SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Does anyone out there have a favorite Linux program for downloading podcasts? I've been using Chess Griffin's mashpodder but (a) it's now abandonware, and (b) due to the way it identifies files, it doesn't work with modern podcasts where the base name of the file is always "media.mp3" and the earlier parts of the URL change. As such, I'm looking for a replacement, preferably something that I can run as a cron job so that it fires every day without any intervention on my part and where the configuration lives in a file that I can edit with a simple text editor like vim. I'm considering rolling my own in Python just to get more experience with that language, but I thought I'd see if any Soylentils had suggestions for me to check out before I went to the effort of doing that.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday July 27 2018, @01:10AM (15 children)
Normally I like arguments for preserving meaning of terms when it is useful. (Though trying to deny language evolves is ridiculous too.)
But in this case, I don't know there's a strong case for your association. The word "pod" was not coined by Apple; long before the iPod, it was a word for a container of various sorts (which the iPod played off of in its name). Apple's attempts to trademark the term "pod" thus failed [wikipedia.org] when they attempted to restrict the word into a proprietary-only context.
And the history of the term "podcast" doesn't really bear out your analysis [wikipedia.org] either. "Podcasts" were not named as such by Apple, but rather by 3rd-party developers who were working on more generalized applications of RSS feeds and audio, though admittedly at first developing tech in the medium of the iPod. Apple didn't jump on the podcast bandwagon and develop proprietary apps to handle them etc. for roughly a year after the term had been used to refer to such tech.
Even dictionary definitions of the time say nothing about a proprietary implication for the term. The New Oxford American Dictionary (among others) named it Word of the Year in 2005 [chicagotribune.com] and defined it thus:
No mention of Apple, iPods, or other proprietary implications.
[By the way, just to note that this is frequently how erroneous linguistic pedantry gets started. Someone looks at a word and thinks it looks like it mean something different or distinct from the common meaning. Generally the argument is based on some logic -- often involving etymology, either real or imaginary -- but NOT on the actual linguistic usage of the term. That person then makes an argument in some place it might get notice -- historically a book on usage, a magazine likely to have pedantic readers -- and thus a fictionalized usage history takes hold. For years, decades, or centuries afterward, pedants repeat such baseless claims, using these often entirely spurious arguments as markers between what they perceive as those "in the know" (obviously like themselves) vs. heathens who are destroying the language.]
[Also, by the way, I'm a recovering pedant myself. I used to get angry at a lot of things until I bought several dictionaries that contain histories of English usage and discovered maybe 75% of the "rules" people get mad about were never actually reflections of real-world usage, but instead were made up by some ignorant grammar nazi based on nothing but his own opinion.]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday July 27 2018, @02:21AM (7 children)
During the rises of Fascism and Communism, George Orwell spoke of the vital importance of saying or writing precisely what you intend to express.
I at first wrote "mean to express" but that would not have been as precise as "intend to express".
I now longer say "Most Portlanders call Pioneer Courthouse Square 'Pioneer Square'", rather I say "Most Portland residents denote Pioneer Courthouse Square as 'Pioneer Square'".
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday July 27 2018, @02:45AM (6 children)
Precision of language is obviously important, but such precision is only meaningful if it succeeds in communicating MEANING, as language is fundamentally about communication, and it depends on social usage to convey that meaning.
If you try to use a word in a way that you think is "precise" but 99.99% of English speakers actually understand the word to mean something else, youe attempt at "precision" has failed. There are all sorts of words in English that don't follow logically what their form or etymology would suggest, but over enough time we've forgotten most of those "imprecisions." (I could point out a number of examples of such problems in this conversation alone, though many date back to issues in Middle English or earlier.)
Language evolves, and the best we can do is use the clearest meanings possible for the clearest communication as it is actually understood by speakers of English.
Is there an argument for OP's differentiation of "podcast" from other similar terms? Sure, I suppose. Except that's NOT what the term "podcast" currently means or really ever meant. If OP or you want to suggest a proposal to change the meaning of "podcast," by all means do so. Try it out with friends. Try to get it to spread. Most likely, you'll fail, because I don't think there's much use for a term that only denotes "netcasts running only on iPods," as the podcast standards usually allow much broader usage.
Nevertheless, if you want to propose an alternative terminology, do it. Just don't pretend that your usage is what the words already mean or other people are "wrong" for using a term in the way 99.99% of the population understand it. That's not how language works.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday July 27 2018, @04:32AM (4 children)
There is an institute in Paris which introduce new words into the strictly-regulated French language.
For example the French word for "Walkman" is "Baladeur". I Am Absolutely Serious.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday July 27 2018, @07:42AM (3 children)
Yes, I'm quite aware of this, as I have a pretty decent knowledge of French. Your point? Are you advocating for this approach?
