[HN Gopher] All that glitters is not gold - emulating luxury in ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       All that glitters is not gold - emulating luxury in the ancient
       Greek world
        
       Author : diodorus
       Score  : 73 points
       Date   : 2023-08-08 04:40 UTC (18 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.britishmuseum.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.britishmuseum.org)
        
       | blitz_skull wrote:
       | It's a testament to his prolific writing that without questioning
       | I had assumed this was an acoup.blog article.
        
       | NoboruWataya wrote:
       | If anyone is ever in Santorini in Greece, check out the Museum of
       | Prehistoric Thera. They have some stuff from around 2,000 BC.
       | Just mindblowing to think how different things were when those
       | pieces were manufactured.
        
       | alanmbyrne wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | jjtheblunt wrote:
       | "all that glitters is not gold" != "not all that glitters is
       | gold".
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws#Extension_t...
       | 
       | I feel like one ever present takeaway from logic courses is that
       | universal quantifiers and negation don't commute, DeMorgan's
       | various rules, and so on.
        
         | pxc wrote:
         | In natural language, usage is prior to grammar, and in this
         | case, actual usage doesn't reflect the apparent rule.
         | 
         | If you want to look up research on this particular rule and its
         | observance (or not) the term is 'scopal isomorphism', where the
         | isomorphism is between the scopes of the quantifiers in the
         | surface structure and those in the logical form.
         | 
         | That said, this is a pet peeve for me, too. Strikes my ear as
         | wrong every single time I hear it, and drives me nuts.
        
           | jjtheblunt wrote:
           | i'd never seen the term "scopal isomorphism" : thanks! and
           | yeah, i hear it all the time and it is like fingernails on a
           | chalkboard.
        
             | pxc wrote:
             | I found the terms when I went on an angry research binge in
             | search of a name for my preference and frustration. What I
             | discovered, in addition to the name, was an interesting
             | twist:
             | 
             | Scopal ambiguity and isomorphic readings have played an
             | interesting role in research on linguistic development for
             | a long time. It turns out that little, little kids _also_
             | strongly prefer isomorphic readings of statements involving
             | quantifiers like this. But as they grow up, the  'inverse
             | scope reading becomes accessible' to them-- they gain the
             | ability to correctly interpret the common way of phrasing
             | these things which strikes you and me as 'wrong'.
             | 
             | I have a lot of thoughts about this, but I've never really
             | followed up on that initial research or asked a linguist
             | what they think all that's about. I think for me, my
             | preference for isomorphic readings and phrasings definitely
             | relates to at least these two things:
             | 
             | 1. I'm neurodivergent and part of what that means for me is
             | that context is difficult, and I tend to prefer explicit
             | syntax over reliance on context.
             | 
             | 2. I work in a profession where (a) I deal with
             | machines/languages that (obviously) always expect scopal
             | isomorphism and (b) we often care about a quantification
             | (all X are not Y) that is rarely actually intended in
             | natural language.
             | 
             | The more I revisit it, the more curious I get about this
             | difference in handling 'ambiguity' (it doesn't feel
             | ambiguous to me at all! lol) and where it comes from. :)
             | 
             | If you wanna crawl into this rabbit hole, have at it: https
             | ://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=scop...
        
         | mensetmanusman wrote:
         | It's a poetry reference:
         | 
         | All that is gold does not glitter,
         | 
         | Not all those who wander are lost;
         | 
         | The old that is strong does not wither,
         | 
         | Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
         | 
         | From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
         | 
         | A light from the shadows shall spring;
         | 
         | Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
         | 
         | The crownless again shall be king.
         | 
         | https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Riddle_of_Strider
        
           | shard wrote:
           | Is that poem where the saying is from? It seems to be a 3rd
           | category, separate from the two in the parent comment.
           | 
           | Saying: For the set of all things that glitter, none of it is
           | gold.
           | 
           | Implied meaning: For the set of all things that glitter, not
           | all of it is gold.
           | 
           | Poem: For the set of all gold, none of it glitters.
        
