explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value

2018-06-02T00:22:09Z

Billjefferys: /* Explanation */ p-values are NOT the probability that the null hypothesis is correct. Not even close.

{{comic
| number = 2001
| date = June 1, 2018
| title = Clickbait-Corrected p-Value
| image = clickbait_corrected_p_value.png
| titletext = When comparing hypotheses with Bayesian methods, the similar 'clickbayes factor' can account for some harder-to-quantify priors.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Click here to learn more about the influence of Clickbait... But please first explain p-value. Most people don't know. And more wiki links.}}
This is yet another comic dealing with [[:Category:Clickbait|Clickbait]].

This comic references ''hypothesis testing'' in statistics. Hypothesis testing is a standard method to determine whether a particular hypothesis is supported by the data. Such tests compare sets of data to determine whether they are likely to be correlated. In the examples given in the comic, a researcher might compare data on athletic performance with data on chocolate consumption by those athletes to determine whether he two trend together. By convention, the "null hypothesis" (designated H0) is that there's no correlation (that chocolate doesn't improve athletic performance, in this case) and the "alternate hypothesis" (Ha) is that they are correlated (chocolate does improve athletic performance). These sets are subjected to statistical tests which return a "p-value" which is often misinterpreted as the probability that the null hypothesis is correct. Hence, if the p-value is low enough, the null hypothesis is rejected, and we conclude that the alternate hypothesis is supported by the data.

Actually, the p-value is the probability that one would get the results obtained, or any more extreme value, given that the null hypothesis is false. The misinterpretation of p-values as the probability that the null hypothesis is correct is a huge problem that lies at the source of a lot of confusion in the statistical interpretation of data.

In this version, the p-value is corrected by a factor which increases when readers click a headline stating that H1 is true, and decreases when people click a headline stating that H0 is true. This has the effect of ''increasing'' the p-value if readers favor H1 over H0, leading to a greater chance of ''H0'' being accepted. This seems to operate under the assumption that whatever clickers of clickbait believe, the reverse is likely to be true.

As the statistical results now depend on people's beliefs about the hypothesis, this is as far from actual science as one can get. However, in a way, it is more in tune with a quote by Arbuthnot (one of the originators of the use of p-values) attributing variation to active thought rather than chance, "From whence it follows, that it is Art, not Chance, that governs." Randall applying that quote to the thoughts of the masses, bringing it in line with "Art".

Clickbait is the practice of using deceptive or manipulative headlines to entice readers to click on a dubious news story, often with the purpose of generating ad revenue.

This comic calculates the p-value of clickbait article and videos, nowadays very common on the web. The formula depicted is commonly known as the Bayes theorem, and a more common expression of that theorem is p(A|B) = p(B|A) * p(A) / p(B). Here, it depicts the odds of a clickbait article being clicked depending on two different headlines.

The comic does not present a correct example of null and alternative hypotheses. As the alternative hypothesis (H1) predicts that chocolate will '''improve performance''' (i.e., a one-tailed, directional hypothesis) the null hypothesis (H0) should predict that chocolate will '''do nothing''' or '''make performance worse'''. If, on the other hand, the alternative hypothesis (H1) was that chocolate would '''change performance''' (for better or worse; i.e., a two-tailed hypothesis) then the null hypothesis (H0) would be that chocolate would simply '''do nothing'''.

==Transcript==
:[Under a heading that says Clickbait-Corrected p-Value there is a mathematic formula. Below that is the description of the two used variables and what they mean:]
:Clickbait-corrected p-value:

:PCL = Ptraditional ∙ click(H1)/click(H0)

:H0: NULL hypothesis ("Chocolate has no effect on athletic performance")
:H1: Alternative hypothesis ("Chocolate boosts athletic performance")
:click(H): Fraction of test subjects who click on a headline announcing that H is true

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Clickbait]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:1935: 2018

2017-12-30T19:40:14Z

Billjefferys: Use of Julian calendar in Russian liturgical calendar

This is easy! Don't factor it - just multiply by 25 and if that ends in two zeros, but not four zeros then it's a leap year, at least most of the time.....17:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.112}}

This is easy! Don’t factor it - just convert it into a binary and look at the 2 least significant bits. If they are 00 the number is multiple of four. —[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.35|172.69.33.35]] 17:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This is easy! Don't factor it - just subtract 4 repeatedly. If you end up at 0, it's divisible. If you end up at 1, 2, or 3, it's not. -- 17:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC){{unsigned ip|172.68.58.167}}

This ''is'' easy! Sums of numbers that have 4 as a factor are all divisible by four. (I'll leave the proof of that as an exercise for the reader, but it's really trivial, though possibly non-intuitive.) This means that one can take a number apart and check the individual pieces. Now, any number that's a multiple of 100 is divisible by four (10 * 10 = 5² * 2²,) so one can essentially cut away the higher digits of a number, as they do not influence its divisibility with regard to 4. Now look at the first of the remaining digits. If that's odd, add 2 to the last digit. If the last digit is now divisible by four, the original number is divisble by four. [[User:Tibfulv|Tibfulv]] ([[User talk:Tibfulv|talk]]) 00:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The calculation of Christmas is trivial{{Citation needed}} it's December 25th. Where as the calculation of Easter is complex ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus]). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.18|172.68.133.18]] 18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Calulsting the date of Christmas is actually non-trivial. It depends on your location. For example if you are in the US it's in December. If you are in Russia it's in January. If you are in Ukraine it's sortof both but not really. And if you are in Crimea, well, see one of the 2 previous sentences. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.238.172|172.68.238.172]] 15:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

:Actually, it's December 25 on the old Julian calendar in Russia. It's just that Russia uses the Julian calendar for liturgical purposes and the Gregorian calendar for secular purposes. It's a bit schizophrenic. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 19:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

