WWS on sale
Peter T. Daniels
discount until January 15, 2010, at www.oup.com/us/holidaysale
Harlan Messinger
> *The World's Writing Systems* is offered at a very considerable
> discount until January 15, 2010, at www.oup.com/us/holidaysale
It's $185 and out of stock. Amazon has it new from $84.99 all the way up
to $444.12 at some outfit called Oak Book.
Peter T. Daniels
I am looking at the 2009 Holiday Sale catalog, which came in the mail
yesterday. That's the url it gives for the sale price of $64.75.
Peter T. Daniels
If you "add to cart," it calculates the discount price.
Apparently they've been selling it p.o.d. for years, so the endpapers
are black not blue.
Harlan Messinger
Oh. Then even on the "65% Discounts" page, they're showing only the
*full* price.
Peter T. Daniels
I'm sure that if you or I or any sensible person had designed the web
page, we would have done it differently. But if you Add it to your
Cart, it gives you the correct discount.
Ekkehard Dengler
> *The World's Writing Systems* is offered at a very considerable
> discount until January 15, 2010, at www.oup.com/us/holidaysale
What makes you think it's okay to use a newsgroup to promote your own
products?
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
The discussion here a few months ago about how very expensive it is,
and how people have been unable to find the discounted price that is
offered every so often.
I followed the protocol observed on nonprofit discussion lists of not
mentioning the price.
Richard Herring
<ED...@t-online.de> writes
The fact that it's on topic? Would the same posting have been "okay" if
someone not called Daniels or Bright had made it?
I was delighted to acquire a copy for $50 by this route some years ago,
when OUP UK were still selling it for ~�200.
--
Richard Herring
Ekkehard Dengler
> In message <he35qu$644$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Ekkehard Dengler
> <ED...@t-online.de> writes
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> *The World's Writing Systems* is offered at a very considerable
>>> discount until January 15, 2010, at www.oup.com/us/holidaysale
>>
>> What makes you think it's okay to use a newsgroup to promote your own
>> products?
>>
>
> The fact that it's on topic?
While the content of the book would certainly be on topic, I don't think its
price is.
> Would the same posting have been "okay"
> if someone not called Daniels or Bright had made it?
I think not. Although some of the regular contributors to this group have
written or co-written books on linguistic subjects or offer language-related
services, I've never seen anybody use this group for promotion purposes.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
> > <ED...@t-online.de> writes
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> *The World's Writing Systems* is offered at a very considerable
> >>> discount until January 15, 2010, atwww.oup.com/us/holidaysale
>
> >> What makes you think it's okay to use a newsgroup to promote your own
> >> products?
>
> > The fact that it's on topic?
>
> While the content of the book would certainly be on topic, I don't think its
> price is.
And the price, as I already pointed out, was not mentioned.
> > Would the same posting have been "okay"
> > if someone not called Daniels or Bright had made it?
>
> I think not. Although some of the regular contributors to this group have
> written or co-written books on linguistic subjects or offer language-related
> services, I've never seen anybody use this group for promotion purposes.
So you're unfamiliar with newsgroups generally?
Richard Herring
<1a3d562e-da9b-4001...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes
It's a non-sequitur anyway. I asked about not-black swans, not black
not-swans ;-)
--
Richard Herring
Nathan Sanders
Ditto. I appreciated the heads up back then, and I see no problem
with it being posted.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Ekkehard Dengler
And my answer was "I think not".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Nov 19, 8:05 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Richard Herring wrote:
>>> In message <he35qu$644$0...@news.t-online.com>, Ekkehard Dengler
>>> <ED...@t-online.de> writes
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> *The World's Writing Systems* is offered at a very considerable
>>>>> discount until January 15, 2010, atwww.oup.com/us/holidaysale
>>
>>>> What makes you think it's okay to use a newsgroup to promote your
>>>> own products?
>>
>>> The fact that it's on topic?
