Author Topic: Episode #709  (Read 4032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11510
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2019, 11:42:00 PM »
In the last few years I've had a friend and a relative die indirectly as a result of Chemo Therapy.

My uncle was having Chemo for saliva gland cancer (same as Roger Ebert) and that caused him to weaken and wither away. A few days after his last treatment he fell and broke his neck and was partially paralyzed for the rest of his life. He refused any further treatment and the cancer came back and killed him within a few months.

A friend was getting chemo for lung cancer, and that weakened his immune system. And while the chemo was working agains the cancer it left him vulnerable to pneumonia, which killed him.

In both cases the chemo was doing it's job fighting the cancer, but also took a toll on their health.

I wonder if such cases are even tracked and fit into the kind of statistics Steve was discussing.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8555
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #61 on: February 12, 2019, 12:03:16 AM »
Chemo is known to be very hard on the body. It’s known that there are risks, and that in addition to being a horrible experience, it can kill you. It’s also known what your chances are of dying from the chemo as compared to your chances of dying if you don’t get the chemo. If the doctor makes the recommendation that gives the patient the best chance of survival, then the doctor has acted appropriately and when a patient dies it’s not the result of the treatment, since the treatment was the patient’s best chance. The fault is with the cancer, not the chemo.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #62 on: February 12, 2019, 12:04:31 AM »
To see this more easily, consider a planet where there are only three days per year, and try to find the probability that, in a group of three people, at least two people will share a birthday.

bachfiend's reasoning would lead to a result of 1-(2/3)^3=19/27.

The correct answer is 1-(2/3)*(1/3)=7/9.

The key error is the following: Just because there are three pairs, and a pair has probability 2/3 of not sharing a birthday, it doesn't mean you get to say that the probability of all three pairs not sharing birthdays is (2/3)^3. That multiplicative property of probabilities is only valid for independent events.

No, it wouldn’t.  My reasoning would go along the line that if there’s three people One, Two and Three, and that if there’s only three days in the year, then One could have a birthday on any of the three days, and the chance is therefore 3/3, Two could have a birthday on either of the other two days, so as to not share a birthday, so the chance is therefore 2/3, and Three must have a birthday on the remaining, again not to share a birthday with One and Two, with a chance of 1/3.  So the odds are 3/3 x 2/3 x 1/3 or 6/27 or 2/9.  And hence the chance of at least two sharing a birthday
is 1 - 2/9 ie 7/9.  Which is the answer I’m supposed to have got.

Oh, wait.  I now see it.  My original explanation was apparently the correct one - it’s the product of 364/365, 363/365, ...  I shouldn’t have taken any notice of the simplified method of calculation.

I'm glad that you were able to identify the error in your explanation. Everyone makes mistakes; the key is admitting when one is wrong.

My error was accepting brilligtrove’s answer as to the solution (reply #5).  I was overjoyed to find an easier method of calculating the probabilities that I didn’t examine it to ensure that it was actually correct.  My method, described in reply #2 is laborious with having to multiply 364/365, 363/365, 362/365, etc, etc, etc.  There’s no easy way of calculating it.  You have to multiple 22 different numbers if there’s 23 people.  364!/342! divided by 365^22 won’t work, at least not easily.  171! can’t be calculated on my Scientific calculator, let alone 364!

Many calculators have a built-in binomial coefficient function, so that you won't need to calculate 365! directly. You can also use an online calculator like Wolfram Alpha if you don't want to be limited by display digits. For example, simply enter 1-23!*Binomial[365,23]/(365^23)

You made an error in not recognizing that your second solution yielded a different formula than your first. Not a big deal, but it is good to recognize the mistake and learn from it. I've made more than my share over the years, that is for sure  :)

Incredible!  My new answer is that the chance that 23 people won’t share at least one birthday is 0.4927027656760...  So the chance of having at least one common birthday is ... well it’s clearly above 50/50.  Is that right?  It’s close to but not matching the answer from the flawed method.

WolframAlpha is clearly worth knowing about if I ever need to calculate ridiculously incredibly extremely large numbers instead of merely just incredibly large numbers.  And I thought that 10^100 was larger than anyone would need.

Many thanks.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8555
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #63 on: February 12, 2019, 12:16:53 AM »
...
I went to a staging of ‘Hamlet’ by the Royal Shakespeare Company, and I’m very ashamed to admit that it was the first Shakespeare play I’d ever seen.  It was very long (I was extremely grateful for the interval) and ‘interesting.’  It was set in a modern African country with the actors armed with AK-47s, but talking in Elizabethan English.