;Title text explanation mis-read
Explanation of title text is incorrect: "The title text refers to calculating the date of Christmas; again, this is a trivial exercise, because Christmas is always December 25." Title text states 'day of Christmas', not 'date...'. The day changes each year and so does require calculation. {{unsigned ip|162.158.111.73}}

Oops, my bad. Fixed. [[User:FlyingPiMonster|FlyingPiMonster]] ([[User talk:FlyingPiMonster|talk]]) 18:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
* I think you have it backwards. The title text is a reference to calculating the day (as in "date", not "day of week") of Easter. This is a non-trivial calculation (though one that modern computers can perform easily). On the other hand, the Christmas day is fixed. (There's no reason to believe that the joke was anything else.) - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] ([[User talk:Mike Rosoft|talk]]) 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the explanation, but... Are they having a bad day? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.205|162.158.111.205]] 18:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
:That was vandalism. I did a revert. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
::Ah, no, I was asking because the explanation sounds so angry. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

:Also, Megan understands that checking if a number divisible by 2 is easy [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.50|141.101.77.50]] 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

;Theory for possible explanation
Didn't want to edit this in because I'm not sure- but the motivation for this uncharacteristic lack of mathematical rigor could have to do with the current trend of people being dismissive of science being able to predict things. Something that seems pretty obvious is made to look like a chance event that nobody can really predict ahead of time. {{unsigned|Sirpent}}

::This is easy! Don't factor it - just subtract 2000. Is 18 divisible by 4? If so, you're an idiot. {{unsigned ip| 172.68.143.156}}

::The nonsense does look to me like a political discussion where one person uses "alternative facts". But in real life people get leap years "amusingly" wrong. Computer system designers for instance... one software tool I used passed into the year 2000 working correctly, but then it broke 2 months later because it thought 2000 wasn't a Gregorian calendar leap year, I guess because every 4th year is but every 100th year isn't. Every 400th year is, but, if the programmer just stopped at "every 4th is a leap year" then they'd have been fine until 2100. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.102|141.101.105.102]] 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The joke in this might be that it might take some time to brute-force the prime factorisation of 2018 with a calculator as it’s 2*1009. Same holds true for 2017 which is prime. Therefore on might come to the conclusion that factorisation is hard already at this scale. (flx) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.71|172.68.253.71]] 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

;Odd/even is another joke
Cueball: No, it's definitely not. Leap years are divisible by 4.
Megan: Right, and for odd numbers, that's easy.
Megan: But 2018 is even.

She can see that finding out if a number is divisible by 2 is easy, but for dividing by 4 it's a "50/50 chance", and really hard to calculate. IMHO the best joke in the comic but missing from the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.50|141.101.77.50]] 23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that 2018 only has two factors, 2 and 1009. Maybe a trivia?
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.107|162.158.238.107]] 17:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of leap year rules in general, since they are nontrivial (divisble by 4, except not multiples of 100, except yes to multiples of 400)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.233|172.68.142.233]] 18:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

1935: 2018

2017-12-30T19:31:15Z

Billjefferys: /* Explanation */ Technical correction: 2018 is not leap on Julian calendar either

{{comic
| number = 1935
| date = December 29, 2017
| title = 2018
| image = 2018.png
| titletext = We should really start calculating it earlier, but until the end of December we're always too busy trying to figure out which day Christmas will fall on.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Anything missing? - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this [[:Category:New Year|New Year comic]], [[Megan]] wonders if 2018 will be a leap year. [[Cueball]] thinks 2018 will not be a leap year, and Megan responds that she "doubts anyone knows at this point." This appears to be a jab at the complexity of the leap year system. As Cueball says, leap years occur every four years (though there are a few exceptions), adding an extra day to account for the fact that Earth takes a bit longer than 365 days to orbit the Sun. Therefore, most years that are a multiple of four are leap years. As Megan says, this is easy for odd-numbered years, since no odd numbers are divisible by four. However, for even-numbered years, it isn't always obvious.

The last panel expresses a misunderstanding of modern {{w|Cryptography|cryptography}}, which relies on the fact that it is difficult to factorize large numbers. Megan is applying this concept to the year, claiming that it is hard to determine whether or not 2018 is a multiple of four and hence is a leap year. In reality, factorization is not needed here, since we already know the factor, which is four. Megan states that if it were possible to factor large numbers with a calculator, modern cryptography would collapse. While true, it is only true for truly large numbers (hundreds of digits), and no factorization is needed in this case.

At the end of the strip, Megan hopes the answer can be {{w|Brute-force attack|brute-forced}} by February. Brute force is a method of breaking cryptography by trying every possible option until one works. This is a misdirection upon misdirection, in that even if we needed to factorize 2018 (which we don't), the simplest brute forcing algorithm would only need to try 43 numbers - from 2 to square root of 2018 (44). In cryptography, the algorithms use numbers much, much bigger than 2018 -- on the order of hundreds (or even thousands) of digits.

The title text refers to calculating which day of the week Christmas will fall on. Given that any calendar will easily tell you, this is not a difficult thing to calculate. Also it always falls on December 25th, and not like, for instance, Easter which date jumps from year to year. But nevertheless December 25th is either the 359th or the 360th (leap years) day of the year and so the day of the week could be different.

Wikipedia and many other sites reveal spoilers for this comic:
<blockquote>Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100, but these centurial years are leap years if they are exactly divisible by 400. For example, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not leap years, but the years 1600 and 2000 were.<ref>[http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/calendars.php Introduction to Calendars]. (15 May 2013). [[United States Naval Observatory]].</ref></blockquote>

2018 is not divisible by 4, so the year is not a leap year. 2016 and 2020 are leap years. Assuming your calendar is Gregorian! (Actually, also the case if it is 2018 on the old Julian calendar. The century year rules for leap years are different on the Gregorian calendar from the Julian, but the non-century year rules are the same).

A year is roughly 365.2422 days long.

==Transcript==

:[Megan is walking.]
:Megan: I wonder if 2018 will be a leap year.

