|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 10, 2013 6:57:49 GMT
The Angels that were the hands of god, the one that WAS his left hand was cast out of Heaven and became the Devil.... therefore the left hand is evil.... I know, it sound very stupid, but we cant account for religion.
And NO ONE expects the Spanish inquisition.
I also believe this is in many books of religion, not just christian.
The original Bible was Latin.
It was considered bad form to have a book that important translated to common language.
It was an act of Heresy to translate any part of it into common language...
Until someone did, and since then, the Bible has become the most printed book EVER in the English language....
The reason Latin is so important in the English?..
Most of our important books were written in Latin, and anything Latin is considered to be important, because it is Latin, so anything important is written in Latin to bestow importance upon it........
I know, looking at it, if you want to record something important in words write it in a language neither you or the eventual reader understand fully.... when you look at it like that, its kinda Stupid?...
But then again, this was the UK's Class system.
No one of "Common" class would be educated in Latin, so if you wanted to write something to be kept secret from commoners, write it in Latin....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 10, 2013 10:25:08 GMT
in heraldry, a "bend sinister" (a diagonal from left to right) denoted a person of irregular parentage - and they were often considered to be unsavory sorts of people in stories and such - which is the origin of referring to unsavory people as sinister. the arabic world has a much more direct issue with lefties - it is common practice to use the right hand for sanitary pursuits, like eating, and the left for unsanitary pursuits, like cleaning after the natural conclusion of eating. Here is an article on Muslim "left hand" and bathroom practices and the author is a left handed Muslim. ArticleI think with that explanation, many males can understand the reasoning... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 10, 2013 13:54:57 GMT
The New Testament maybe, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek.
Ironically the Bible would have been originally translated into Latin because it was a 'common' language - most Roman's seem to have been at least semi-literate judging from the number of books they could buy for personal entertainment.
The reason that Latin and Greek became (or remained) the language of the learned was simply because those books that survived the dark ages were written in those languages. Local languages - such as English and French - either didn't have a written form, or didn't have a fixed written form - who anyone who's tried to read anything written in 'English' prior to the latter part of the 19th century can attest to. Medicine, for example, was based almost entirely on Greek and Latin works for some 2000 years, as were 'science' books. So if you wanted (or were forced to) study anything you'd need to learn Latin and Greek first.
Since Latin was a 'fixed' language it became the language of 'Knowledge', as anyone in Europe who had any form of formal schooling would have known it and therefore could swap books written in other countries without any need to translate them first - especially important before books were printed and were being copied out by hand.
I suspect that the original worry about translating the Bible into other languages was the not unreasonable concern that something would get mistranslated. As I said most European languages were not as 'fixed' as Latin, and given how even today with more or less fixed languages we can badly screw up translating languages, this is very understandable.
In the case of the Catholic church Latin stuck around because all the priests needed to know and be able to speak it. So it became very useful as the universal language of the church.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 10, 2013 14:50:49 GMT
and much of the texts that became the new testament were written in Greek, because THAT was the common language of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 10, 2013 22:56:16 GMT
in heraldry, a "bend sinister" (a diagonal from left to right) denoted a person of irregular parentage - and they were often considered to be unsavory sorts of people in stories and such - which is the origin of referring to unsavory people as sinister. the arabic world has a much more direct issue with lefties - it is common practice to use the right hand for sanitary pursuits, like eating, and the left for unsanitary pursuits, like cleaning after the natural conclusion of eating. Here is an article on Muslim "left hand" and bathroom practices and the author is a left handed Muslim. ArticleCool article  Well written and a little funny, yet still informative. Thanks for that |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Aug 11, 2013 7:52:25 GMT
The word Sinister has its origins in left handed. [Edit, it originally MEANT left handed, but now has had its meaning changed... SD, the day after, for clarity sake...]Going back into myth and legend, left handed people were viewed as "In league with the devil", and being left handed was at one point evidence enough to prove you were a witch. and warlocks to the men witches out there as well... Therefore, the main reason that there are less left handed people than right in recent history is because of persecution. (Recent, last millennium etc...) Therefore, in conclusion, surviving left handers either were VERY good at hiding it, or more often indispensable to the community... Its a survivalist thing... So, are there less stupid left handers?... quite possibly yes... you have to have some form of intelligence to work left handed in a world populated by right handed can openers.... Certainly left handers in history either learnt to adapt or died. I would have been fully ambidextrous if it were not for persecution and punishment by teachers who DEMANDED that "You wrote with your right" Some of he "Myths" that are covered above are partly based on a questionable form of racism.... Suggestion, In belief that supremacy comes from fault of the underclass, the "Faults" found with being left handed were perpetrated by people needing reason to persecute left handers....?... Plausible?.... Both my Mother & sister are left handed by nature (& by an odd coincidence dyslexic) & they are both ambidextrous because of this ‘Left Handed People Are Agents Of Evil’ belief. Both of them had their ‘bad habit’ beaten out of them by teachers at school - back in the ‘good old days’ when teachers were allowed to do this kinda thing. Now days if a child shows a preference for being left handed teachers are NOT allowed to correct them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 26, 2013 14:08:09 GMT
OK, we seem to have a list of left-handed myths now we just need to figure out which would be suitable for the show. Lets trim the existing myths (and add one I picked up from another site; www.lefthandersday.com/tour6.html ) "Left-handers adjust more readily to seeing underwater."Thoughts; Testable I guess, but a lot of hassle even with a fairly small group - they would need a couple of left and right handers to test this to compensate for variations in individuals eyesight. *Muses* Maybe they could modify swimming goggles or a diving mask so that it will cover the eyes with water and give the test subjects an eye test, or see how long it takes them to correctly identify an image? Something like an instruction (say, waggle your left index finger) that is printed in one colour against a similar coloured background?"Left-handed people are generally high achievers because their brains are wired to widen their abilities."
Thoughts; A 'free' myth here. Since they would need to bring in two groups of equal numbers of left and right handed victims volunteers they could simply ask each of them how much money they earn and see if one of the two groups is earning more on average than the other. "They have a higher level of creativity."/"Most left-handers, when drawing figures face them to the right."Thoughts; Being creative does not automatically mean one can in fact draw - although it might be interesting to get left and right handers to draw a figure and seeing if the left handers really do tend to face figures to the right. They could also see if one of the two groups is better at drawing than the other - eliminating anyone who draws for a living - although I suspect that you'd need a FAR larger group that MB could manage to come to any viable conclusions.
Maybe they could concoct a test that requires a degree of creativity to solve, and compare the time needed and degree of success of both groups to see if the left handers have and advantage?
"Many left-handers generally end up in architectural fields because of their higher level of spatial perception."
Thoughts; Giving both groups a task or test that requires spatial perception seems the logical way to go. Possibly a navigation test of some sort. *Muses* navigating around a course while blind folded or in the dark might be a way to do this. Say make a large room filled with obstacles, give the subjects a minute or two to memorise the layout then turn out the lights and see which group can get out of the room in the shortest time and walking into the least number of obstacles."Left handers have better/neater handwriting"Thoughts; Get the left and right handers to write the exact same sentence, then bring in some judges to mark the quality of the writing. Compare the scores given to the left and right handed subjects to see if there is any significant difference.
This test would be best done using a stylus to remove the possibility of smudges caused by left handers moving their hands over the ink as they write.
"Left handers are more clumsy than right handers"/"Left handers are better at (some) sports/more coordinated"Thoughts; The logic given for this is that left handers are usually forced to use equipment designed for right handers. So logically if you gave right handers equipment designed for use by left handers you should see 'clumsiness' from that group - probably not equal as left handers are likely to have more experience in using off hand equipment.
Maybe a good way to test both of these ideas would be with the 'whacking machine' they've used to test reaction times in other shows. Get the test subjects to play three games on the machine and average the results (this is to allow them to get used to the way it works). Then have the subjects run the same test again but using their off hand and compare the results.
If left handers are 'better' at sports or more coordinated we would expect them to have a higher average score using their off hand than the right handers.
If they created special grips for the hammer, one for use in the right hand and the other for use in the left, then they could repeat the test to see if any reported 'clumsiness' is down to using equipment designed for the other hand. In both cases we'd expect the average scores to fall, but the amount they fall by should be more or less equal. (We have to look at the amount the score falls by rather than the relative totals as left handers would be somewhat more used to using items designed for the other hand...hopefully that made sense) |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Sept 17, 2013 3:59:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 17, 2013 7:50:21 GMT
{Plus CM's thoughts}
This is a new one to me?....
I have no problems "seeing" underwater... ok, so it takes a few secs for your eyes to adjust being wet, but after that?...
Do people have problems?...
I have never actually had to consider this.
Some of my family do have problems with [over?] chlorinated swimming pools...
It dont half make your eyes itch afterwards...
But I use Optrex and do an eye wash when I get home to help with that.
|
|
Well written and a little funny, yet still informative.
