与「linguistic」相关的搜索结果

Not sure why Christopher Nolan doesn't think the "Nobody" pun doesn't translate to modern dialogue. The Odyssey's "Nobody" pun might be nearly 3,000 years old yet remains one of the most famous literary tricks in human history. It holds up today because it is simultaneously a simple joke, linguistic genius, and adds to Odyssyeus's hubris. There's even another layer to this trick. Odysseus knows he can't out muscle this guy. By stripping his name and becoming "Nobody", Odysseus proves that identity and strength are meaningless without intellect. After defeating the Cyclops, Odysseus (safe on his ship) let's his ego gets the best of him. He can't stand even his "Nobody" alter ego getting the credit, so he screams his real name back at the Cyclops to let him know who really did this to him. And of course, now that the cyclops knows it was really Odysseus, prays to Poseidon using his real name. Which in the poem, catches Odysseus a 10 year prison sentence out at sea. The "Nobody" joke is insanely multilayered and the real punchline is Odysseus can't stand Nobody taking credit for his exploits. The Odyssey (1997) | Andrei Konchalovsky

🏆 𝗕𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 @ 𝗔𝗖𝗟 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 Thrilled to share that our linguistic paper "The Imperfective Paradox in LLMs" received a Best Paper Award at #ACL2026# ! 🎉 Hoping this encourages more linguistics-informed evaluation in NLP.

🚨 On July 1, Beijing's New "Ethnic Unity" Law Goes Live — and Article 63 Reaches Into Your Living Room. July 1 is not a routine compliance date. That morning, the People's Republic of China activates the Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, passed by the 14th National People's Congress (NPC) on March 12 and signed the same day by Xi Jinping. Sixty-five articles, seven chapters, one preamble — and one provision foreign capitals are still under-reading. Article 63 is the extraterritorial clause. Verbatim, it asserts jurisdiction over "organizations and individuals outside the [mainland] territory of the PRC that commit acts aimed at the PRC that undermine ethnic unity and progress or create ethnic division." The operative categories are deliberately elastic, the same structural choice that gave Hong Kong's National Security Law its global reach. The difference: Hong Kong's statute nominally orbits one territory. This one is drafted without borders. Writing in Japan's PRESIDENT magazine on June 21, commentator Tsukasa Shirakawa — an LDP Chiyoda Ward (Tokyo) assembly member — described the statute as the completed form of Xi Jinping's "external-suppression infrastructure," with Japanese companies and Japanese citizens' speech in the crosshairs. His three flags: forced Mandarin standardization that squeezes Uyghur, Tibetan, and Mongolian linguistic survival; the criminalization of cultural dissent as "separatism"; and Article 63's global reach. The reach is not theoretical. Safeguard Defenders has documented at least 102 PRC overseas "police service stations" across 53 countries — a transnational policing lattice already operating. Article 63 hands that lattice a domestic legal pretext. The audience matters. Under Beijing's grammar, a Japanese executive endorsing Taiwan, a German academic publishing on Xinjiang, an American congressional staffer briefed on Tibet — all sit inside the statute's surface area. None has to land at Beijing Capital Airport to be charged on paper. The ones who do land — diaspora Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hong Kongers, dual nationals — face confiscation and detention risk under adjacent statutes that Article 63 now scaffolds. The headline isn't the ethnic policy. The headline is jurisdiction. Beijing is claiming the right to govern global speech about China itself. ACI — Aric Chen | Insights

What the West Still Doesn’t Get It: Communism’s True Core: The Systemic Lie Most people in the West think they understand communism. They picture bread lines, gulags, failed five-year plans, and the collapsed Soviet Union. They treat it as a discredited economic theory – an experiment that proved that abolishing private property doesn’t work. Case closed, history moved on. This misunderstanding may be the most dangerous intellectual failure of our time. Communism was never primarily an economic system. Economics was the surface. Beneath it lay something far more insidious: a total, systemic, institutionalized commitment to lying. Not occasional dishonesty. Not spin or propaganda in the ordinary sense. Something deeper – a civilizational war against truth itself, waged through every institution, every classroom, every newspaper, every conversation, until reality itself became negotiable and the lie became the air people breathed. The Words We’re Missing The Polish language, forged by decades of living under this system, produced words for this phenomenon that English simply cannot match: Zakłamanie [zah-kwah-MAH-nyeh] – a state of total, pervasive, socially embedded falsehood, a condition in which an entire society is saturated with lies so thoroughly that truth becomes almost inaccessible. Obłuda [ob-woo-dah] – a deep, performative hypocrisy, the gap between what is proclaimed and what is actually practiced, the mask worn so long it begins to feel like a face. These are not words for individual liars. They describe a system – a mode of social organization built on organized mendacity, where the lie is not the exception but the foundation. English has no single word for either concept, and that linguistic gap is not a coincidence. It reflects a gap in experience. Cultures that did not live under communism lack the vocabulary because they lack the wound. And because they lack the vocabulary, they struggle to recognize the thing when it reappears in new clothing. The Continuity: Communism, Leftism, Wokeism What we call wokeism today, or the broader radical left, is not a new phenomenon. It is the same operating system running on updated hardware. The specifics have changed – instead of the proletariat, we have marginalized identity groups; instead of bourgeois class enemies, we have racists and transphobes; instead of socialist realism, we have DEI statements. But the deep structure is the same. That deep structure is this: truth is not discovered, it is assigned. Reality is not something to be understood honestly but something to be narrated strategically. Language is not a tool for communication but a weapon of power. And anyone who resists the approved narrative is not simply wrong – they are dangerous, and must be silenced, shamed, or destroyed. This is zakłamanie in its modern form. This is obłuda wearing a human rights badge. The same movement that insists men can become women will insist, with equal fervor, that questioning this is an act of violence. The same institutions that claim to champion free inquiry systematically suppress dissent. The same people who invoke tolerance as their highest value are among the most intolerant forces in public life. The contradiction is not accidental – it is structural. It is the system working as designed. Why the West Still Doesn’t Get It People who grew up in freedom tend to assume, at some level, that bad actors know they are lying. That somewhere behind the ideological performance, there is a cynical operator who privately acknowledges reality. This assumption is wrong, and it is why Westerners consistently underestimate what they are dealing with. The totalitarian lie, at its mature stage, is not cynical. It is believed. Or rather, it creates a condition in which the distinction between belief and performance collapses entirely. People learn to say things they do not believe so fluently, and for so long, that they lose access to what they actually think. 1/2

@willjohn__ Linguistics still follow evolution theory. Some ways of writing are no longer popular for a reason. And I see this trend will only enlarge and continue, not the opposite.

🚀 𝐎𝐍𝐋𝐘 𝐔𝐏𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐃 — 𝐖𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐔𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐒𝐔𝐆𝐆𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐖𝐄 𝐆𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐔𝐏 Since this morning, I’ve been reading the news: “What was always corrected will soon become the norm. Why? Because that’s what young people say...” Wonderful. Learned men from the warm Moscow university departments condescendingly explain: “Well, it’s a living process. Teenagers are simply looking for symmetry when they say ‘то что,’ ‘ща,’ or ‘чонить.’” Seriously? Maybe it’s simply a lack of education? Giving in and going with the flow is the easiest thing to do. But if people are fighting and dying for the right to speak Russian, if our language is our banner, then we need to hold it firmly, not drag it through the mud. That’s what I believe. About linguist officials and the purity of the Russian language 👉 read my channel on MAX. War correspondent Maryana Naumova