:[Now it turns out that Cueball walks behind Megan.]
:Cueball: ...it won't be, right?
:Megan: I doubt anyone knows at this point.

:[Same scene in a frame-less panel.]
:Cueball: No, it's definitely not. Leap years are divisible by 4.
:Megan: Right, and for odd numbers, that's easy.
:Megan: But 2018 is even.
:Megan: 50/50 chance.

:[Zoomed-out view with both walking in silhouette on a dark slightly curved ground.]
:Cueball: I can settle this with a calculator.
:Megan: No way. If it were easy to factor large numbers like that, modern cryptography would collapse.
:Cueball: I see.
:Megan: I just hope we manage to brute-force it by February.

==Trivia==
*Released on Friday, December 29, this is the last comic of 2017. The next scheduled comic will be on New Year's Day of 2018.

*This is the third year in a row with New Year's comics with only the year used as the title, before that there were two more comics with such titles, but those two (and thus the first three) were only released in the even years: [[998: 2012]] in 2012, [[1311: 2014]] in 2014, [[1624: 2016]] in 2016 and [[1779: 2017]] in 2017.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:New Year]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|2017]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Time]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]

1709: Inflection

2016-07-25T02:48:50Z

Billjefferys: /* Explanation */ "pictographic language" is highly misleading. Also fix misattributions of what Megan actually said.

{{comic
| number = 1709
| date = July 20, 2016
| title = Inflection
| image = inflection.png
| titletext = "Or maybe, because we're suddenly having so many conversations through written text, we'll start relying MORE on altered spelling to indicate meaning!" "Wat."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The discussion that Cueball and Megan has are not discussed. The whole emoji segment and the fact that they are in color and are like Chinese pictogram is not even mentioned. Also needs wiki link for the main explanation. Maybe the table should be a subsection of the explanation, with link from the main body of the explanation?}}

While walking, Megan tells Cueball that in inflected languages -- such as English -- changes in the spelling of a word changes its' meaning, in a predictable way. Megan exemplifies this with how plural forms of nouns are created by sticking an 's' at the end, and past tense of a verb is done by the suffix 'ed'. Megan then explains that this works well in languages which build on alphabets. After hearing that English is becoming less inflected than it used to be, Cueball asks if English writing might become more pictographic. Instead of using traditional words, Megan replies with three emojis "Thumbs up" (like), "Applause", and a smiley -- thus showing a pictographic version of the writing which has become more popular in the last years.

The writing systems of many languages have both pictographic and ideographic origins. "Pictographic" means that they are pictures of some thing that will remind the reader of either the pronunciation or the meaning of the word. The letter 'A', for example, originated from a word meaning "ox", but was meant to remind readers of the sound of a vowel like what we pronounce today as 'A'. 'Ideographic' means that they are designed, through pictures, to illustrate some idea. In fact, the three emojis used in the third panel of this cartoon are all ideographic, not pictographic, under this definition. "Thumbs up" (like), "Applause", and the smiley, are all emojis that remind us of a concept of approval.

Egyptian hieroglyphics contain many pictorial elements, some of which are pictographic in the sense that they are meant to represent the thing that they picture, but many are more abstract (ideographic) or are used for their phonetic value (as 'A' was used in early alphabetic systems). Similarly, in the Chinese character writing system, many of the elements have pictographic or ideographic origins; but they are often, and even usually combined in ways that are phonetic and not related to the pictures that were the origins of the characters.

Early modern English (think Shakespeare or the KJV Bible) used more forms for the tenses than we do today, which can help illustrate the trend away from inflected forms. In contrast, verbs in English today are often conjugated with auxiliary verbs. Here a sample of a modern verb conjugation in English:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Verb: Walk
!Voice->
!colspan="2"|Active
!colspan="2"|Passive
|-
!Tense
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
|-
|Present
|walks
|walk
|is walked
|are walked
|-
|Present progressive
|is walking
|are walking
|is being walked
|are being walked
|-
|Present perfect
|has walked
|have walked
|has been walked
|have been walked
|-
|Present perfect progressive
|has been walking
|have been walking
|has been being walked
|have been being walked
|-
|Past
|walked
|walked
|was walked
|were walked
|-
|Past progressive
|was walking
|were walking
|was being walked
|were being walked
|-
|Past perfect
|had walked
|had walked
|had been walked
|had been walked
|-
|Past perfect progressive
|had been walking
|had been walking
|had been being walked
|had been being walked
|-
|Future
|will walk
|will walk
|will be walked
|will be walked
|-
|Future progressive
|will be walking
|will be walking
|will be being walked
|will be being walked
|-
|Future perfect
|will have walked
|will have walked
|will have been walked
|will have been walked
|-
|Future perfect progressive
|will have been walking
|will have been walking
|will have been being walked
|will have been being walked
|-
|Conditional
|would walk
|would walk
|would be walked
|would be walked
|-
|Conditional progressive
|would be walking
|would be walking
|would be being walked
|would be being walked
|-
|Conditional perfect
|would have walked
|would have walked
|would have been walked
|would have been walked
|-
|Conditional perfect progressive
|would have been walking
|would have been walking
|would have been being walked
|would have been being walked
|}

In all of these conjugations, the only inflections on the main verb "walk" are "-s", "-ed", and "-ing". (The highly irregular helper verbs, "be" and "have", have somewhat more interesting inflections.) And although this table shows only the third person, the first and second person would not introduce any additional words whatsoever; similarly, the table shows only the indicative mood, but the subjunctive and imperative moods would not introduce any additional words, and the conditional mood would only introduce the helper verb "would" (an inflection of the irregular helper verb "will") without any additional inflections on the main verb "walk". If instead we made this table in Spanish (for example), then there would be many more inflections on the main verb (12 in the third-person indicative alone, 45 including all persons and moods, if I didn't miscount).

