Toothless sabercat.

It's United Nations Day. Did you remember to send your loved ones a strongly worded letter?

A day or so late, but ah well.

In fact, the road to hell.

There are jackhammers going outside my apartment.

It's midnight.

Seriously, people, this is not the road to the future.

edit: I had originally written, "road to civilization", but I think that's inaccurate.

Evolutionary laws in language

From a press release from MIT:

Predicting the future of the past tense
Mathematicians apply evolutionary models to language

October 15, 2007

Verbs evolve and homogenize at a rate inversely proportional to their prevalence in the English language, according to a formula developed by MIT and Harvard University mathematicians who've invoked evolutionary principles to study our language over the past 1,200 years.

The team, which reported their findings in the Oct. 11 issue of Nature, conceives of linguistic development as an essentially evolutionary scheme. Just as genes and organisms undergo natural selection, words--specifically, irregular verbs that do not take an "-ed" ending in the past tense--are subject to powerful pressure to "regularize" as the language develops.

"Mathematical analysis of this linguistic evolution reveals that irregular verb conjugations behave in an extremely regular way - one that can yield predictions and insights into the future stages of a verb's evolutionary trajectory," says Erez Lieberman, a graduate student in the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology and in Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. "We measured something no one really thought could be measured, and got a striking and beautiful result."

"We're really on the front lines of developing the mathematical tools to study evolutionary dynamics," says Jean-Baptiste Michel, a graduate student at Harvard Medical School. "Before, language was considered too messy and difficult a system for mathematical study, but now we're able to successfully quantify an aspect of how language changes and develops."

Lieberman, Michel, and colleagues built upon previous study of seven competing rules for verb conjugation in Old English, six of which have gradually faded from use over time. They found that the one surviving rule, which adds an "-ed" suffix to simple past and past-participle forms, contributes to the evolutionary decay of irregular English verbs according to a specific mathematical function: It regularizes them at a rate that is inversely proportional to the square root of their usage frequency.

In other words, a verb used 100 times less frequently will evolve 10 times as fast.

To develop this formula, the researchers tracked the status of 177 irregular verbs in Old English through linguistic changes in Middle English and then modern English. Of these 177 verbs that were irregular 1,200 years ago, 145 stayed irregular in Middle English and just 98 remain irregular today, following the regularization over the centuries of such verbs as help, laugh, reach, walk, and work.

The group computed the "half-lives" of the surviving irregular verbs to predict how long they will take to regularize. The most common ones, such as "be" and "think," have such long half-lives (38,800 years and 14,400 years, respectively) that they will effectively never become regular. Irregular verbs with lower frequencies of use--such as "shrive" and "smite," with half-lives of 300 and 700 years, respectively - are much more likely to succumb to regularization.

They project that the next word to regularize will likely be "wed."

"Now may be your last chance to be a 'newly wed'," they quip in the Nature paper. "The married couples of the future can only hope for 'wedded' bliss."

Extant irregular verbs represent the vestiges of long-abandoned rules of conjugation; new verbs entering English, such as "google," are universally regular. Although fewer than 3 percent of modern English verbs are irregular, this number includes the 10 most common verbs: be, have, do, go, say, can, will, see, take, and get. The researchers expect that some 15 of the 98 modern irregular verbs they studied--although likely none of these top 10--will regularize in the next 500 years.

Their Nature paper makes a quantitative, astonishingly precise description of something linguists have suspected for a long time: The most frequently used irregular verbs are repeated so often that they are unlikely to ever go extinct.

"Irregular verbs are fossils that reveal how linguistic rules, and perhaps social rules, are born and die," Michel says.

"If you apply the right mathematical structure to your data, you find that the math also organizes your thinking about the entire process," says Lieberman, whose unorthodox projects as a graduate student have ranged from genomics to bioastronautics. "The data hasn't changed, but suddenly you're able to make powerful predictions about the future."

Lieberman and Michel's co-authors on the Nature paper are from Harvard. The work was sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

----

It's interesting to me that the selection that occurs here for for simplicity. In nature, natural selection in higher organisms tends towards more complex beings. Those that have extra genes and an efficient way of controlling them do pretty well. The energy expended in copying the genes when cells divide is the only wastage, but when the gene is needed it turns on and saves the day. In simpler organisms, like E. coli, the process of replicating that DNA is the most energy intensive thing the organism will ever do, and there's a tendency towards brevity of genomic information.

Language is one of modern humans' most fundamental, energy intensive endeavors. We talk all of the time, and write and read when we're not talking. We tend towards simplicity of language because it's easier, it takes less work. Txt msg spk makes sense for someone with more information to convey and process than time or intelligence to do so. So as our language evolves it cuts out the extra steps, the extra rules, the extra genes, tending towards homogeneity rather than diversity. In nature, this only works in quickly multiplying, highly mutable life forms- organisms that die quickly in the best of situations and whose offspring may be very different from themselves. If you're a species like a mammal and you're non-diverse then you're extremely vulnerable to shocks.

