

Posted in My Soapbox

I'm not sure if this has to do with much of anything, and y'all probably know this already and can chuckle as you see the lights slowly go on in my little head as I plod through my studies. This, as it so often does, started with a silly argument I should not have allowed myself to get into, but here is the result...I suppose this has to do with accuracy and precision in speech and a bit of history. Oh, in case you care one iota, the original discussion had to do with the civil rights movement and how the Democrats somehow managed to manage to turn "civil rights" into one of THEIR platform items, even though that was the driving force of the Republican party from its inception (same guy founded the Underground Railroad AND the Republican Party).

The terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" stem from English history. Once upon a time when the king had a tad more power than today, those who sided with the crown seated themselves to the king's right and those who opposed him seated themselves to his left, hence right wing and left wing. The German Parliament is still arranged in this fashion.

Essentially, those who side with the governing authority are right-wing. Those who oppose it are left-wing. In England, that was the crown, in Nazi Germany, that was Hitler and in the US, that is the constitution (not the president or any particular political beliefs).

There is no similarity between the German right and the American right, and anyone calling American "nazis" right wing is confusing terms. Faschism is against our contitution, thus cannot be right wing in our nation. Look at the term nazi...which comes from "National Sozialismus" or "National Socialism." It is antithetical to the founding of our nation and is therefore NOT right wing.

Now I can proudly go forth asserting my position as a right wing "extremist" and educate those who raise their eyebrows at me to the true nature of the argument. I stand 100% behind our constitution as our governing authority. Well, our external, not-Christ one anyway.

• Comments (1) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Nov. 13, 2005

There's Stuff...and There's Christ

Posted in My Soapbox

Little Mouse had a pretty good early birthday with grandma and grandpa. She chose to eat at Chucky Cheese's. And she LOVED the dress and shoes and tights her grandparents got for her. I'll have to take a picture and upload it later. She had told grandma earlier that what she wanted for her birthday was a beautiful winter dress. It is so nice that she does not break out the laundry list of wishes when asked questions like that. It makes me want to get her what she asks for AND other stuff. I told my husband once she was going to be the most polite spoiled kid ever...when she asks for little and is appreciative for that, and accepts "no" answers, I really WANT to go buy her things!

I could probably take a lesson or two from her in that. There are so many things out there that would make preparing lessons easier, or make organizing our house quicker or whatever. There is always something else on the horizon I think I need. We're blessed to have a decent income and the only debt we have is our house. The things we would like are nice things. There is nothing sinful about wanting various curriculum resources, a mixer and a shelf in the kitchen so I don't have to have my daughter climb up on the counter to get the flour down. In fact, there is a scriptural principle of enjoying the fruits of your own labor.

But as much as I say I am blessed. I have everything I need and the resources to get some things I want, am I truly content with that? Scripture says, "Be content with such things as you have, for he himself has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" I am to be content with the things I have because Christ loves me. He will not leave me. That should be enough. But is it really? Don't I somewhere somehow really want more? Christ and a bigger house? Heaven and DSL?

Earlier today, I was playing with Baby Bug on the bed. I was trying to hold her off from nursing until everyone else was ready to watch a video. She had other ideas, however, and would not be sidetracked with any game or toy. She clawed her way, arm over arm, all that long span of 12 inches to roll on her side next to me and take hold of my shirt. She wanted comfort and nourishment and knew the source which would satisfy all her needs. Now, she has just fell asleep on my chest. I hear her soft breathing and feel the little twitches of her lips as they occasionally start suckling the air and the gentle clasp of her hand as it tightens and loosens on my shoulder. There is this strange sensation I sometimes get when holding my own baby of not quite knowing where I end and she begins.

Shouldn't that characterize my relationship with Christ and define my desires? To be so closely identified with Christ that the line between His will and my will are indistinct? To rest in His will, comforted only by His presence? To seek Him and Him alone when in need of comfort or nourishment?