The title text points out that some intentional misspelling are used in Internet slang to alter the meaning of a word: "what" becomes "wat" to express confusion, disgust or disbelief [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wat][http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wat]. The title text also uses the intentional misuse of grammar to emphasise the word MORE. Such emphasis is difficult to show with inflected language alone.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan, holding a hand up, are seen walking together from afar in silhouette.]
:Megan: Inflected languages change words to add meaning, like "-s" for plurals or "-ed" for past tense.
:Megan: Alphabets—where symbols stand for sound instead of words—work well for them, since you can show the changes through spelling.

:[Zoom in on the two as Megan turns her head back towards Cueball and spreads her arms out.]
:Megan: Our language family is inflected, but the English branch has lost most of its inflection over the millennia. It's why we don't have all those Latin conjugations.

:[Cueball speaks as they walk on and Megan replies with three orange-yellow emoji: Thumbs Up Sign pointing right, Clapping Hands Sign pointing up left with two times three small lines to indicate the clapping and Smiling Face With Blushing (red) Cheeks and Smiling Eyes. Below given the closest match possible as of the release of the comic.]
:Cueball: Could that mean English writing is ripe to become more pictographic?
:Megan: 👍 👏 😊

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:1709: Inflection

2016-07-22T13:19:50Z

Billjefferys: Pictographs

:It's also misleading to describe Chinese as a 'pictographic' language. The reason is that very few of the Chinese characters, as I recall from when I was studying it fewer than 100, are actually pictograms, that is to say an attempt to draw a picture of the thing in question. Some of these are 口 (kou, 'mouth'), 言 (yan, 'word', a picture of a mouth with sounds coming out of it), 日('ri', the Sun), 月 ('yue', the Moon), and some others. Then there is a somewhat larger group of characters best described as 'ideographs', that try to convey the meaning of the word symbolically, such as 中 ('zhong', middle), or which try to convey an idea using two or more other characters that may or may not themselves be pictograms. Examples of the latter would be 好 ('hao', good, with the character for 'mother' on the left and that for 'child' on the right), and 明 ('ming', bright, combining the characters for Sun and Moon above). But the vast majority of Chinese characters consist of a phonetic component, a part that is another character in its own right that conveys the sound (or conveyed it in ancient Chinese although the pronunciation may have shifted) and a part that gives a general notion of the meaning (called the radical). An example would be 钥 ('yue', key, composed of the character for the Moon (above) having the pronunciation 'yue', and the radical on the right which by itself means 'metal', so a metal thing that is pronounced 'yue'.

:I'm not sure how to handle this. The description above is more complicated than should appear in the main article, but the main article as written is somewhat misleading as to the role of pictograms in Chinese. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

::Wow. You managed to write an entire dissertation on how Chinese isn't a pictographic language while managing to ignore the existence of Traditional Chinese and other previous reforms that simplified and standardised the brush strokes of the preceding writing form at the cost of losing the original resemblance to the object (eg 车/ 車). And you completely misunderstood how radicals affect pronunciation as shown from how your examples are contradictory. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.5|141.101.98.5]] 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

:::Please show how the radical in 钥 "affects the pronunciation". Here's a hint: The radical on the left is 金 ('jin', metal), and the phonetic part on the right is 月 ('yue', 4th tone, Moon). The character 钥 ('yue', 4th tone, key) is pronounced identically to 月. How has the presence of the radical affected the pronunciation if the two characters are pronounced identically? (And BTW this is a general rule, sometimes the tone changes, but it's not "because of the radical" since the same radical is used in different words, in some of which the tone may change and in others of which it does not.

:::No, Chinese is not a pictographic language. The relatively few real pictograms have indeed been simplified through the fact that the brush was traditionally used to write the characters that were originally more or less realistic pictures of the objects (as archaeology has shown). And sure, the simplification has continued as in the example of 车/ 車 ('che' vehicle) that you give. But this has nothing to do with whether the language is pictographic. Again for example, by no stretch of the imagination can 钥 be considered a picture of a key.

:::By concentrating on the fact that Chinese is written with a large set of characters, you miss the point. Most of these characters do not qualify as pictograms or even ideograms by any reasonable definition. They are just not constructed as attempts express in a picture the thing or concept being described (as emojis do attempt to do). The best you can say is that some Chinese characters (relatively few) are pictographic or ideographic, but that the vast majority use an entirely different principle of construction. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

::::Even calling characters like 口 pictographic is a stretch. Their origins are pictographic, but so are the origins of Latin alphabet letters. The most famous one is "A" that comes from the pictograph of the head of an ox. If Chinese had been pictographic, it would accept several mouth-shaped drawings as the morpheme "mouth", but in reality, the Chinese character 口 is not a drawing, it is a character, as symbolic and abstract as the letter "A". Chinese is a logographic language (even if logo- is misleading, it's more morpheme-writing than word-writing), no matter what the origins of the characters are. [[User:Lingu|Lingu]] ([[User talk:Lingu|talk]]) 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

:::::I agree fully with Lingu's comment. In fact I was going to say something about the pictographic origins of Latin alphabet letters like the famous 'A'. Lingu is correct to point out that it's the origins of the standard characters that is pictographic, namely they are based on pictures that were written long ago but have been stylized and conventionalized as well as modified over thousands of years.

:::::Some useful article from Wikipedia describe this in more detail. There is a piece from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language#Chinese_characters Chinese Language] article that briefly describes it, as well as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters#Principles_of_formation Chinese Characters] article.

:::::Even the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system is a whole lot more complex than implied by calling Egyptian hieroglyphics a "pictographic language", which is a misleading term, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs#Writing_system this article] shows. In addition to its pictographic elements, it has a lot of phonetic and other components.

