Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Mumsnet classics

Relive the funniest, most unforgettable threads. For a daily dose of Mumsnet’s best bits, sign up for Mumsnet's daily newsletter.

Genuinely interesting stuff you learned at school/university/work

214 replies

MrsHathaway · 25/07/2016 11:26

At a tangent from an otherwise rather tedious thread, some of us started talking about the history of the English language.

I did a paper called something like History and Structure of the English Language at university and honestly it didn't feel at all like work. The complicated bits have faded into the dusty corners of my brain, but some interesting snippets have remained within easy grasp.

For example, you can see a lot of the geopolitical history of the British Isles in what we now call English. Very basic words like low numbers (two, three) and natural features (sun, land, water) have their roots in our very earliest history and have scarcely changed since the Stone Age. They're also very similar to their equivalents in languages local at the time - northern European languages like Swedish, German, etc.

Place names come in odd clumps too - there are areas in eg Yorkshire and the Highlands which have very Norse names, and often there will be a geographical boundary between Norse place names and Anglo Saxon place names, such as a wide river or mountain ridge.

French came next, with the Normans in the eleventh century. A lot of our food words come from that period, including beef, pork, salmon, etc.

As English eyes looked further and further overseas we started adding more exotic ingredients to our kitchens and words to our vocabularies. Tomatoes, chocolate!

ANYWAY

We're often told that we won't use 90% of what we learn at school or even university, although we don't know which 90%. But I think it's almost always worth learning stuff for its own sake, if only because it's mildly interesting for one day or breaks the ice at one party where you happen to meet your soul mate.

So go on, what snippets have you retained from your years of formal education that are genuinely interesting in their own right? Can be a tiny thing or a major complicated theory, but it must be interesting - at least interesting enough for us to say "well, fancy that".

I'll leave you with this: in Japanese there was no word for "thank you". There were lots of ways of expressing gratitude, but no single expression in the European way. Then the Portuguese came, and suddenly the Japanese were trading with them. They used lots of hand gestures and gradually a kind of pidgin developed to allow them to communicate until there were enough on each side speaking the other's language. But one legacy from that time and that pidgin is a single-word "thank you" in Japanese: arigato. Which you'll notice is remarkably similar to the Portuguese obrigado.

OP posts:
sluj · 26/07/2016 13:49

Two useless things I remember

  1. Muswell Hill in London was the furthest south the glaciers got, pushing the earth before them and creating a huge hill. I often imagine myself sliding down the front of a glacier when I am there 🤔

2 . Might need some clarification on this one, it's been a while since my English degree. The anglo saxon word for husband was hlafdigge = loaf digger = bread winner=husband. Ar least that what I was told. Had a particularly eccentric tutor at the time though who could have made it all up !

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 14:01

sluj - I can find the following, which fits with your half-memory.

"Lord" derives from "hlaef-weard" meaning loaf-guard, parallels with bread winner.

"Lady" derives from "hlaef-digge" meaning loaf-kneader.

She makes it, he stands guard. There's a metaphor for life there somewhere.

On a similar vein, "bridegroom": the groom bit comes from early "guma" simply meaning man. All the parties (-maids, -groom) are defined by their relationship to the bride, in her role as sacrificial offering

OP posts:
omri · 26/07/2016 14:07

Love this thread. Will have to think about what I can add to but a quick one is based on the Irish language (Gaelic).
So black people in the Irish language are described as "daoine gorma" literal translation is "blue people". The reason being that when ancient celts first met black people (probably on trade missions from North Africa) all those thousands of years ago they assumed their blood must be a dark blue colour to make their skin show a different colour!

DadDadDad · 26/07/2016 14:55

I agree with those questioning your explanation, Gertrude.

While the Monty Hall scenario is well known and you are totally right that it is better to switch, that is because MH knows which door has the prize behind so will knowingly reveal a goat. In Deal or No Deal, I believe no-one knows what is in the boxes, so no information is revealed by the offer to switch, and it is 50:50 whether your box or the one you switch to will have the higher prize.

GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 17:08

Not true DadDadDad. MH knows, but the contestant doesn't. The contestant doesn't have any new information, because Monty ALWAYS opens a door with a goat. If it was up to the contestant (rather than Monty) to eliminate a second door at random and they chose a goat, and were then offered to stick with their first choice or switch to the remaining door , then the probabilities would remain as 1/3 and 2/3 as the contestant would have no further information about what's in either box. Thos extrapolates to the Deal scenario I mentioned, doesn't it? The probability you picked the top prize initially is always small, meaning the probability of it being in the remaining other box (obviously assuming it hasn't yet been eliminated) is much bigger. It can't be 50:50, unless they are two completely new boxes and you are asked to just pick one.

GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 17:15

Interestingly I did a talk on MH and half the room (of maths/stats types) didn't believe it was anything other than 50/50. You can do a simple simulation of it though and see how often you win if you stick or switch. It used to be my party trick (sad but true)..