• Comments (7) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Oct. 8, 2005

Finding Purpose

Posted in My Soapbox

Fifteen months ago, our family made the decision for me to leave the workplace to stay home. The beginning was very tough. I struggled with boredom, lack of direction and lack of purpose. I truly believed my children to be more important than all I gave up, and struggled with a sense of guilt when I realized that I really wanted to return to work. I began feeling like I was only serving everyone around me and had no real sense of my own worth. I told myself it was just a matter of time and it would take care of itself as I got used to the transition.

I viewed this decision as an act of obedience to God to benefit our family. I set my children as a priority above myself and reminded myself that they were worth the sacrifice when I struggled. That is not such a bad line of thinking, but it wasn’t working for me, and it really is not scriptural.

God created Adam in the garden for work. He tended the garden, took dominion of the animals and subdued his environment. Eve was created from his side to be a help-meet for him. In other words, Eve was also created for useful labor. The dominion mandate is given before the command to be fruitful and multiply. Since God created woman for this purpose, woman can only feel truly complete fulfilling this purpose.

I think too often those women who make the decision to leave the workplace fill their time with entertainment and child-rearing duties. Soaps, luncheons, study groups, play dates and a plethora of activities fill each day. Unfortunately, these are only pastimes and do just that: pass the time. They do not minister to the soul, giving purpose to each day. Take a look at the Proverbs 31 woman. Her day was not focused on entertainment, nor her children, nor yet fellowship with other believers. Her day was filled with useful labor, and through her godly example, her entire family grew spiritually.

I’ve never considered the price of a vineyard, nor sold my fine weaving down at the market, but I have found purpose in useful work. I have taught myself to crochet, knit, sew and can. I have made things for the children and for presents. I have tried to find ways to save money while maintaining a nutritious diet for our family. We have virtually eliminated convenience foods from the menu and I have been making our own fresh bread and recently began making pasta as well. I have taken time to work on my writing since it has always been a dream of mine to some day author a book someone would actually want to purchase. As of yet, none of this has actually resulted in an increase in our family’s income, although some of it has definitely saved us some money. I’m working on that part next.

I think this plays out differently for each person, but I truly believe the key for battling some of the depression and anxiety that frequently accompanies the decision to stay home with children is found in recognizing God’s plan. We are created by Him, for Him and to Him. Our children are the heritage of the Lord, and we certainly have a great responsibility teaching and leading them, but when they become the focus of our day, we step outside what we were created for. It is not good for us and it really is not good for our children, either. Useful , constructive labor (not just hobbies) will help give purpose to each day. And when a woman is successful in ordering her days according to this God given purpose, “Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.” (Pro 31:28 )

• Comments (6) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Sep. 26, 2005

Economics

Posted in My Soapbox

Ok, so my daughter is only six and we are not starting any formal study of economics at this point. But I have been comtemplating the notion of household economics relating to national economics and feel I am somewhat close to an epiphany sort of moment. Maybe I should wait until it happens so that I will have something more meaningful to share, but right now I am trying to sort out my thoughts on the matter.

First off, the degree to which our economy is dependent on debt is staggering. Almost every household carries debt. Home mortgages are considered the norm (yes, we have one too), and no one thinks twice about car loans. And then there are the credit cards. It still astonishes me that the average American household carries $7,500 in credit card debt. Oh, and all those nifty things people buy on payment plans. Is it any wonder that the national government cannot keep its budget when most Americans don't really know what it means to live within one?

And it isn't even that. Our economy depends on debt. Here is a fun little fact I learned in economics class that kind of bugged me. Most of the money in circulation does not exist. It is strictly a paper transaction. You write a check, the bank moves numbers from one column to another, and so on without any actual money moving anywhere. The scary thing, at least in my mind: The bank only has to have 10% of the money it loans out in its possession. Common sense would think that if you then were to deposit $100, the bank could only loan out $90. But that is not the case. If you deposit $100 in the bank, the bank has $1000 dollars to loan out...your $100 is the ten percent they need to keep. Where does the other $900 come from? It doesn't really exist. Technically, it is a loan from the Federal Reserve, but really the whole deal does rest entirely on that little phrase on the bills..."the full faith and credit" of the USA.