Because the French aren't by any means the only language with this sort of body. And most such bodies are only successful in guiding linguistic change when they take the lead (e.g. in coining new technology words immediately before other terms like foreign borrowings take root). When they try to fight established usage or neologisms that have already become common, they're generally not very successful.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday July 27 2018, @08:07AM (2 children)
It's unlawful for Quebec businesses to display signage that's written in English.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 27 2018, @10:15AM
Is it also unlawful for MichaelDavidCrawford to post a factually correct statement?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday July 27 2018, @12:53PM
LOL. Somehow I only just realized you're trolling me. Perhaps because I like to imagine good faith in posts.
Oh, well. Yet another poster here I shall now cease to communicate with. I don't waste my time with people who deliberately waste my time. It's been weird, Mr. Crawford!
Cheers!
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday July 27 2018, @04:17PM
As you observe, the meaning of the word "iPod" and the meaning of the word "pod" are intertwined into the "podcast" idea (and given that a Pod is just a cozy container, and an iPod an audio player, there is impetus for gravitation towards interpreting it as "iPod").
Non-Apple-Fanboy people who make audio programs generally do not mean "a cast for your iPod" making something they call a podcast, and non-Apple-fanboy people who download audio programs generally do not mean "a cast for my iPod" when they download something they call a "podcast". Non-Apple-fanboys who work to create internet standards and the relevant software ecosystem to support standardized audio download generally don't mean "A cast for iPods" when they call the subject of the standards and software "podcasts".
Key there is non-Apple-fanboys. I have met people who have only a Macbook, an iPhone, an iPad, an iPod, etc. who have asked, with puzzled looks, how you could play a podcast without an iPod? Do "mp3 players" (another misnomer) play them too?
Another class of people sometimes confused by the (negligently confusing) terminology is people whose thing is not tech. "You listen to that there podcast, huh? What, you need one of them Mac Pods to listen to that or something? They got that at Best Buy, or you got to go to an Apple store?"
By not calling audio programs by a trendy apple-fanboy sounding name, this can be avoided.
It's not just the language and the poor sensibilities of the two classes of intellectually impaired persons above that I am concerned about; as a free software proponent I begrudge the proprietary walled-garden approach folks every cubic millimeter of mindshare. Audio programs, played on a computer or an audio player.
I don't think we need to "change the meaning of podcast"--that isn't the problem. I just don't want to redefine the perfectly good concept "audio program" and shoehorn it into the partly sensible, partly nonsense term "podcast".
Plenty of people are doing that already, and if that sticks over the long term then the language will have evolved for better or worse. Many evolving features of language are for the better--they help us interpret the evolving and changing world in a meaningful way--but I oppose this particular change*, and if it happens, it won't be because I didn't mention that I think it's an ill-advised direction in which to deliberately nudge the language.
Thus, if the word sticks (which it will or it won't), it won't be partly my fault; rather, it will be over my objection stated for the record.
-----
* Lots of people hear something like this and assert that since changes happen, all changes must be good ones, even the bad ones, and everyone should embrace all changes, good or bad, because all changes are good whether they are good or bad. This is insipidly stupid, but serves their purpose (to avoid intelligent discourse). I am assuming you are not such a person, and if you are, then I apologize for all these complicated words, and substitute for them a simple mild insult.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday July 27 2018, @02:31AM
Note: I realize I misspoke in the claims about my first link. It was not Apple who tried to trademark "podcast," but nevertheless the attempt to trademark the term failed. And aside from some early posturing, Apple has not attempted to control the term, likely because they knew any such attempt would fail legally.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday July 27 2018, @02:31PM (5 children)
For example, it's commonly accepted that English has three tenses; past, present, future. Latin actually has them, English does not. Observe:
Last week I *went* to school. (simple past)
Each day I *go* to school. (simple present)
Tomorrow I *am* going to school. (NOT a simple future!)
English doesn't actually have a future tense, we actually have multiple ways of indicating future but we don't have a verb tense to do it, like Latin had. We just keep telling generation after generation that we do, because the grammarians historically thought Latin was more prestigious and therefore tried to make English look more like Latin than it really is.
At any rate, in regard to 'podcast' I think it's an awful word and it should be avoided; for two main reasons. First, it's redundant. What we're talking about is an audio file. There's already a perfectly good phrase for that - audio file. It's clear, unambiguous, easy to understand - there's simply no need for a redundant phrase to refer to an audio file. Secondly, even if there were a need, this is a poor coining. It's ambiguous, it gives your audience no idea what you're actually talking about, and (intentionally) invokes all sorts of inappropriate associations and expectations.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday July 27 2018, @04:41PM (4 children)
Then there is the more standard (or less nonstandard, if you like) future as in "Tomorrow I will (or shall) go to school", which is just present tense "will" + infinitive "go" and so still isn't a future tense as such. Then, you can get things like "Today I will the event to happen" becoming "Tomorrow I will will the event to happen again." Doesn't work with shall, fortunately, but then, we pretty much quit with shall (evolution at work). Also doesn't work with "can": "Today I can see the statue." "Tomorrow I will can see the statue?" Nope, "can" has an infinitive but only in the sense of putting something into a container, not indicating ability, so no go. We have to be something, in this case be able, in the sense that we be able to see the statue, so that in the future we will be able to see the statue. Clunky when you think about it, and not futuristic, but it works for pretty much everyone even if it lacks Latin's dedicated future tense.