I'm not sure whether a language can be vulnerable to environmental changes- there's no such thing as a temperature spike or a food shortage in literature. Maybe a simple language is a language that is more quickly taken up by others, and a virus analogy would be better. A successful virus, or parasite of any kind, often doesn't harm its host in an evident way. It piggybacks on the organism's processes, but might not drain enough energy to do real harm. These viruses multiply easily and spread from host to host without burning their homes down. Maybe a successful language is one that infects a host without putting undue demands on its system.

Extinguishing the light at the end of the tunnel, 2

From an email from my father:

I had actually just read your post about the subway fare reduction and crowding. Sounds frustrating. Of course, if they want to get people out of the cars, they should leave subway fares alone, and charge a fee for cars to enter the city. This city-wide congestion pricing was successfully pioneered in London, which currently has a 8-pound/day fee.

Vehicles license plates are monitored by camera- there are no tollbooths, tickets or tokens. Payment made at various stores throughout the city is "self-enforced," but non-payment within 48 hours leads to a 150-pound charge.

You probably heard of this, but the details and success measures are interesting.

Alternatively, they could follow your suggestion but have "First Class" subway cars rather than a universal far increase (this is akin to a high-speed toll lane on the highway, now being implemented in some US cities).

Counterfeit $2.64 bills

When I tried to pay for my lunch on Saturday, the restaurant I frequent wouldn't take the 20RMB ($2.64) note I handed them. Actually, I didn't even finish handing the bill over before they rejected it; it was a pretty obvious counterfeit. I had gotten the bill the night before while out at a fancy lounge. The lounge has two girls sitting at a desk with a UV lamp and a bright visible spectrum lamp checking incoming bills, so it's not really possible that the money I was given in change came from the till by accident. Somewhere between the till and my hands the fake 20 had to have been switched in and the real one pocketed, so that means it was probably the waitress. It was dark and I was drinking, and I don't usually check bills under 50RMB anyway, even though they apparently even make fake 5RMB notes. Fortunately I had enough coins and small bills at the restaurant to pay for lunch, otherwise I would have had to go to a bank and come back. They know me there, so it probably would have been fine, but it was irritating.

I've decided to keep the counterfeit note rather than to try to just spend it. The typical attitude towards a fake bill here is one of annoyance. It's not usually a real loss, you just have to keep trying to pass it until someone takes it, then it's their problem.

I had hoped to write something here about statistics on counterfeiting in China versus the rest of the world, but no one seems to have the numbers. There are reports in newspapers of huge sting operations seizing millions of dollars worth of fake Chinese currency, but that's all released by the Chinese government in official Chinese government-owned newspapers, and there doesn't seem to be anything recently. The general consensus on the street is that with the rise of cheap printing technology, counterfeiting is worse here than ever.

Extinguishing the light at the end of the tunnel

Last week, after returning to Beijing from my vacation (chronicled here in pictures, but perhaps never to be typed up in the blog), I was ecstatic to discover that in addition to opening a new subway line, the price of tickets had actually been lowered, from 3RMB to 2. I was gleeful, to say the least.

My glee was poorly thought out, as such emotions tend to be. In addition to the new line servicing its own area, it brought a huge increase to the number of people transferring to and riding the 2 existing lines. A China Daily article quotes city officials who say that the passenger volume has increased by 46% since the opening of the new line, "an immediate positive impact." Of course this increase in passenger load has made morning commutes almost unbearable, and even Sunday afternoon rides unpalatable.

The city announced earlier in the year that it will bring 264 new subway cars into service and cut waiting times for every line in order to make public transit more comfortable and appealing. They also seem to recognize that more lines are needed to make the subway a good choice for most commuters. They plan 4 more lines by 2010, bringing the total to 7, and a total of 19 lines covering 560 km by 2020, making the network the largest in the world. Of course, reducing the fare by 33% means reducing their revenues by nearly the same amount, costing the government an estimated $130 million a year on top of existing subsidies.

Meanwhile, as long as the experience underground is miserable and crowded, more people will be driven towards the great Chinese dream of the decade- car ownership. People who can afford a car are not going to be won over by a 1RMB price decrease. Cars are partly status symbols, but they're also (delusionally) perceived as convenient and comfortable compared to other forms of transportation in the city. To paraphrase a poster in a Beijing expat message board commenting on the price drop, the city won't persuade a single driver to switch over, they lost a third of their revenue, and they made the subway a living hell. Brilliant.

I'm also going to steal a potential solution from that same forum thread and expand on it a little. Don't decrease the fare, increase it. Make it 10RMB a ride, a 400% increase from the new price, and a luxury experience. Provide a hot cup of soy milk and a fried dough stick in the morning, an evening paper on the way home, and make the ride comfortable. If they want to reduce pollution and improve traffic they need to bring rich people down out of their cars, not take poor people off of their bikes and out of the buses. It shouldn't be too hard a sell. Drivers sit in traffic that's getting worse by the day. Surely reading a newspaper in an air conditioned, well-appointed subway carriage as they're whisked to work is a better solution. The poor people were doing fine with their buses and their bikes until the cars arrived and tangled up traffic. A huge price increase doesn't seem to be helping the poor people, but I think in the grand scheme it is.

Catching up with life

Well, I never got around to typing up the rest of my Thailand trip. I threw all of my remaining pictures from the vacation together on the new photo page, here, so you can check them out.