Back to my family. I want to teach my daughter to be a good steward of her resources. I believe, as with everything, that comes with modeling. My husband has been showing her some of our bills and how we set up our accounts and our budget. We verbalize a lot of our spending decisions in front of her and try to help her see that money must be used wisely. A while back, we were giving her an allowance. To teach her tithing, saving and wise spending habits, we gave her three boxes and roughly followed the program I heard laid out by Crown Financial Ministries. She set aside her tithe, her savings and that little bit she could spend on a whim. But something bothered me about the whole thing and we didn't keep up with it very well, so she hasn't actually gotten an allowance for a very long time.

Not too long ago, I was involved in a bit of a discussion about allowances tied to chores and the idea that chores is just part of being a member of this family and money should not be tied to it. There are all kinds of views as to just what an allowance is or should be for. But now, as I am slowly examining every aspect of my life and my thinking in each area, I am contemplating what I want my child to learn and how best to teach that. I don't think an allowance will teach my daughter what I want to teach her regarding money. I think it will teach her exactly what a good portion of our society seems to believe...that she has a right to a certain standard of living and someone somewhere has to make up the difference if there is a shortfall. Giving a child an allowance, I am beginning to think, may actually undermine the whole process of teaching a child about wise use of money by teaching that it does not have to be earned.

So, what exactly is money? What is the value of a dollar? For those of you who do not already know, the word "dollar" comes from the German word "Taler." It was a coin used widely in the pioneer days and was exactly the value of one buck skin. Buck skins were the common "standard" in trade and came to be known as a "Taler" which became "dollar" in English. That, in case you haven't already figured it out, is also where we get the slang "buck" in reference to a dollar from. One dollar is the work it takes to hunt, kill, skin and bring one buck to the trading post. It is representative of the work you performed in order to earn that token.

I like the way Almanzo's father explained it in "Farmer Boy." He gives Almanzo a half-dollar and tells him that is work. He asks his son to tell him how to harvest potatoes. Almanzo describes the work of harrowing the fields, cutting the seed potatoes, planting them, hoeing them, digging them, sorting them, storing them and finally bringing them to market. And he figures if the price is good, one half bushel equals one half dollar. It seemed to him to be such a small coin for such a lot of work. His father tells him that he can have the coin. He can drink lemonade with it, or he can buy a suckling pig, fatten it and get piglets to sell and earn maybe four or five dollars later. Almanzo can't believe it, and he chooses to buy a pig.

At nine years old, Almanzo knew more about the value of money than most adults do today, because he knew the value of work. He was not given an allowance to experiment with. He worked and his parents gave him what he needed. He learned by his parents example to value work, thrift, savings and independence from other men. I'm not quite sure how I'm going to do this at the moment, but this is the basic concept I want to impart to my daughter. Money is representational for the amount of work you do. I want her to view each dollar as a measure of time and labor and to think if that is a fair trade for what she is about to receive in exchange. I don't think that can be accomplished by setting an allowance and thereby inadvertantly training her mind for the welfare state starting at age six.

• Comments (4) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Sep. 11, 2005

What's in a Definition

Posted in My Soapbox

In the educational approach we are using, finding, analyzing and applying the proper definitions of words is very important. We use the Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language because it is the only American English dictionary which uses scriptural definitions of words. The goal is to learn to appreciate and strive for precision in language which will lead to precision in thought, precision in communication and, hopefully, precision in behavior. So, I suppose it would be appropriate to begin a discussion of definitions with a definition:

Definition:
1. A brief description of a thing by its properties; as a definition of wit or of a circle.
2. In logic, the explication of the essence of a thing by its kind and difference.
3. In lexicography, an explanation of the signification of a word or term, or of what a word is understood to express.

My hard copy gives me some more information...that the word is derived from a Latin word which means "to end," or "to limit." It seems the main principle expressed is to "explain" the "essence" of a thing by its "properties." It shows the end or limit of a concept, thing or idea. This applies whether we are talking about the definition of the biceps or what is found in dictionaries.