But if Latin was linguistically and culturally all that great, it probably would still be a going concern, instead of evolving so much in so many directions that it's now not even Latin anymore but Romanian, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday July 27 2018, @05:24PM (3 children)
Yes indeed, there's more than one way to analyze that but in no sense is it an actual future tense to the verb. You can call it an auxiliary verb or a helper verb or what have you, but the actual verb in 'I shall %x' is obviously shall, no matter what verbal phrase you use for %x. It's in simple present form, and it's a verb that historically meant 'to owe %x, to be obliged or committed to %x.' So it's a phrasing that originally meant 'I'm (now) committed to going to school tomorrow.'
"Doesn't work with shall"
Because 'shall' doesn't have a convenient homophone.
"Will" however can be verbal (from willan, to be willing) or nominal (from willa, will itself, or more broadly mental capacity, determination) and you use both, alternating, to make that work. There is a nominal form of shall, shild, but it's neither spelled nor pronounced the same as shall (plus it's archaïc and most people wouldn't recognize it of course.)
"Nope, "can" has an infinitive but only in the sense of putting something into a container, not indicating ability, so no go"
"Can" is another case where you're playing with a set of homophones - and in this case they aren't even closely related. "Canne" was a container for liquid of some kind, it's not clear if it was originally a cup, mug, jug, or just any of the above. This gives us both the modern nominal form (a can) but also the derived verbal form you mention (to put something in a can or jar, as for preservation.) Sound changes and spelling reforms result in it being spelt simply 'can.'
On the other hand "can" was a form of the verb 'to know.' It's still used this way in e.g. Swedish "jag kan svenska." You can translate this 'I know Swedish' and without more context that's the best translation, but only because 'I can Swedish' is not grammatically sound in (modern) English. If you know the context, this might mean "I can speak Swedish" or "I can read and write Swedish" but it definitely implies not just abstract knowledge but some sort of concrete ability to demonstrate the knowledge, "I know how to" not just "I know about."
"But if Latin was linguistically and culturally all that great, it probably would still be a going concern, instead of evolving so much in so many directions that it's now not even Latin anymore but Romanian, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc"
Well, classical Latin spawned all of those languages, plus medieval church Latin, and through that most of our modern international scientific vocabulary, so at the very least it's one of the most influential languages that ever existed.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday July 27 2018, @05:58PM (2 children)
No, "i will it to happen" is itself verbal, and "I will will it again tomorrow" is more of the same. No nomnative form appears here. If I will something to happen, it is because I am willing, not because I am self-aware. If I will will it again tomorrow, then it will be because I will be willing, not because I will continue to be self-aware.
Only because it would be wrong to say that "can" doesn't have an infinitive. It does; it just belongs to a different meaning of the word. The knowledge-noun meaning survives in English (no need to visit Sweden) in the word "ken" which means scope or range of knowledge or understanding; as a verb that just doesn't have an infinitive in practice. French has pouvoir faire quelque chose, Spanish has poder hacer algo, but English must do without "to can do something". Wierd but workable.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday July 27 2018, @07:37PM (1 child)
Correct.
However, what I *thought* happened there was that you had one verbal form descended from a verbal form, and one verbal form created by verbing the nominal form, much like canne and can are both verbs. On re-examining, I'm not sure that's actually true, but I'm still not sure it's not true.
Regardless of the correct etymology for will in the sense of 'will it to happen' you're still using the same sequence of letters with two quite different meanings; will (do in the future) and will (to power etc.)
As to can being a verb with no infinitive, that really kind of depends on the meaning of infinitive. 'To can' would be what we normally call an infinitive form in English, and I think we agree that unambiguously belongs to the 'canne' family not the 'can' family.
But why do we call that the infinitive form? Well, in imitation of Latin, of course. That's roughly the sense of the corresponding Latin imperative. But the Latin grammarians didn't call it the infinitive to denote the sense of the form, but only to denote that it was seen as the most 'basic' form of the verb, in relation to the others. And 'to can' isn't the simplest form in English, in fact it's not a basic form at all, but a verbal phrase!
Swedish borrowed the same word from Latin but followed the denotation instead of the form, so in Swedish grammars 'kan' is the 'infinitiv' form here. If we adopt that meaning of infinitive, then what we call an infinitive traditionally can be seen as a regular verbal phrase used to denote an activity in abstract, and examined in that light it all makes sense. It's awkward to have 'to can' be ambiguous as to 'putting in a can' or 'knowing how to' and it's obviously better to resolve it by having 'to can' mean 'to put in a can' rather than the opposite, because there aren't many other phrases in general usage that could be substituted in the case of canning, but there ARE many phrases in current using that can denote 'to know (how to.)
"survives in English (no need to visit Sweden) in the word "ken""
Correct, but like shild it's a word I've been informed authoritatively I may not expect the modern reader to know.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday July 27 2018, @07:40PM
canne and can were not both verbs, but both have produce verbs in modern English.
also s/imperative/infinitive
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?