I’m sometimes bemused by directors feeling the need to update the classics.  I went to a Wagner Ring Cycle in Leipzig last year.  In ‘Siegfried,’. Mime was conspiring to get Siegfried to kill Fafner with his sword, despite having his own AK-47, and could have done it himself.

Interesting. I saw a performance of Romeo and Juliette by the Royal Shakespeare Company, in which, at the beginning of the play, the guards have machine guns and shoot them off to break up the fight. But the rest of the play was as the Bard wrote it. Juliette was white, and played by an actress much older than the character’s 13 years, and Romeo was a Rastafarian. But none of the language was changed. It was an amazing performance. I could have done without the machine guns, but after that first scene they didn’t get in the way of the play.

There are semi-mythological figures whose historicity may be questioned, and Steve would do well to get a historian on the show. But I think that we know enough about Shakespeare to regard him as a real person. BTW, at the time he was writing, English spelling had not yet been standardized. There’s nothing odd, in the context of the time, in the variability of the spelling of his name. We’ve standardized it now, but it’s a mistake to make a big deal about the different spellings used then, even by the man himself.

I didn’t know whether I should have mentioned it, but, well, all the actors were heavily pigmented - but they were very good.    After the first few minutes, it wasn’t noticeable.  The text was exactly the same as the original.

Not only weren’t spellings standardised, but the spelling of many words has changed.  The same in German.  I’m going to a performance of ‘die Zauberflöte’ in two weeks, and in preparation I bought the German libretto on my Kindle to avoid having to read the surtitles.  Mozart (or at least his librettist) spelt ‘drei’ (three) as ‘drey,’ and Mozart is only late 18th century.  Wagner spelt many words differently to Germans today.  Neanderthal (as in Neanderthal Man) nowadays would be Neandertal.  Bach’s Cantata 147 was originally ‘Herz und Mund und That (instead of Tat) und Leben’ (it still is, in some recordings).

The English of Shakespeare’s day sounds archaic to our ears due to the shifting of the language in the intervening years. I find it interesting that Spanish has changed much less in the same time period. It is easier for a Spanish speaker to read the Spanish that was contemporary with Shakespeare than it is for an English speaker who has not studied his works to read the Bard.

Don Quixote is a fictional character, but the books that Cervantes tells us he read are real books, and are contemporary with Shakespeare, and I have read some of them. There are at least two volumes of them available today. And they are easier to read than Shakespeare, though they are as dreadful and as idiotic as Cervantes says they are. They exist in the collection Historias caballerescas del siglo XVI. I found them in the public library in Seville and read some of them while I was there. They were too horrid to read them all. But I’ve read some of the books that drove Quixote insane. My point merely being that the Spanish of Shakespeare’s time is easy to read today. Languages change at different rates.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #64 on: February 12, 2019, 12:17:53 AM »
In the last few years I've had a friend and a relative die indirectly as a result of Chemo Therapy.

My uncle was having Chemo for saliva gland cancer (same as Roger Ebert) and that caused him to weaken and wither away. A few days after his last treatment he fell and broke his neck and was partially paralyzed for the rest of his life. He refused any further treatment and the cancer came back and killed him within a few months.

A friend was getting chemo for lung cancer, and that weakened his immune system. And while the chemo was working agains the cancer it left him vulnerable to pneumonia, which killed him.

In both cases the chemo was doing it's job fighting the cancer, but also took a toll on their health.

I wonder if such cases are even tracked and fit into the kind of statistics Steve was discussing.

I would think that they would be recorded somewhere on the death certificate, which is the way that the cause of death is compiled for statistical purposes.  It’s been many decades since I’ve had to fill out a death certificate, and America might be different to America (you might be able to find out on the Internet what is done in America?  I don’t have the time).

But for your friend with the lung cancer, I think I would have put the primary cause of death as ‘pneumonia, resulting from chemotherapy induced immune deficiency’ and a secondary cause as ‘lung cancer.’  So if the certifying doctor is doing the certificate properly, his death would be recorded as a treatment related death and be captured in the statistics.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2019, 12:26:40 AM »
...
I went to a staging of ‘Hamlet’ by the Royal Shakespeare Company, and I’m very ashamed to admit that it was the first Shakespeare play I’d ever seen.  It was very long (I was extremely grateful for the interval) and ‘interesting.’  It was set in a modern African country with the actors armed with AK-47s, but talking in Elizabethan English.

I’m sometimes bemused by directors feeling the need to update the classics.  I went to a Wagner Ring Cycle in Leipzig last year.  In ‘Siegfried,’. Mime was conspiring to get Siegfried to kill Fafner with his sword, despite having his own AK-47, and could have done it himself.