:::::I think this paragraph needs extensive rewriting. The term "pictographic language" should be eliminated entirely and replace with something more accurate, such as "the writing system has significant pictographic origins". After all, it is the writing system, and not the language, that is related to pictographs and ideographs. And even many of the common emojis are more ideographic in nature than pictographic! [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 13:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the emoticon part is trying to say?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.170|108.162.215.170]] 16:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)--
:A loose translation would be "Yes". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.106|162.158.255.106]] 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:👍=Correct 👏=Bravo/Congratulations 😊=I'm glad you get it --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This comic was posted 3 days after the [http://worldemojiday.com/faq/ "World Emoji Day" (July 17)] created by Emojipedia founder Jeremy Burge in 2014. The date July 17 appears in the calendar emoji used by Apple, but other tech companies use [http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/today-is-world-emoji-day/ different dates] in their version of this emoji. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Emojish" could be a good replacement for English which suffers from highly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemic_orthography nonphonemic orthography] and is a pain in the 🍑💨 to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti wright corecttly]. 😊 --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I lost it at the end of the title text. My friend and I say wat to each other all the time. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.144|108.162.215.144]] 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

When I saw the emoji, I realized that I understand them without having a spoken or written language equivalence. We are so conditioned to say "what is it trying to say?" and expecting a language equivalent. But that does not have to be the case. It made me wonder if very early humans using pictographs for communication automatically had language equivalents, or could they think by mentally visualizing the pictograph without translating everything to words. If so, could we train ourselves to imagine emoji instead of words. They clearly communicate something that need not be verbal. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I count 52 Spanish forms of "andar": ando andas anda andamos andáis andan andaba andabas andábamos andabais andaban anduve anduviste anduvo anduvimos anduvisteis anduvieron andaría andarías andaríamos andaríais andarían andaré andarás andará andaremos andaréis andarán anduviera anduviese anduvieras anduvieses anduviéramos anduviésemos anduvierais anduvieseis anduvieran anduviesen ande andes andemos andéis anden anduviere anduvieres anduviéremos anduviereis anduvieren andar andando andado andad. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.12|108.162.219.12]] 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First person singualar "I" is a strange mix. It uses a verb not listed in that chart "am", uses the plural form "have" for present tense, and the singular form "was" for past tense. [[User:Tahg|Tahg]] ([[User talk:Tahg|talk]]) 01:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:It also uses "were" for subjunctive ("If I were you..." // "If I were walking to the park right now instead of being on the computer...")[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]] 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't Randall not use '''''MOAR''''' as a substitute for MORE? 😞😞😞 --Björn {{unsigned|Windowsfreak}}

The article says that Japanese Kanji (which uses Chinese characters) is uninflected. This is based on a confusion. Japanese itself is highly inflected, with grammatical markers that are usually expressed using either Katakana or Hirigana syllabaries. The Kanji themselves are used for many words but are embedded in sentences that use both Kanji and one or both of the syllabaries. Both nouns and verbs are inflected. There is no such language as "Japanese Kanji" so this is just wrong. I will delete the corresponding clause in the main article. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1709: Inflection

2016-07-22T03:14:33Z

Billjefferys: Minor typo correction

:It's also misleading to describe Chinese as a 'pictographic' language. The reason is that very few of the Chinese characters, as I recall from when I was studying it fewer than 100, are actually pictograms, that is to say an attempt to draw a picture of the thing in question. Some of these are 口 (kou, 'mouth'), 言 (yan, 'word', a picture of a mouth with sounds coming out of it), 日('ri', the Sun), 月 ('yue', the Moon), and some others. Then there is a somewhat larger group of characters best described as 'ideographs', that try to convey the meaning of the word symbolically, such as 中 ('zhong', middle), or which try to convey an idea using two or more other characters that may or may not themselves be pictograms. Examples of the latter would be 好 ('hao', good, with the character for 'mother' on the left and that for 'child' on the right), and 明 ('ming', bright, combining the characters for Sun and Moon above). But the vast majority of Chinese characters consist of a phonetic component, a part that is another character in its own right that conveys the sound (or conveyed it in ancient Chinese although the pronunciation may have shifted) and a part that gives a general notion of the meaning (called the radical). An example would be 钥 ('yue', key, composed of the character for the Moon (above) having the pronunciation 'yue', and the radical on the right which by itself means 'metal', so a metal thing that is pronounced 'yue'.

:I'm not sure how to handle this. The description above is more complicated than should appear in the main article, but the main article as written is somewhat misleading as to the role of pictograms in Chinese. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

::Wow. You managed to write an entire dissertation on how Chinese isn't a pictographic language while managing to ignore the existence of Traditional Chinese and other previous reforms that simplified and standardised the brush strokes of the preceding writing form at the cost of losing the original resemblance to the object (eg 车/ 車). And you completely misunderstood how radicals affect pronunciation as shown from how your examples are contradictory. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.5|141.101.98.5]] 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

:::Please show how the radical in 钥 "affects the pronunciation". Here's a hint: The radical on the left is 金 ('jin', metal), and the phonetic part on the right is 月 ('yue', 4th tone, Moon). The character 钥 ('yue', 4th tone, key) is pronounced identically to 月. How has the presence of the radical affected the pronunciation if the two characters are pronounced identically? (And BTW this is a general rule, sometimes the tone changes, but it's not "because of the radical" since the same radical is used in different words, in some of which the tone may change and in others of which it does not.

:::No, Chinese is not a pictographic language. The relatively few real pictograms have indeed been simplified through the fact that the brush was traditionally used to write the characters that were originally more or less realistic pictures of the objects (as archaeology has shown). And sure, the simplification has continued as in the example of 车/ 車 ('che' vehicle) that you give. But this has nothing to do with whether the language is pictographic. Again for example, by no stretch of the imagination can 钥 be considered a picture of a key.

