antonim

I make the case that Wikipedia communities often do not live up to their intent to be inclusive in internal policy-making; that our policies are more conservative than we realize; and that a large part of the reason is structural – the twenty-year-old format we use to make decisions is quietly working against us. Our processes have been designed with an abundance of time in mind, in an era of exponential growth. That time is over. The good news, which I'll come back to in a companion post, is that there are tangible ways to make these processes better.

Pioneering physicist Max Planck had two papers retracted decades after his death for reasons that remain mysterious.

What began as a “flamingo revolution” to protest the $1.4 billion development on Sazan Island has spiraled into mass protests against a ruling party that thousands now want out.

Without paywall: http://archive.today/w4DDj

In October 1776, Wilkinson contracted an epidemic disease, most likely typhus, and was bedridden and near death with a high fever. The future preacher's family summoned a doctor from Attleboro, six miles away, and neighbors kept up a death-watch at night. The fever broke after several days. The Friend later reported that Wilkinson had died, receiving revelations from God through two archangels who proclaimed there was "Room, Room, Room, in the many Mansions of eternal glory for Thee and for everyone". Accounts by the doctor and other witnesses state that the illness was real, but none of them say that Wilkinson died. The Friend further said that Wilkinson's soul had ascended to heaven and the body had been reanimated with a new spirit charged by God with preaching his word, that of the "Publick Universal Friend", describing that name in the words of Isaiah 62:2 as "a new name which the mouth of the Lord hath named". The name referenced the designation the Society of Friends used for members who traveled from community to community to preach, "Public Friends".

From that time on, the Friend refused to answer to the name "Jemima Wilkinson", ignoring or chastising those who insisted on using it. Hudson says that when visitors asked if it was the name of the person they were addressing, the Friend simply quoted Luke 23:3 ("thou sayest it").  Identifying as neither male nor female, the Friend asked not to be referred to with gendered pronouns. Followers respected these wishes; they referred only to "the Public Universal Friend" or short forms such as "the Friend" or "P.U.F.", and many avoided gender-specific pronouns even in private diaries, while others used he. When someone asked if the Friend was male or female, the preacher replied "I am that I am", saying the same thing to a man who criticized the Friend's manner of dress (adding, in the latter case, "there is nothing indecent or improper in my dress or appearance; I am not accountable to mortals").

The Friend dressed in a manner perceived to be either androgynous or masculine, in long, loose clerical robes which were most often black, and wore a white or purple kerchief or cravat around the neck like men of the time. The preacher did not wear a hair-cap indoors, like women of the era, and outdoors wore broad-brimmed, low-crowned beaver hats of a style worn by Quaker men. Accounts of the Friend's "feminine-masculine tone of voice" varied; some hearers described it as "clear and harmonious", or said the preacher spoke "with ease and facility", "clearly, though without elegance". Others described it as "grum and shrill", or like a "kind of croak, unearthly and sepulchral". The Friend was said to move easily, freely, and modestly, and was described by Ezra Stiles as "decent & graceful & grave".

Can't find either the title or the year of painting.

Skrepetsky (Семён Скрепецкий) was a Russian [I assume, amateur] artist who painted grotesque neo-primitivist caricatures of modern Russia, and built up a bit of a fame online. He has been shot and killed yesterday in Biała Podlaska, Poland, where he has lived since 2021.

Thinking about language structures is made difficult not only by their incredible complexity, but also by entrenched ways of thinking about grammatical and lexical patterns. Linguists do not investigate languages in fresh way, but against the background (and often on the basis) of a centuries-old tradition.

Could it be that these traditional and stereotypical ways of thinking sometimes get in the way of approaching our objects of study in a fair way? Few linguists would deny this possibility, so here I will list four ways in which this may have adversely affected morphosyntactic descriptions and general theories:

– the word stereotype (1)

– the grammar/dictionary stereotype (2)

– the building-block stereotype (3)

– the speaker directionality stereotype (4)

My really bad TLDR: words don't exist, grammar is like words and words are like grammar, language isn't done by putting things one after the other, and we study too much how we make language and not enough how we make sense of language. Bonus sub-point: we like to say A is made of B but we could also say B is made of A.