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 17:25

I did a lot of Statistics and know that what feels true and what's statistically true can be very different.

In the MH problem you have the additional emotional layer of choosing. Language like giving up your door, choosing a door ... These things make a difference to our emotional understanding of the situation. Add the absurdity of the goat and the desirability of the car too, not to mention the murmurs of the studio audience and the faux jeopardy of the overpainted host.

Like if I have ten pairs each of red and blue socks and put my hand in drawer at random, I need to pull out 22 socks to be statistically sure of a blue pair ... whereas in real life we say "right, fuck this, I'll wear fucking red then" or pull out six of the DCs' Thomas the Tank Engine socks before even a red one.

If you throw heads ten times in a row then statistically your chances of throwing another ten are still 50/50 but they don't feel like it.

OP posts:
GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 17:29

Or lottery numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 being equally likely to win as 3 12 24 29 37 41.

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 17:36

Indeed! Though the latter has a better projected return (same headline prize shared amongst fewer people).

OP posts:
Arkengarthdale · 26/07/2016 17:46

This is fascinating!

DadDadDad · 26/07/2016 20:21

Gertrude - you don't have to convince me about MH, I've done the simulation and modeling myself. But I'm still not convinced that it translates to DOND. MH knows what's behind the door and the fact that he cannot open the prize door does introduce further information that changes the symmetry.

As I understand it, in DOND, nobody knows what's in each box, so the offer to swap does not change the symmetry. Try doing a sim and see how it goes.

iklboo · 26/07/2016 20:30

I love the Misis Kwin one. I remember my dad telling me that one. Bet it went down well Grin

SillySausage1 · 26/07/2016 22:18

A few from the psychology world.....

Brain studies using fMRI have revealed a very small part of the brain that responds when the person has used marijuana but doesn't seem to have any other function at other times. It just lies dormant until marijuana is involved....now it doesn't mean it doesn't get used at other times, merely that scientists haven't worked out what else it does. But it does raise the question about what marijuana has/does that affects it like nothing else.

A well know one (but I still like it)....There is a part of the brain (called the Pons) which paralyses us when in REM sleep to stop us acting out our dreams. If you remove it, we become very active when dreaming (they did the experiment on cats).

Our short term memory can hold 7 items at once (e.g 7 numbers if trying to recall them straight after hearing them). Some people can stretch to 8 or 9 items but very very rarely more. It's called Millers magic number. Also our short term memory for this sort of thing lasts around 15 seconds (assuming you are not rehearsing the info in your mind).

A hugely exciting area of neuroscience is called 'mirror neurons'. Basically it was discovered by accident that parts of the brain are activated not only if we do an action, but also if we watch someone else do the action (i.e our brain almost responds the same way as if it is practising the action in the head without us realising). This is likely to be the basis of many forms of learning and communication, including empathy and understanding others.

GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 22:24

But DadDadDad, the prior probabilities in MH don't change. They aren't affected by any new knowledge as far as I can see. It's 1/3 if you stick and 2/3 if you switch. 1/3 comes from your original choice of one of three doors. The point is that Monty opening one of the doors does not change the probability that you chose the door with the car, which is still 1/3, and therefore switching gives you 2/3. Sames for DOND...though they don't always follow the simple format as the banker can mix things up...But in a simple game, if the probability you picked the £250K is 1/20, what changes that probability as boxes are eliminated? I don't see that anything does. There's no new information as to which box contains the 250k.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself. Anyhow, if I ever appear on DOND and am faced with two boxes one of which contains the biggy, I'll be swapping.

JinRamen · 26/07/2016 22:47

Haven't read thread, but it sounds interesting! At work so really marking place with a theory I heard at uni.

Apparently the kiwis have the 'flattest' accent in the world, with no ' on their vowels (which is apparently where accents come from iykwim, not just that they have the symbols above them but it is the difference in how we say the vowels. ) anyway, as you move around the world ala the time zones, the accent gets less flat. Until you get to America which is the least flat. (Can't think of the words as I am at work so doing this between customers) and apparently we are trending toward flatter vowels the world over so we will eventually all end up sounding like we come from New Zealand! This is what I was told, would love to know if there is any truth to it!

NotDavidTennant · 26/07/2016 22:50

MH is designed so that the contestant always has a choice between a car and a goat at the end.

In DOND if the game was that all the lower prizes were eliminated and you could guarantee that one of the two boxes left at the end had the top prize, then it would be equivalent to MH and you would swap.

But what you're ignoring is that the boxes are opened by chance and in 9/10 games the top prize is eliminated before the final two. Therefore, there is only a 1/10 chance that the top prize is in the last two boxes. There was a 1/20 chance the you picked the top prize in the first place, so the chance that the top prize is in the second to last box is 1/10 - 1/20 = 1/20. Therefore the odds are equal between sticking and swapping.

QueenofLouisiana · 26/07/2016 23:01

So many linguisticians! I didn't realise there were so many of us on MN.