:::By concentrating on the fact that Chinese is written with a large set of characters, you miss the point. Most of these characters do not qualify as pictograms or even ideograms by any reasonable definition. They are just not constructed as attempts express in a picture the thing or concept being described (as emojis do attempt to do). The best you can say is that some Chinese characters (relatively few) are pictographic or ideographic, but that the vast majority use an entirely different principle of construction. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the emoticon part is trying to say?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.170|108.162.215.170]] 16:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)--
:A loose translation would be "Yes". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.106|162.158.255.106]] 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:👍=Correct 👏=Bravo/Congratulations 😊=I'm glad you get it --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This comic was posted 3 days after the [http://worldemojiday.com/faq/ "World Emoji Day" (July 17)] created by Emojipedia founder Jeremy Burge in 2014. The date July 17 appears in the calendar emoji used by Apple, but other tech companies use [http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/today-is-world-emoji-day/ different dates] in their version of this emoji. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Emojish" could be a good replacement for English which suffers from highly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemic_orthography nonphonemic orthography] and is a pain in the 🍑💨 to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti wright corecttly]. 😊 --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I lost it at the end of the title text. My friend and I say wat to each other all the time. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.144|108.162.215.144]] 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

When I saw the emoji, I realized that I understand them without having a spoken or written language equivalence. We are so conditioned to say "what is it trying to say?" and expecting a language equivalent. But that does not have to be the case. It made me wonder if very early humans using pictographs for communication automatically had language equivalents, or could they think by mentally visualizing the pictograph without translating everything to words. If so, could we train ourselves to imagine emoji instead of words. They clearly communicate something that need not be verbal. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I count 52 Spanish forms of "andar": ando andas anda andamos andáis andan andaba andabas andábamos andabais andaban anduve anduviste anduvo anduvimos anduvisteis anduvieron andaría andarías andaríamos andaríais andarían andaré andarás andará andaremos andaréis andarán anduviera anduviese anduvieras anduvieses anduviéramos anduviésemos anduvierais anduvieseis anduvieran anduviesen ande andes andemos andéis anden anduviere anduvieres anduviéremos anduviereis anduvieren andar andando andado andad. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.12|108.162.219.12]] 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First person singualar "I" is a strange mix. It uses a verb not listed in that chart "am", uses the plural form "have" for present tense, and the singular form "was" for past tense. [[User:Tahg|Tahg]] ([[User talk:Tahg|talk]]) 01:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:It also uses "were" for subjunctive ("If I were you..." // "If I were walking to the park right now instead of being on the computer...")[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]] 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't Randall not use '''''MOAR''''' as a substitute for MORE? 😞😞😞 --Björn {{unsigned|Windowsfreak}}

The article says that Japanese Kanji (which uses Chinese characters) is uninflected. This is based on a confusion. Japanese itself is highly inflected, with grammatical markers that are usually expressed using either Katakana or Hirigana syllabaries. The Kanji themselves are used for many words but are embedded in sentences that use both Kanji and one or both of the syllabaries. Both nouns and verbs are inflected. There is no such language as "Japanese Kanji" so this is just wrong. I will delete the corresponding clause in the main article. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1709: Inflection

2016-07-22T03:12:25Z

Billjefferys: Confusion about what is a pictographic language

:It's also misleading to describe Chinese as a 'pictographic' language. The reason is that very few of the Chinese characters, as I recall from when I was studying it fewer than 100, are actually pictograms, that is to say an attempt to draw a picture of the thing in question. Some of these are 口 (kou, 'mouth'), 言 (yan, 'word', a picture of a mouth with sounds coming out of it), 日('ri', the Sun), 月 ('yue', the Moon), and some others. Then there is a somewhat larger group of characters best described as 'ideographs', that try to convey the meaning of the word symbolically, such as 中 ('zhong', middle), or which try to convey an idea using two or more other characters that may or may not themselves be pictograms. Examples of the latter would be 好 ('hao', good, with the character for 'mother' on the left and that for 'child' on the right), and 明 ('ming', bright, combining the characters for Sun and Moon above). But the vast majority of Chinese characters consist of a phonetic component, a part that is another character in its own right that conveys the sound (or conveyed it in ancient Chinese although the pronunciation may have shifted) and a part that gives a general notion of the meaning (called the radical). An example would be 钥 ('yue', key, composed of the character for the Moon (above) having the pronunciation 'yue', and the radical on the right which by itself means 'metal', so a metal thing that is pronounced 'yue'.

:I'm not sure how to handle this. The description above is more complicated than should appear in the main article, but the main article as written is somewhat misleading as to the role of pictograms in Chinese. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

::Wow. You managed to write an entire dissertation on how Chinese isn't a pictographic language while managing to ignore the existence of Traditional Chinese and other previous reforms that simplified and standardised the brush strokes of the preceding writing form at the cost of losing the original resemblance to the object (eg 车/ 車). And you completely misunderstood how radicals affect pronunciation as shown from how your examples are contradictory. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.5|141.101.98.5]] 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

:::Please show how the radical in 钥 "affects the pronunciation". Here's a hint: The radical on the left is 金 ('jin', metal), and the phonetic part on the right is 月 ('yue', 4th tone, Moon). Yhe character 钥 ('yue', 4th tone, key) is pronounced identically to 月. How has the presence of the radical affected the pronunciation if the two characters are pronounced identically? (And BTW this is a general rule, sometimes the tone changes, but it's not "because of the radical" since the same radical is used in different words, in some of which the tone may change and in others of which it does not.

:::No, Chinese is not a pictographic language. The relatively few real pictograms have indeed been simplified through the fact that the brush was traditionally used to write the characters that were originally more or less realistic pictures of the objects (as archaeology has shown). And sure, the simplification has continued as in the example of 车/ 車 ('che' vehicle) that you give. But this has nothing to do with whether the language is pictographic. Again for example, by no stretch of the imagination can 钥 be considered a picture of a key.

