|
|
The following item appeared in C&EN, 7/12. There must be other totally useless facts about language. Anyone?
15 responses total.
"Gaston Gonnet and Steven Benner of Zurich, wondered recently, 'What is the longest word spelled out in the sequence of a protein in the protein sequence database using the one-letter code for amino acids?' The longest they found were two words containing nine letters each. To get the answer, Gonnet and Benner matched the Oxford English Dictionary (unabridged) against the SwissProt protein sequence database (verson 23). Twenty-three minutes of computational time produced the two nine-letter words, hidalgism and ensilists (plurals apparently qualified). Hidalgism, the authors report, means the behavior of a hidalgo, or Spanish gentleman. In proteinese, the word appears at position 247-255 on the integrase of bacteriophage lambda. Ensilists are people who (sic) preserve crops by ensilage, or storing green fodder in pits or silos. The word appears at positions 81-89 of the PRRB protein from Escherichia coli. Gonnet and Benner conceded in their letter to Nature that the two words are candidates for the most unusable pieces of information to be found simultaneously in lexicography and biochemistry."
Delightfully worthless!
Just right for summer reading, right?
yup - just right <g>
It *would* be interesting to see the frequency of all "word" matches between the protein database and the unabridged. Do you think the NIH or EFA would issue a grant to carry out the work? It would be multi- disciplinary.
It's almost like searching the radio spectrum for intelligent messages from aliens. Isn't someone funding that effort?
Yes, *you*, with your taxes, in the SETI program. But I think SETI is much more worthwhile - there probably are intelligent beings "out there". It would be analogous to when dinosaurs were discovered: they really shook us up, but there is absolutely nothing we can do about them. Now, to turn "drift off"....we're looking for useless language facts, (especially if they cost a lot to document?).
This response has been erased.
Well, they're not "facts", but you could note the attempts to reconstruct the (hypothetical) common ancestors to the (mostly theoretical) common ancestors of modern languages.
And then learn to speak it.
The attempts are somewhat interesting. The idea that they have any relationship to anything anyone ever actually spoke shows (IMO) a total ignorance of the theory of probability. Throw together a whole bunch of probabilistic inferences, and even if each one is (for the sake of argument) very likely, the combination quickly becomes very unlikely. And in this field the ratio of data to inference is quite low, I think.
Would that be like reconstructing latin from french, spanish, italian, if there had been a *black* age, not just a dark age, beyond which we had no written history? I can visualize this easier than reconstructing pre-Aryan languages, but I think it would come out as rather a mishmash. I guess this qualifies as a Useless Language Exercise (ULE).
Yes (I think), except that we'd also have to have no oral history (stories about the Romans etc.) and a lot less in the way of artifacts that might indicate cultural connections. (I'm guessing that the oral history part may not be very important - I think the medieval conceptions of the ancient world were based heavily in written records, but I could be wrong - but that archaeological remnants of high cultures could add quite a lot.)
I've been reading Montaigne's Essays. He cites original Roman authors extensively, and hardly ever any derivative work. And definitely no sources on "the archeology of....". So, I think you are right.
I was thinking more of the rather incredible medaeval legends surrounding (say) Vergil. (Anyone familiar with the fantasy _The Phoenix and the Mirror_ by (I think) Avram Davidson? It's built around Vergil as in the legends not as in reality.)
Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss