im absolutely dogshit at reading korean,
get extra excited when i see the character somewhere random tho
and then get frustrated when i recognize none of the words
or get even more excited when i do
but gah when learning a language its hard reading other’s handwritten
can’t talk tho b/c mine is terrible in both korean and english
حالِمة
root: ح-ل-م / form I active participle / definition: dreamer, dreaming
Maybe, from my writings on this blog, you get the impression that I’m always floating between thoughts. An observation here, a dictionary find there, multiple pivots per post…
And you’d be right to think so, of course. My mind is always laden with: fifteen mental screenshots of dictionary entries; thirty-two…
Hello there, allow me to explain. As an artist who is quite puritan and thus is firmly against AI “art” I really want to express my one grudge that resides with artists who don’t use AI like myself. This one issue is really simple…
Ai “art”… AI art… art. It just bothers me because as minor as it may seem, I believe we are giving ourselves an extra hurdle to get over by calling it this.
Simple. In fact I will use another word as an example, Clanker. For this explanation it is important to understand where the word clanker comes from. For those of you who don’t know, it bears a high resemblance to the N-word. Very very summed up, the N-word was used as a way to dehumanize black people. “Clanker” attempted to do something similar except it aimed to dehumanize robots. There is a huge difference between the two however which is why I also don’t like “clanker” too much. Both are attempting to take away the humanity from something [Black people, AIs] the thing is that black people are human, the N-word is strictly taking something away, but in clanker’s case, robots aren’t human and thus, if the word wants to successfully take away their humanity, it must first give them some humanity that it will aim to strip away. The problem with this should by now be more apparent, in trying to take something away from something else we are first giving it a title it does not deserve.
Very simple, I’d be willing to bet most of my companion artists don’t consider AI “art” art. This is why we use quotation marks in an attempt to distance the preferred, AI-less art, from AI generated pictures. However I view this as a problem because hold-it-between-quotes or no, it is still willingly giving it the title of art even if it is for future distancing and perhaps mockery. This will eventually start giving people the wrong impression that AI generated pictures have always if ever been art and that we are just simply trying to take it away, we are not. We are not because it was never art to begin with which is why I propose to just call it something else, don’t even give it the benefit of calling it art, even if mockingly/ironically so.
Just call it AI generated pictures or images or something along those lines. I along with most artists out there will presumably be willing to defend why AI generated images aren’t art but we cannot say that those aren’t AI generated images because they are. An AI made those images. This is a beautiful solution imo because we aren’t lying and we still manage to comment on how those pictures aren’t art without having to give it a title for it to debate with. Those pngs will always be images but they will never be art.
So, this may initially seem like a deviation from my typical format; however, I shall justify this synthesized style of writing in the following manner.
In Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, he spoke of language being as the mazy streets of the ancient cities with the cutting and blocky streets of the new boroughs built around them. Ultimately however, it’s the same city, a city of the old and the new existing side by side. He was concerned that precision of the new language would bury the unique character of the old language.
Here, I shall demonstrate this isn’t the case at all, as a person can approach any given subject even in this modern day with either the precision of the new language or the vibe of the old language, or if your feeling particularly creative, you can synthesize the two at times. However, before we begin, I must clarify what I mean by the old language and the new language.
The old language we shall like to what we may call, and rightly so, the language of the mystic, the alchemist, the witch, the prophet, the seer, the astrologer, the herbalist and so on. It’s the kinds of language the religious will inevitably wind up steeping themselves into. This language uses incredibly imprecise, winding words and to those on the outside, it may seem like a maze of words and at times you may get the sense that the words are meaningless, but as Wittgenstein himself points out, the names of these words are only known and understood by those who’ve used them frequently enough to ask for a name. As an example, in chess, a king is only understood to be a king by those who understand the game at least well enough to recognize the piece as distinct from the others. To those who’ve never played nor seen it played nor have any notion of the game whatsoever, it’s just a creatively cut piece of wood. So, for those critical thinkers who read this, please stow the accusations of word salad until such time that you understand the language game.
The new boroughs of language are the more precise, modern age terms we use, like those of chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, industry, pharmaceutics, etc. but as we shall soon see, the new language is often built with the same materials as the old city. The only difference we might say exists between them is that the new materials are more refined in some ways or oriented in a different way from its ancestral form. However, you may soon see that while sometimes the new language is better at conveying how we describe reality, other times the old language more effective at it. How can this be so? Surely, we live in the modern age and anything in the modern age much better, no?