:::By concentrating on the fact that Chinese is written with a large set of characters, you miss the point. Most of these characters do not qualify as pictograms or even ideograms by any reasonable definition. They are just not constructed as attempts express in a picture the thing or concept being described (as emojis do attempt to do). The best you can say is that some Chinese characters (relatively few) are pictographic or ideographic, but that the vast majority use an entirely different principle of construction. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the emoticon part is trying to say?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.170|108.162.215.170]] 16:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)--
:A loose translation would be "Yes". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.106|162.158.255.106]] 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:👍=Correct 👏=Bravo/Congratulations 😊=I'm glad you get it --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This comic was posted 3 days after the [http://worldemojiday.com/faq/ "World Emoji Day" (July 17)] created by Emojipedia founder Jeremy Burge in 2014. The date July 17 appears in the calendar emoji used by Apple, but other tech companies use [http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/today-is-world-emoji-day/ different dates] in their version of this emoji. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Emojish" could be a good replacement for English which suffers from highly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemic_orthography nonphonemic orthography] and is a pain in the 🍑💨 to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti wright corecttly]. 😊 --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I lost it at the end of the title text. My friend and I say wat to each other all the time. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.144|108.162.215.144]] 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

When I saw the emoji, I realized that I understand them without having a spoken or written language equivalence. We are so conditioned to say "what is it trying to say?" and expecting a language equivalent. But that does not have to be the case. It made me wonder if very early humans using pictographs for communication automatically had language equivalents, or could they think by mentally visualizing the pictograph without translating everything to words. If so, could we train ourselves to imagine emoji instead of words. They clearly communicate something that need not be verbal. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I count 52 Spanish forms of "andar": ando andas anda andamos andáis andan andaba andabas andábamos andabais andaban anduve anduviste anduvo anduvimos anduvisteis anduvieron andaría andarías andaríamos andaríais andarían andaré andarás andará andaremos andaréis andarán anduviera anduviese anduvieras anduvieses anduviéramos anduviésemos anduvierais anduvieseis anduvieran anduviesen ande andes andemos andéis anden anduviere anduvieres anduviéremos anduviereis anduvieren andar andando andado andad. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.12|108.162.219.12]] 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First person singualar "I" is a strange mix. It uses a verb not listed in that chart "am", uses the plural form "have" for present tense, and the singular form "was" for past tense. [[User:Tahg|Tahg]] ([[User talk:Tahg|talk]]) 01:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:It also uses "were" for subjunctive ("If I were you..." // "If I were walking to the park right now instead of being on the computer...")[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]] 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't Randall not use '''''MOAR''''' as a substitute for MORE? 😞😞😞 --Björn {{unsigned|Windowsfreak}}

The article says that Japanese Kanji (which uses Chinese characters) is uninflected. This is based on a confusion. Japanese itself is highly inflected, with grammatical markers that are usually expressed using either Katakana or Hirigana syllabaries. The Kanji themselves are used for many words but are embedded in sentences that use both Kanji and one or both of the syllabaries. Both nouns and verbs are inflected. There is no such language as "Japanese Kanji" so this is just wrong. I will delete the corresponding clause in the main article. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1709: Inflection

2016-07-21T17:50:10Z

Billjefferys: Technical discussion of how Chinese characters are constructed...most are not pictographs

The article says that Japanese Kanji (which uses Chinese characters) is uninflected. This is based on a confusion. Japanese itself is highly inflected, with grammatical markers that are usually expressed using either Katakana or Hirigana syllabaries. The Kanji themselves are used for many words but are embedded in sentences that use both Kanji and one or both of the syllabaries. Both nouns and verbs are inflected. There is no such language as "Japanese Kanji" so this is just wrong. I will delete the corresponding clause in the main article. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 12:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

:It's also misleading to describe Chinese as a 'pictographic' language. The reason is that very few of the Chinese characters, as I recall from when I was studying it fewer than 100, are actually pictograms, that is to say an attempt to draw a picture of the thing in question. Some of these are 口 (kou, 'mouth'), 言 (yan, 'word', a picture of a mouth with sounds coming out of it), 日('ri', the Sun), 月 ('yue', the Moon), and some others. Then there is a somewhat larger group of characters best described as 'ideographs', that try to convey the meaning of the word symbolically, such as 中 ('zhong', middle), or which try to convey an idea using two or more other characters that may or may not themselves be pictograms. Examples of the latter would be 好 ('hao', good, with the character for 'mother' on the left and that for 'child' on the right), and 明 ('ming', bright, combining the characters for Sun and Moon above). But the vast majority of Chinese characters consist of a phonetic component, a part that is another character in its own right that conveys the sound (or conveyed it in ancient Chinese although the pronunciation may have shifted) and a part that gives a general notion of the meaning (called the radical). An example would be 钥 ('yue', key, composed of the character for the Moon (above) having the pronunciation 'yue', and the radical on the right which by itself means 'metal', so a metal thing that is pronounced 'yue'.

:I'm not sure how to handle this. The description above is more complicated than should appear in the main article, but the main article as written is somewhat misleading as to the role of pictograms in Chinese. [[User:Billjefferys|Billjefferys]] ([[User talk:Billjefferys|talk]]) 17:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the emoticon part is trying to say?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.170|108.162.215.170]] 16:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)--
:A loose translation would be "Yes". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.106|162.158.255.106]] 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:👍=Correct 👏=Bravo/Congratulations 😊=I'm glad you get it --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This comic was posted 3 days after the [http://worldemojiday.com/faq/ "World Emoji Day" (July 17)] created by Emojipedia founder Jeremy Burge in 2014. The date July 17 appears in the calendar emoji used by Apple, but other tech companies use [http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/today-is-world-emoji-day/ different dates] in their version of this emoji. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Emojish" could be a good replacement for English which suffers from highly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemic_orthography nonphonemic orthography] and is a pain in the 🍑💨 to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoti wright corecttly]. 😊 --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.207|162.158.92.207]] 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I lost it at the end of the title text. My friend and I say wat to each other all the time. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.144|108.162.215.144]] 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