Interesting. I saw a performance of Romeo and Juliette by the Royal Shakespeare Company, in which, at the beginning of the play, the guards have machine guns and shoot them off to break up the fight. But the rest of the play was as the Bard wrote it. Juliette was white, and played by an actress much older than the character’s 13 years, and Romeo was a Rastafarian. But none of the language was changed. It was an amazing performance. I could have done without the machine guns, but after that first scene they didn’t get in the way of the play.

There are semi-mythological figures whose historicity may be questioned, and Steve would do well to get a historian on the show. But I think that we know enough about Shakespeare to regard him as a real person. BTW, at the time he was writing, English spelling had not yet been standardized. There’s nothing odd, in the context of the time, in the variability of the spelling of his name. We’ve standardized it now, but it’s a mistake to make a big deal about the different spellings used then, even by the man himself.

I didn’t know whether I should have mentioned it, but, well, all the actors were heavily pigmented - but they were very good.    After the first few minutes, it wasn’t noticeable.  The text was exactly the same as the original.

Not only weren’t spellings standardised, but the spelling of many words has changed.  The same in German.  I’m going to a performance of ‘die Zauberflöte’ in two weeks, and in preparation I bought the German libretto on my Kindle to avoid having to read the surtitles.  Mozart (or at least his librettist) spelt ‘drei’ (three) as ‘drey,’ and Mozart is only late 18th century.  Wagner spelt many words differently to Germans today.  Neanderthal (as in Neanderthal Man) nowadays would be Neandertal.  Bach’s Cantata 147 was originally ‘Herz und Mund und That (instead of Tat) und Leben’ (it still is, in some recordings).

The English of Shakespeare’s day sounds archaic to our ears due to the shifting of the language in the intervening years. I find it interesting that Spanish has changed much less in the same time period. It is easier for a Spanish speaker to read the Spanish that was contemporary with Shakespeare than it is for an English speaker who has not studied his works to read the Bard.

Don Quixote is a fictional character, but the books that Cervantes tells us he read are real books, and are contemporary with Shakespeare, and I have read some of them. There are at least two volumes of them available today. And they are easier to read than Shakespeare, though they are as dreadful and as idiotic as Cervantes says they are. They exist in the collection Historias caballerescas del siglo XVI. I found them in the public library in Seville and read some of them while I was there. They were too horrid to read them all. But I’ve read some of the books that drove Quixote insane. My point merely being that the Spanish of Shakespeare’s time is easy to read today. Languages change at different rates.

Perhaps it’s because English is such a bastard language?  It’s accumulated a lot of elements from other languages, including French.

I wonder how close South American Spanish is to Spanish Spanish?  I’ve been told that Canadian French is a bit different to French French.  Languages seem to undergo a process similar to allopatric speciation.  Swiss German is almost uninterpretable to me, not much better than Flemish.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 665
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2019, 12:54:28 AM »
To see this more easily, consider a planet where there are only three days per year, and try to find the probability that, in a group of three people, at least two people will share a birthday.

bachfiend's reasoning would lead to a result of 1-(2/3)^3=19/27.

The correct answer is 1-(2/3)*(1/3)=7/9.

The key error is the following: Just because there are three pairs, and a pair has probability 2/3 of not sharing a birthday, it doesn't mean you get to say that the probability of all three pairs not sharing birthdays is (2/3)^3. That multiplicative property of probabilities is only valid for independent events.

No, it wouldn’t.  My reasoning would go along the line that if there’s three people One, Two and Three, and that if there’s only three days in the year, then One could have a birthday on any of the three days, and the chance is therefore 3/3, Two could have a birthday on either of the other two days, so as to not share a birthday, so the chance is therefore 2/3, and Three must have a birthday on the remaining, again not to share a birthday with One and Two, with a chance of 1/3.  So the odds are 3/3 x 2/3 x 1/3 or 6/27 or 2/9.  And hence the chance of at least two sharing a birthday
is 1 - 2/9 ie 7/9.  Which is the answer I’m supposed to have got.

Oh, wait.  I now see it.  My original explanation was apparently the correct one - it’s the product of 364/365, 363/365, ...  I shouldn’t have taken any notice of the simplified method of calculation.

I'm glad that you were able to identify the error in your explanation. Everyone makes mistakes; the key is admitting when one is wrong.

