<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Program Podcast: Alphabets and Verbs</title><link>http://www.radio4all.net/program/63411</link><description>Podcast for Program: Alphabets and Verbs</description><lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 06:08:40 +0000</lastBuildDate><ttl>240</ttl><item><title>View from Planet Nancy - Alphabets and Verbs</title><link>http://www.radio4all.net/program/63411</link><description>&amp;quot; Imagine you spoke a language that had only verbs, a language where words like rock, mosquito, and cloud didn&#226;&#128;&#153;t evoke objects that you could draw a boundary around, but instead called to mind the type of action that keeps a rock, a mosquito or a cloud in existence.  If your language was like that, would it give particular qualities to the way you saw the world, qualities English speakers wouldn&#226;&#128;&#153;t be aware of?  That&#226;&#128;&#153;s too big a question, so I tried to answer a smaller one.  What might a kids&#226;&#128;&#153; alphabet book sound like if all the nous were verbs?  ... 

Transcript:  AuthorNancyCasey.com/alphabets-and-verbs/</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nancy Casey</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 06:08:40 +0000</pubDate><enclosure length="9MB" type="audio/mpeg" url="https://www.radio4all.net/files/nancy@turbonet.com/4544-1-VPlanetNancy121005-Fri-Analphabet2Verb.mp3"/></item></channel></rss>