This is a critical error that leads a person to assume this is the case is their own cognitive bias towards their own modern ways of thinking. However, allow me to present an example. We may say that English is a far more “developed” language than Hebrew and in many cases I would be inclined to agree. Hebrew is what we may call an example of the language of the ancient city. It has no vowels and much of its verbage comes with the baggage of the old ways of thinking. However, one might argue that’s somewhat the case for English too; however, there’s one thing Hebrew, and indeed similar languages like Arabic and Aramaic will always be more in line with modern scientific understanding on than English, German and other such languages will be: the verb proceeds the noun.
Why is that significant? Allow me to explain. In English, German, and similar such languages, the noun or object possesses and is the master of the verb. The ball bounces. The oven cooks. The eyes see. The tongue tastes. If this is your primary language and your only language you speak, nothing seems wrong with that, at least until I start asking you some perhaps uncomfortable questions.
Here’s one: Are you your body or the synthesis of all the actions you’ve ever done. In another way of putting it, does what you do give rise to you? Before you answer that, I wanna ask you also which of those that those who care about you think you are? Allow me to give a thought experiment that strikes at the very heart of what I mean by even asking that. Let’s say there is a relatively fresh body in an open casket at a funeral and next to the casket there are two people standing over it drenched in tears, crying their eyes out acting as if they had lost this person forever. Logic dictates that if it is true in their minds that they believe the person is their body, then these people should not be crying at all. I mean, the body’s right there in front of them, if it be true, they haven’t lost anyone!
So then why are these two in making a shower of tears over this body? It is because in this moment, the truth of their opinion cannot be hidden. They aren’t crying over the body because the body is no longer there. They’re crying because they will never hear them utter a new word, breathe another breath, crack another witty joke, experience another beach, watch another sunset, have another long meaningful conversation, write another love poem, be another shoulder to lean on, share another meal, rave to another concert… These aren’t things! They aren’t objects this person possessed. They’re all actions and that the person can’t do any of them is the reason they’re acting like they’ve lost this person, because the truth is that they were to these people the shared moments of those actions which they’re never going to do again! It is the action that gives rise to and meaning to the thing. The actions are its essence! Without them, the thing is anything and nothing at all.
You may protest. “That’s an appeal to emotion fallacy” you might say. Is it? I’m fairly certain quantum mechanics backs me up on this. There is no particle first, just the energy wavefunction that gives rise through certain interactions to what we arbitrarily call a particle. So yes, action first languages like Hebrew and Arabic are more in line with modern scientific understanding in this regard than object first languages such as German and English.
(To be continued)
Pointless trivia about the Helsinki Metro. Most of the stations have their names announced in Finnish and Swedish but there are three exceptions which are announced also in English:
Everyone thinks the problem is that they’re not in Israel.
It’s not.
The real problem?
You were never taught Hebrew the way it’s actually spoken.
You learned:
– Rules instead of patterns
– Translation instead of thinking in Hebrew
– Words… without knowing how to use them in real life
So even after “learning,” you still freeze when it’s time to speak.
That’s exactly what I fix.
I teach Hebrew the way Israelis actually use it -
so you don’t just understand Hebrew…
you start thinking, responding, and speaking naturally.
No relocation. No overwhelm. No guessing.
Just real Hebrew, that actually works in real conversations.
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day to all who are celebrating today! 🍀
And in Hebrew, we say:
Khag Sameach (חג שמח)
Which literally means “Happy Holiday.”
Let’s break it down in a fun way:
Khag = Holiday
Sameach = Happy
Pronunciation tip:
Say it like Khag Sa-me-akh
Put the emphasis on “me” in Sameach, pronounce the A like in father, and the E like in met.
So today, whether you are celebrating with Irish traditions, good food, or just enjoying the spirit of the day…
Wishing you a joyful, festive, and meaningful celebration.
Khag Sameach and Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! 🍀💚
(How cute is this little one coloring it in my Hebrew Coloring Book!?)
14 Dec 2019
This video is all about the linguistic features Standard Average European! ►Learn a language with Pimsleur: https://imp.i271380.net/langfocus ► Get started with a free trial! (Disclosure: The above link is an affiliate link, so Langfocus gets a small referral fee – at no extra cost to you)
Special thanks to Lùthais MacGriogair for his French and Breton samples; robbey43 for his…
ratio of mastered languages to times my heart was broken by a guy is 3:0. Proudly turning it to 4:0 🦢
【推荐】🔥🔥著名的欧美PureTaboo《纯禁忌的爱爱》制片公司2025年剧集打理OK了。请看图
🔵每集有30～50分钟不等的视频而且每集都有不同精彩的伦理禁忌故事。自发行以来，广受好评，各种杂志都为其背书，评分一直都保持9.0➕。
喜欢的小伙伴们来密咱家吧！