My error was accepting brilligtrove’s answer as to the solution (reply #5).  I was overjoyed to find an easier method of calculating the probabilities that I didn’t examine it to ensure that it was actually correct.  My method, described in reply #2 is laborious with having to multiply 364/365, 363/365, 362/365, etc, etc, etc.  There’s no easy way of calculating it.  You have to multiple 22 different numbers if there’s 23 people.  364!/342! divided by 365^22 won’t work, at least not easily.  171! can’t be calculated on my Scientific calculator, let alone 364!

Many calculators have a built-in binomial coefficient function, so that you won't need to calculate 365! directly. You can also use an online calculator like Wolfram Alpha if you don't want to be limited by display digits. For example, simply enter 1-23!*Binomial[365,23]/(365^23)

You made an error in not recognizing that your second solution yielded a different formula than your first. Not a big deal, but it is good to recognize the mistake and learn from it. I've made more than my share over the years, that is for sure  :)

Incredible!  My new answer is that the chance that 23 people won’t share at least one birthday is 0.4927027656760...  So the chance of having at least one common birthday is ... well it’s clearly above 50/50.  Is that right?  It’s close to but not matching the answer from the flawed method.

WolframAlpha is clearly worth knowing about if I ever need to calculate ridiculously incredibly extremely large numbers instead of merely just incredibly large numbers.  And I thought that 10^100 was larger than anyone would need.

Many thanks.

Yes, the approximation is extremely close! (At least for the situation of 365 days). You can see just how close they are with this graph I made (n being the number of people in the room):
https://imgur.com/pVoF8vn

I still can't figure out how to get images to embed on this page. How do you all do it? When I put a file path in an image, it just generates a box with a question mark.

Anyway, I hope we get more math on the SGU  :)

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2019, 05:23:09 AM »
To see this more easily, consider a planet where there are only three days per year, and try to find the probability that, in a group of three people, at least two people will share a birthday.

bachfiend's reasoning would lead to a result of 1-(2/3)^3=19/27.

The correct answer is 1-(2/3)*(1/3)=7/9.

The key error is the following: Just because there are three pairs, and a pair has probability 2/3 of not sharing a birthday, it doesn't mean you get to say that the probability of all three pairs not sharing birthdays is (2/3)^3. That multiplicative property of probabilities is only valid for independent events.

No, it wouldn’t.  My reasoning would go along the line that if there’s three people One, Two and Three, and that if there’s only three days in the year, then One could have a birthday on any of the three days, and the chance is therefore 3/3, Two could have a birthday on either of the other two days, so as to not share a birthday, so the chance is therefore 2/3, and Three must have a birthday on the remaining, again not to share a birthday with One and Two, with a chance of 1/3.  So the odds are 3/3 x 2/3 x 1/3 or 6/27 or 2/9.  And hence the chance of at least two sharing a birthday
is 1 - 2/9 ie 7/9.  Which is the answer I’m supposed to have got.

Oh, wait.  I now see it.  My original explanation was apparently the correct one - it’s the product of 364/365, 363/365, ...  I shouldn’t have taken any notice of the simplified method of calculation.

I'm glad that you were able to identify the error in your explanation. Everyone makes mistakes; the key is admitting when one is wrong.

My error was accepting brilligtrove’s answer as to the solution (reply #5).  I was overjoyed to find an easier method of calculating the probabilities that I didn’t examine it to ensure that it was actually correct.  My method, described in reply #2 is laborious with having to multiply 364/365, 363/365, 362/365, etc, etc, etc.  There’s no easy way of calculating it.  You have to multiple 22 different numbers if there’s 23 people.  364!/342! divided by 365^22 won’t work, at least not easily.  171! can’t be calculated on my Scientific calculator, let alone 364!

Many calculators have a built-in binomial coefficient function, so that you won't need to calculate 365! directly. You can also use an online calculator like Wolfram Alpha if you don't want to be limited by display digits. For example, simply enter 1-23!*Binomial[365,23]/(365^23)

You made an error in not recognizing that your second solution yielded a different formula than your first. Not a big deal, but it is good to recognize the mistake and learn from it. I've made more than my share over the years, that is for sure  :)

Incredible!  My new answer is that the chance that 23 people won’t share at least one birthday is 0.4927027656760...  So the chance of having at least one common birthday is ... well it’s clearly above 50/50.  Is that right?  It’s close to but not matching the answer from the flawed method.

WolframAlpha is clearly worth knowing about if I ever need to calculate ridiculously incredibly extremely large numbers instead of merely just incredibly large numbers.  And I thought that 10^100 was larger than anyone would need.

Many thanks.