Our language is currently undergoing drastic changes, and what defines us as Americans is under attack. A brief survey of modern dictionaries, particularly when compared with Webster's 1828, shows an increasing push toward ambiguity. Some are so vague as to be essentially meaningless. When the definition (border) of a word is vague, so is the idea it encompasses. When ideas are vague, so is our culture. The natural result is an ever growing "gray area" in all the affairs of man. In short, when did the word "wicked," come to mean "good?"

While listening to Ravi Zacharias today, I heard more on definitions I thought was interesting. He brought the concept to the forefront with a simple rewording of a well known bible verse, updating it slightly to better match the original meaning or essence of the Greek:

In the beginning was the definition, and the definition was with God and the definition was God.

At first, I thought that was a bit odd. But after listening to the rest of what he had to say, I realized just how much clearer this translation leaves one of the most basic concepts to Christianity. Back up to the Garden of Eden. Eve is talking to a serpent. What is the temptation to which she yields? Luscious fruit? A sweet talking snake? Genesis 3:5 tells us, "...ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. " She seeks to be like God, knowing good and evil. Determining good and evil. Defining good and evil. That role which belongs solely to God, she desires for herself. She wants to define right and wrong for herself, without regard to the law of God. What do we seek today? This is the root of all sin, from which all sins we could possibly think of are derived.

Secular humanism has made man into a god, glorifying his achievements and telling him how he can define right and wrong for himself. Christian humanism does the same, with some recognition of a higher power. True Christianity seeks to follow the Definition...and be conformed into His image. Christ is the end, the limit, the essence and the property of what it means to follow God. The only way to truly follow Him is to let Him lead, beginning with an understanding of scripture and continuing by allowing Him to provide the definition of your walk with Him.

For more on the importance of using Webster's 1828, here is an interesting article by the Foundation for American Christian Education.

• Comments (1) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Sep. 5, 2005

My Counter

Posted in My Soapbox

My husband was looking at my blog the other day and asked, "Why do you have a counter on your blog?" I thought about it. Some random site I had visited had one and I copied? I thought about it some more? Why? It's not like I'm trying to track visitors for advertising purposes or anything. Is it just one more cool little toy?

When I was little, I distinctly remember spending a good deal of time opening and closing the refrigerator. I wanted to know whether the light went out when the door was closed. My parents told me it did, but I'm the kind of person who really doesn't believe something until I see it for myself. But no matter how quickly or stealthily I opened the refrigerator door, the light was always on. After some time, I discovered the little button in the bottom left corner of the refrigerator that made the light turn on and off. I was content in my knowldedge that, yes, the light did in fact turn off when the door was shut.

It is kind of like that with this blog. I know some people visit it. Some people leave comments. Every so often I get an email. That's nice. It is nice to know someone out there has found something in my ramblings interesting or helpful. But most people pass through like a shadow. Do they read anything? Or just look at the length of the post and the goofy avatar and move on to the next random blog? What did they think? Do they ever come back intentionally, or just the next time the random button brings them here?

It is kind of like walking past someone's shadow. The little ticker on my counter says they were here, but I know nothing about them. But when they leave, if they have read anything at all, they have taken a bit of me with them. They have glimpsed briefly into my little world. Peering through this little window, strangers have seen my children's pictures, elements of my lesson planning, my philosophy of education and issues that seemed of interest to me on that particular day. All I know of them is one more little tick on my counter.

For anyone who actually follows my journaling entries, I will return to regularly scheduled programming tomorrow

• Comments (3) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Sep. 3, 2005

To School or Not to School

Posted in My Soapbox

Another one of the many nuggets of wisdom I gained at Katherine Dang's seminar in KS was that I am not a homeschooler. I am a home educator. Why is it that we pull our kids out of school, only to rush out and turn our homes into a school? We purchase chalkboards, white boards, text books, workbooks and posters. We draw up schedules so rigid, we may as well wire in a school bell to ring every 45 minutes. While reading Shannon's blog, I realized what a strong desire we have to teach using the same methods of teaching used in school. If a child doesn't understand or is not performing up to expectations, we give them more of the same.

