All that glitters is not gold – emulating luxury in the ancient Greek world(britishmuseum.org)
britishmuseum.org
All that glitters is not gold – emulating luxury in the ancient Greek world
https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/all-glitters-not-gold-emulating-luxury-ancient-greek-world
22 comments
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.
Makes perfect sense, of course. The word just means imitating the design of something made of a different material.
> mimic rivets necessary for metal attachments but serving no purpose in clay
where is the line between cargo-cult and skeuomorphism
where is the line between cargo-cult and skeuomorphism
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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. :)
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. :)
(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.)
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...
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...
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.
This of course is the statistical view point. On another level, seeing artifacts survive for thousands of years is fascinating and awe-inspiring.
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.
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.
They kept exclaiming how amazing it was that we (as specific people) were born and how infinitesimal the odds were.
Roll 12 6-sided dice in turn, record the sequence. What are the chances that specific sequence should be rolled? Less than 1 in 2 billion. Anything remarkable about that? Clearly not.
If your counterpart thinks otherwise, well…
If your counterpart thinks otherwise, well…
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.
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.
It’s a testament to his prolific writing that without questioning I had assumed this was an acoup.blog article.
“All that glisters is not gold” - William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice."
> 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.