william.scherk Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) I will transcribe some or all (or just the exciting bits) of the Peikoff/Brook dialogue. I am experimenting with a simple way to type as fast as the talkers talk. I do this by slowing the tempo down.This is for illustrative purposes. That Peikoff and Brook sound insanely drunk (or on Quaaludes) is the only benefit of listening. Peikoff and Brook on the down-slow by wsscherk Edited October 23, 2012 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Brook's problem is relatively slight. Imagine trying to make yourself understood in English if you are a Korean who cannot distinguish between P and B or pronounce either one,Isn't the problem for Koreans that they can distinguish pp from p from b, and English has just two sounds where they are used to three?Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 OTOH, Rand always had a problem with "th". Instead of faith she'd say face. Also her "ch" was usually closer to "sh". As in, "sank you wary mush".ND,For a certain project, I listened to a lot of recorded Ayn Rand.Her difficulties with English pronunciation all appear to have been direct consequences of her native language being Russian.No th in Russian.No distinction between v and w in Russian.Emphatic trilled r's where English speakers (OK, English speakers outside of Scotland) never do the trilling.Occasional trouble with vowels, such "apPRAHpriate" for the adjective form. An unstressed "o" in Russian goes to "ah," rather like what happens to the written English "o" in "prop."No distinction in Russian between the vowels in "bin" and "bean," or in "live" and "leave."She had no speech impediment that I've been able to detect.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Brook's problem is relatively slight. Imagine trying to make yourself understood in English if you are a Korean who cannot distinguish between P and B or pronounce either one,Isn't the problem for Koreans that they can distinguish pp from p from b, and English has just two sounds where they are used to three?Robert Campbellto our ears, yes as I understand it. I was thinking of a particular student who had the speech impediment in his own language, complicated by the fact that he had learnt English mostly from reading it. Quite a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I thought to put both Brook and Peikoff's vocal infelicities in perspective. Here is a drunken whale singing to its captors. The careful listener will find the cadences of Objectivish speech in the song.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtIv8RIbDbk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 "Liberty" simply can't be an "ism". Bet you never thought of that before! You may as well be for "justice-ism". ND,It isn't just that the discussion is inane and, yes, knuckleheaded.It's that Leonard Peikoff is having trouble articulating certain words, as though he's talking with several ice cubes in his mouth.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhorse Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Mawiage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhorse Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 post #119, funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anya Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 This is for illustrative purposes. That Peikoff and Brook sound insanely drunk (or on Quaaludes) is the only benefit of listening.Peikoff and Brook on the down-slow by wsscherkNecromancy: I just have this mental image of Objectivists on ketamine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 If there was ever an Objectivist clown, it'd be Leonard Peikoff. His utter cluelessness on chaos theory, epistemological relativism on logic, and his neocon desires for destruction sure make him look like one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 If there was ever an Objectivist clown, it'd be Leonard Peikoff. His utter cluelessness on chaos theory, epistemological relativism on logic, and his neocon desires for destruction sure make him look like one.He can no longer defend his corpus and doesn't realize that means it's time to shut up entirely for he's now in territory no one can defend.--Branthis corpus sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now