Yes, the approximation is extremely close! (At least for the situation of 365 days). You can see just how close they are with this graph I made (n being the number of people in the room):
https://imgur.com/pVoF8vn

I still can't figure out how to get images to embed on this page. How do you all do it? When I put a file path in an image, it just generates a box with a question mark.

Anyway, I hope we get more math on the SGU  :)

Perhaps you should ask CarbShark?  He seems to know everything.  He finally relented and told me how to provide links which I hadn’t known till recently.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline skepticahjumma

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2019, 08:00:53 AM »
While it is true that English has changed quite a bit since the time of Shakespeare, I think it’s important to note that Shakespeare’s plays don’t necessarily reflect how people spoke back then. His language is highly stylized, often rhyming, written in iambic pentameter. I’m curious how it sounded to contemporary audiences back then.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8555
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #69 on: February 12, 2019, 10:54:02 AM »
...
I wonder how close South American Spanish is to Spanish Spanish?  I’ve been told that Canadian French is a bit different to French French.  Languages seem to undergo a process similar to allopatric speciation.  Swiss German is almost uninterpretable to me, not much better than Flemish.

What some folks call “Spanish Spanish” or “Spain Spanish” is Castilian Spanish: the Spanish spoken in Central Spain, Castilla La Mancha and Castilla Leon. The Spanish spoken in Mexico is nearly identical to the Spanish spoken in Extremadura. The Spanish spoken in Cuba (and I think also in Central America, though I’m less sure about that) is the same or similar to the Spanish spoken in Andalucía, though educated Cubans can also speak Proper Castilian or at least Mexican Spanish. The Andalusian Spanish is a horrid, ugly, nearly-unintelligible Spanish, but all the others are so similar as to be nearly indistinguishable were it not for a few differences in pronunciation. Most notably that Castilians pronounce the C (when it’s not K) and  the Z (but not the S) as TH, whereas the other regions do not. Contrary to what some people think, this is not an old-world/new-world split; it’s a regional difference within Spain. Mexico was conquered by people from Extremadura, who brought their Spanish over.

With the exception of Andalucía and the countries that inherited their Spanish from there, and areas of the U.S. where “Spanglish” rules, Spanish in all the Spanish-speaking countries is so similar that nobody from one region has any difficulty with the Spanish from another region. Venezuela has some unique verb conjugations, but they are similar enough that with very brief exposure they are easy to understand. Mexico, and probably other Latin American countries use some indigenous words, but they know the formal Spanish words.

With the exception of Andalucía and Central America (or parts of it), Spanish is far more uniform than English. Even Andalusian Spanish is easier to understand than Yorkshire or Cockney English is to an American.


Quote
I still can't figure out how to get images to embed on this page. How do you all do it? When I put a file path in an image, it just generates a box with a question mark.

I load the I image onto an account at imgur, then on imgur’s Web site, click on the image and then from the list on the right select the appropriate link (the one for chat boards), and then I think the bbc code is

(img=link)name(/img)

Note that you need to use square brackets where I’ve put parentheses.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7717
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2019, 11:09:39 AM »
I load the I image onto an account at imgur, then on imgur’s Web site, click on the image and then from the list on the right select the appropriate link (the one for chat boards), and then I think the bbc code is

(img=link)name(/img)

Note that you need to use square brackets where I’ve put parentheses.

The [nobbc] tag is your friend in such circumstances.

Also, the correct BBC is [img]url[/img]; you may be confusing it with the HTML way of doing it, which is <img=url> or in XHTML <img=url /> or <img=url></img>.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 11:12:14 AM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline DevoutCatalyst

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2019, 11:10:59 AM »
The Andalusian Spanish is a horrid, ugly, nearly-unintelligible Spanish...

This is of course a Danielism to be taken with a grain of salt.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13241
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2019, 11:11:47 AM »
I have read that the accents of the US South are the closest to the accent common in Shakespeare's time and that Quebecois is closer to the ancestral version of French than that spoken in France.   My understanding is that its not uncommon for outlying areas to retain older linguistic features than the language spoken in more geographically central areas of the language's geographic area.


Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7380
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2019, 11:24:10 AM »
I have read that the accents of the US South are the closest to the accent common in Shakespeare's time and that Quebecois is closer to the ancestral version of French than that spoken in France.   My understanding is that its not uncommon for outlying areas to retain older linguistic features than the language spoken in more geographically central areas of the language's geographic area.
The Portuguese in Brazil and Portugal has the same relationship, I believe.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2777
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2019, 11:46:40 AM »
Just to speculate, it might be that densely populated areas change their language faster out of a need to signal social status.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain