All that glitters is not gold – emulating luxury in the ancient Greek world
britishmuseum.org
britishmuseum.org
> 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.
Makes perfect sense, of course. The word just means imitating the design of something made of a different material.
where is the line between cargo-cult and skeuomorphism
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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...
This of course is the statistical view point. On another level, seeing artifacts survive for thousands of years is fascinating and awe-inspiring.
They kept exclaiming how amazing it was that we (as specific people) were born and how infinitesimal the odds were.
If your counterpart thinks otherwise, well…