I was fascinated by the dialectic continuum in place across Europe. I loved the idea the people who official spoke different languages could understand each other as the local variations were so similar.

I used to wonder about child language acquisition. If you brought up a child telling it the blue was called green (for instance)- it is simply another shade of green (as in navy and sky are both shades of blue). Would they ever know any different? How long would that take? Would they continue to consider if as green?

I think I got thinking about that while contemplating the work on Carrie.

Dontlaugh · 26/07/2016 23:19

Wow, great thread. I can tell you red blood cells live for 120 days.
Also, I was fascinated by the theory of reciprocity whilst I studied sociology at uni. Sometimes referred to as the theory of social exchange. The reciprocity was more old
School and focused on sexual relations; the University jock going out the the impoverished but stunning female student etc. It wasn't a bit pc, I still ponder on it though!

LadyCallandraDaviot · 26/07/2016 23:20

"Mythbusters" covered that MH problem (seems funny using MH in this context, it always means Mental Health to me...)

One fact I like, which is kind of obvious, but kind of obscure at the same time, is that the water in the world is the same water that has always been there - so dinosaurs drank your cup of tea, and/or it was part of a glacier, and/or the Indian Ocean etc etc

GertrudeMoo · 26/07/2016 23:24

NotDavidTennant, you don't have to guarantee it happening for it to have a certain probability. I was talking about the probability in the specific situation whereby all boxes are eliminated apart from the one you initially chose and one other, with top prize still in play.
I don't see any logic in your last paragraph at all, but it's 11:26pm!

MrsHathaway · 26/07/2016 23:31

Not all languages express all things the same way.

For example, English distinguishes between red and pink; Russian distinguishes between blue and light blue. An English native speaker sees a difference between red and pink and gets twitchy if the wrong word is used; so too a Russian faced with a light blue "blue".

However, when looking at basic colours, all languages follow the same pattern. If you only distinguish one colour other than dark and light, it's red. Then blue and green. And so on. Early English didn't bother distinguishing a great deal further than that because really you're looking at mud, sky, plants and blood and your life doesn't vary much beyond that. Foxes and hair are "red" in English because we called them red long before we had a word for orange.

In English we count cows and measure milk (a cow, many cows; some milk, more milk) but in other languages it's the other way round. And if you offer a Spot The Difference to people of different native languages, changes in quantity will be spotted at different rates depending on whether they mentally count them or just measure them.

Languages only develop counting once the civilisation trades with outsiders.

Your philosophy frames your language, but your language also frames your philosophy.

Do the English have such a problem with gender politics because our linguistic gender is so tied to genitals? Do languages with less-sexual gender allow people more freedom to describe humans ungenderedly? If a table can be "she" why not a person with a penis?

That's the paper I wanted to do. But the lecturer died and it's so specialised they couldn't replace her. What a loss to the university and the world.

OP posts:
JinRamen · 26/07/2016 23:49

Can someone work through the numbers of the mh and dond problems please?

DropYourSword · 27/07/2016 00:06

The MH one I can explain. If you pick a box there's a 1/3 chance of picking the car, therefore there's 2/3 chance it's not your box. Because the host then has to remove one of the boxes with a goat in, he HAS to remove the only goat that's there if the car is the second box. Therefore once the host has been removed the remaining box MUST contain the car 2/3 of the time. Therefore you'd be better to then swap. Obviously in the 1/3 chance that you actually picked the car then the host can remove either of the goats and if you swap you'd lose the car. BUT, statistically of you swap you are more likely to get the car.

However, I disagree that it works the same in DOND. Because a step is removed...the host DOESN'T remove a box and therefore it's all just chance. I don't agree with Gertrude, BUT I'm not a mathematician so would be happy for someone to explain if I'm wrong.

apatheticfallacy · 27/07/2016 00:13

Great thread!

Remember the biblical sorry of how David killed the giant Goliath with one stone?

There's a theory that Goliath had a pituitary tumour causing an abnormal amount of growth hormone to be released. After puberty this causes what we call acromegaly (literally large tips - the hands/feet/wars/jaw) but if it occurs before your skeleton has fully fused then it causes gigantism. Looking at the bible in depth it seems like giliaths family had similar and associated traits suggesting an autosominal dominant pattern. You don't see 'Giants' nowadays because we treat them - there are many associates health problems - but you can see a real skeleton of one in the Huntarian museum if you like.

What makes it more interesting is that the pituitary gland is seated directly below the optic chiasm - the point at which the nerve fibres from ranch of your eyes meet and half cross over to enter both halves of your brain. A pituitary tumour that may cause gigantism may also press on the crossing of these nerves causing a bi-temporal hemianiopia. That is to say a blindness that affects your peripheral vision on each side.

This kind of familial tumour would explain goliath's stature and also account for him not noticing a stone from a sling hurtling towards him from the side.

apatheticfallacy · 27/07/2016 00:16

Please forgive the autocorrect!