But we are home educators. We have the incredible freedom to let go of all these environmental trappings that evoke images of "school" in our minds and really teach our children's. We have the unique opportunity to minister directly to their heart and soul rather than try to program correct responses in a cold and sterile environment. Reading can be taught snuggling on the couch. Science can be discovered laying on a blanket under the stars. Math can be explored while baking a cake. Now, I haven't exactly figured out how to report that schedule to the state, but my record keeping is not my primary focus in educating my children, either.

Shannon discovered crochet as a means to improving handwriting. Here are some more great activities for early reading development and handwriting that are often overlooked. Remember that this process is largely about fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination and shape recognition.

crocheting, knitting and sewing
puzzles
play dough, clay, kneading bread, cookie cutting
painting and coloring
cutting with scissors
gluing and pasting
collages and mosaics
finger rhymes
string games
using a hole puch
trying to hold those little squishy toys that are made to slip out of your fingers
legos, K'Nex, Tinkertoys
stringing beads
finger soccer (we had uniforms for our fingers and played with an old foozball)
braiding
Lite-Brite, pegboards, geoboards
eating with chopsticks
games like Jenga, pick-up sticks and even dominoes and cards
simple magic tricks

Oh yeah. You could always print off another worksheet and have them copy until they burst into tears. But it is my personal view that if a child is not ready for a skill, making them perform it poorly leads only to frustration. You need to back up, assess what the root of the difficulty is and provide them opportunities to be successful until they are ready.

• Comments (3) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

Aug. 30, 2005

What About Socialization?

Posted in My Soapbox

Today followed a somewhat predictable pattern, and I feel more like espousing my views on the frequently asked question, "What about socialization?" than journaling. If anyone wants to know what we did today, email me and I'll let you know, but it really was nothing worth preserving for posterity. Also, if you would like my first installment of Katherine Dang's seminar, scroll down to the next message.

This was started by a somewhat amusing post on a yahoo group. It was asserted that studies show that homeschool kids do as well as other children with socializing, so long as they remember to use smaller words and shorter sentences.

It got me thinking about socialization, however. I looked it up in my Webster's 1828 dictionary to find that it was not there. Hmm. New concept. (Incidentally, a foster child and I had great fun looking up words like 'compact disc, television, computer, and any other word we could think of that would not be there.) So I searched online and found this definition:

the process by which culture is learned; also called enculturation.
During socialization individuals internalize a culture's social
controls, along with values and norms about right and wrong.

My analysis of the definition:

Socialization means enculturation. I read there, 'indoctrination.'

One "internalize[s] a culture's social controls." So, again, we are a product of our environment. Our 'culture' puts social controls on our behavior, implying that 1) the individual is subordinate to and inherently less valuable than the group and 2) the individual is not responsible for his own actions.

These 'social controls' include "values and norms about right and wrong." Whoa. Hold on a second. Norm-referenced testing is bad enough. As the population is dumbed down, it is easier to succeed. What 'progress' is that? And now the concept of right and wrong is norm-referenced? So the little ten year old girl I saw at the fair with the playboy bunny on her baseball cap was acting in what was good and right and wholesome because a significant portion of our society sees nothing wrong with that?

Next time someone asks me, "What about socialization?" I am going to respond, "The process of socialization is the PRIMARY reason I choose to homeschool." I will not have my children taught "values and norms about right and wrong." They will be given a firm foundation, a solid rock, an absolute measure of right and wrong to stand on. They will be taught scriptural principles of right and wrong. They will be held accountable for their own actions. They will be encouraged to take dominion of their surroundings and use their firm stand to influence our 'culture.' They will NOT be socialized, if there is anything I can do to prevent it.

• Comments (1) • Post A Comment! • Permanent Link

About Me

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."--Alexis de Toqueville