             | jjtheblunt wrote:
             | https://nosweatshakespeare.com/merchant-venice-play/text-
             | act...
             | 
             | but supposedly the original said glistens rather than
             | glitters.
             | 
             | It's interesting that Shakespeare also got DeMorgan's
             | predicate logic and quantifiers mixed up, if Shakespeare is
             | still conjectured to be Francis Bacon.
             | 
             | I don't remember if this pattern like "All that X is not Y"
             | for "Not all X is Y" sounded wrong to me before i had seen
             | predicate calculus/logic and the quantifiers and DeMorgan.
        
               | pxc wrote:
               | > I don't remember if this pattern like "All that X is
               | not Y" for "Not all X is Y" sounded wrong to me before i
               | had seen predicate calculus/logic and the quantifiers and
               | DeMorgan.
               | 
               | FWIW: By the time I was in high school, I know I
               | understood DeMorgan's laws because I used them in
               | programming. (I don't remember ever struggling with
               | distribution of Boolean operators, or being taught those
               | rules.) But I didn't actually learn the name 'DeMorgan'
               | until college.
               | 
               | But that still kinda leaves the real question open! Was I
               | primed to care about this distinction by my atypical
               | engagement with contexts where it really matters? Or was
               | I drawn to those contexts because distinctions like that
               | one are naturally highly salient for me?
               | 
               | I suspect it's a mix of both, and that they're mutually
               | reinforcing.
               | 
               | Maybe some day a linguist will happen upon this thread
               | and start looking at scopal ambiguity and isomorphism
               | among adults in specific professions, and turn up
               | something interesting. :)
        
               | jjtheblunt wrote:
               | (same here i'm pretty sure regarding high school and
               | programming but not knowing the name till college, and i
               | can't remember thinking it was wrong because of non
               | commuting negation with quantifiers in that terminology.
               | i bet there are many of us.)
        
       | rwmj wrote:
       | Remarkable that a ceramic pot could have survived for 2,500
       | years. I break cups all the time.
       | 
       | There's a permanent display of Eastern ceramics at the
       | Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (UK) which has some incredibly
       | old pieces. Worth visiting even if you know nothing about
       | pottery. https://fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/about-us/collections/arts-
       | of-as...
        
         | dan-robertson wrote:
         | That museum as a whole is great. It's got a bit of loads of
         | different things but it is a much more manageable size than the
         | big museums in capital cities / New York.
        
         | marktani wrote:
         | That a specific ceramic pot survives is very unlikely, but some
         | surviving it of a huge group less so. I guess you also have
         | some cups left in your cupboard!
         | 
         | This of course is the statistical view point. On another level,
         | seeing artifacts survive for thousands of years is fascinating
         | and awe-inspiring.
        
           | goeiedaggoeie wrote:
           | This is the statistical long tail indeed. I would also expect
           | that a lot of these vases were buried in soil or on the sea
           | floor where they were undisturbed for many years.
        
           | ericmcer wrote:
           | I was fighting with someone about this exact concept for
           | hours.
           | 
           | They kept exclaiming how amazing it was that we (as specific
           | people) were born and how infinitesimal the odds were.
        
       | gilleain wrote:
       | Interesting quote:
       | 
       | > Athens' prolific potters looked for new ways of manufacturing
       | vessels in affordable clay to imitate metal wares - a process
       | known as skeuomorphism ... [ jugs] even has discs on the handle
       | to mimic rivets necessary for metal attachments but serving no
       | purpose in clay.
       | 
       | Not just icons on applications, then.
        
         | kemayo wrote:
         | Yeah, I'm so used to seeing skeuomorphism used in terms of UI
         | design that this felt a bit jarring to read.
         | 
         | Makes perfect sense, of course. The word just means imitating
         | the design of something made of a different material.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-08 23:02 UTC)