When I saw the emoji, I realized that I understand them without having a spoken or written language equivalence. We are so conditioned to say "what is it trying to say?" and expecting a language equivalent. But that does not have to be the case. It made me wonder if very early humans using pictographs for communication automatically had language equivalents, or could they think by mentally visualizing the pictograph without translating everything to words. If so, could we train ourselves to imagine emoji instead of words. They clearly communicate something that need not be verbal. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I count 52 Spanish forms of "andar": ando andas anda andamos andáis andan andaba andabas andábamos andabais andaban anduve anduviste anduvo anduvimos anduvisteis anduvieron andaría andarías andaríamos andaríais andarían andaré andarás andará andaremos andaréis andarán anduviera anduviese anduvieras anduvieses anduviéramos anduviésemos anduvierais anduvieseis anduvieran anduviesen ande andes andemos andéis anden anduviere anduvieres anduviéremos anduviereis anduvieren andar andando andado andad. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.12|108.162.219.12]] 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First person singualar "I" is a strange mix. It uses a verb not listed in that chart "am", uses the plural form "have" for present tense, and the singular form "was" for past tense. [[User:Tahg|Tahg]] ([[User talk:Tahg|talk]]) 01:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
:It also uses "were" for subjunctive ("If I were you..." // "If I were walking to the park right now instead of being on the computer...")[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]] 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't Randall not use '''''MOAR''''' as a substitute for MORE? 😞😞😞 --Björn

1709: Inflection

2016-07-21T12:37:23Z

Billjefferys: "Japanese Kanji" is not a language; Japanese is itself an inflected language. See talk page

{{comic
| number = 1709
| date = July 20, 2016
| title = Inflection
| image = inflection.png
| titletext = "Or maybe, because we're suddenly having so many conversations through written text, we'll start relying MORE on altered spelling to indicate meaning!" "Wat."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The discussion that Cueball and Megan has are not discussed. The whole emoji segment and the fact that they are in color and are like Chinese pictogram is not even mentioned. Also needs wiki link for the main explanation. Maybe the table should be a subsection of the explanation, with link from the main body of the explanation?}}

Pictographic languages are written using graphics in place of words, so are not usually suitable for "spelling" changes to show slight variance in meanings. Examples of pictographic languages include ancient Egyptian and Chinese (ancient and modern).

Early modern English (think Shakespeare or the KJV Bible) used more forms for the tenses than we do today, which can help illustrate the trend away from inflected forms. In contrast, verbs in English today are often conjugated with auxiliary verbs. Here a sample of a modern verb conjugation in English:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Verb: Walk
!Voice->
!colspan="2"|Active
!colspan="2"|Passive
|-
!Tense
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
|-
|Present
|walks
|walk
|is walked
|are walked
|-
|Present progressive
|is walking
|are walking
|is being walked
|are being walked
|-
|Present perfect
|has walked
|have walked
|has been walked
|have been walked
|-
|Present perfect progressive
|has been walking
|have been walking
|has been being walked
|have been being walked
|-
|Past
|walked
|walked
|was walked
|were walked
|-
|Past progressive
|was walking
|were walking
|was being walked
|were being walked
|-
|Past perfect
|had walked
|had walked
|had been walked
|had been walked
|-
|Past perfect progressive
|had been walking
|had been walking
|had been being walked
|had been being walked
|-
|Future
|will walk
|will walk
|will be walked
|will be walked
|-
|Future progressive
|will be walking
|will be walking
|will be being walked
|will be being walked
|-
|Future perfect
|will have walked
|will have walked
|will have been walked
|will have been walked
|-
|Future perfect progressive
|will have been walking
|will have been walking
|will have been being walked
|will have been being walked
|-
|Conditional
|would walk
|would walk
|would be walked
|would be walked
|-
|Conditional progressive
|would be walking
|would be walking
|would be being walked
|would be being walked
|-
|Conditional perfect
|would have walked
|would have walked
|would have been walked
|would have been walked
|-
|Conditional perfect progressive
|would have been walking
|would have been walking
|would have been being walked
|would have been being walked
|}

In all of these conjugations, the only inflections on the main verb "walk" are "-s", "-ed", and "-ing". (The highly irregular helper verbs, "be" and "have", have somewhat more interesting inflections.) And although this table shows only the third person, the first and second person would not introduce any additional words whatsoever; similarly, the table shows only the indicative mood, but the subjunctive and imperative moods would not introduce any additional words, and the conditional mood would only introduce the helper verb "would" (an inflection of the irregular helper verb "will") without any additional inflections on the main verb "walk". If instead we made this table in Spanish (for example), then there would be many more inflections on the main verb (12 in the third-person indicative alone, 45 including all persons and moods, if I didn't miscount).

The title text points out that some intentional misspelling are used in Internet slang to alter the meaning of a word: "what" becomes "wat" to express confusion, disgust or disbelief [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wat][http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wat]. The title text also uses the intentional misuse of grammar to emphasise the word MORE. Such emphasis is difficult to show with inflected language alone.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan, holding a hand up, are seen walking together from afar in silhouette.]
:Megan: Inflected languages change words to add meaning, like "-s" for plurals or "-ed" for past tense.
:Megan: Alphabets—where symbols stand for sound instead of words—work well for them, since you can show the changes through spelling.

:[Zoom in on the two as Megan turns her head back towards Cueball and spreads her arms out.]
:Megan: Our language family is inflected, but the English branch has lost most of its inflection over the millennia. It's why we don't have all those Latin conjugations.

:[Cueball speaks as they walk on and Megan replies with three orange-yellow emoji: Thumbs Up Sign pointing right, Clapping Hands Sign pointing up left with two times three small lines to indicate the clapping and Smiling Face With Blushing (red) Cheeks and Smiling Eyes. Below given the closest match possible as of the release of the comic.]
:Cueball: Could that mean English writing is ripe to become more pictographic?
:Megan: 👍 👏 😊

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:1709: Inflection

2016-07-21T12:35:01Z

Billjefferys: Japanese is not an uninflected language