>>
>> While the content of the book would certainly be on topic, I don't
>> think its price is.
>
> And the price, as I already pointed out, was not mentioned.
You can't be serious.
>>> Would the same posting have been "okay"
>>> if someone not called Daniels or Bright had made it?
>>
>> I think not. Although some of the regular contributors to this group
>> have written or co-written books on linguistic subjects or offer
>> language-related services, I've never seen anybody use this group
>> for promotion purposes.
>
> So you're unfamiliar with newsgroups generally?
No, and I'm not unfamiliar with spam either.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Yusuf B Gursey
> *The World's Writing Systems* is offered at a very considerable
> discount until January 15, 2010, atwww.oup.com/us/holidaysale
one has to click on "Language" at which point the URL becomes:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/28202/subject/Language/?view=usa
thanks.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
I had the same experience a couple of years ago. I don't remember how
much I paid, but it was around the price you mention.
As a general principle I agree that one should be cautious about
promoting one's own products on a news group, but in this instance I
found it perfectly justified,
1. because the product is closely related to the group;
2. because the normal price is very high for most individual readers;
3. because the question of the high price has indeed been discussed here;
4. because I was very glad to have benefitted from a previous
announcement by Peter of a similar discount offer.
Finally (speculating) I imagine that by now Peter has received most of
the royalties he was expecting on this book and that personal gain was
the least of his motives in mentioning it now.
--
athel
António Marques
5. (Speculating) whatever drove Peter to edit (this is not the word, is
it, though maybe co-edit does the trick?) WWS was never personal gain in
the first place.
6. A 'promotion' is pushing a product to otherwise uninterested buyers.
Here it's the reverse, pointing possibly interested people to an
accessible offer of an otherwise hard to get product.
Though I can see how someone with something to sell that no one cares to
buy may be miffed that others can do what in their view is geting away
with something they wouldn't be able to. (Parse that, Ron!)
Peter T. Daniels
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote, on 20-11-2009 17:03:
> > On 2009-11-19 13:17:25 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> said:
Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought of
the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I really
liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
(He heard of me because his wife, Lise Menn, collaborated on a book
with a good friend of mine, with whom I wrote a report on the 1990
Toronto International Congress of Asian and North African Studies,
which he saw. His letter began, "Permit me to introduce myself. I am
an anthropological linguist ..." -- and this from the gentleman who
had been the editor of Language for nearly 20 years, who had nearly
singlehandedly shaped the discipline of sociolinguistics, and who made
major contributions to both North American and Dravidian studies.)
> 6. A 'promotion' is pushing a product to otherwise uninterested buyers.
> Here it's the reverse, pointing possibly interested people to an
> accessible offer of an otherwise hard to get product.
>
> Though I can see how someone with something to sell that no one cares to
> buy may be miffed that others can do what in their view is geting away
> with something they wouldn't be able to. (Parse that, Ron!)-
I don't think Ekkehard is in that position.
Joachim Pense
>
> Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought of
> the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I really
> liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
>
This idiomatic use of "how" looks interesting to me. I would rather have
expected "that", because the exception is probably not about the way how
the writing systems are ignored, but about the fact that it does ignore
them.
I recall that I observed that usage sometimes, but I am not sure where. Is
it very common? Is there a technical term for this?
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
It's short for "the way in which," not for "that." It seems akin to
the "just because ... doesn't mean ..." that strikes me as solecistic.
Trond Engen
> Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
>
>> Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought
>> of the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I
>> really liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
>
> This idiomatic use of "how" looks interesting to me. I would rather
> have expected "that", because the exception is probably not about the
> way how the writing systems are ignored, but about the fact that it
> does ignore them.
From one non-native non-linguist to the other: Rather, it feels to me
like it's not about (the fact) _that_ they are _completely ignored_ but
(the way) _how_ they are _treated in a way that amounts to being
ignored, especially concidering the potential backflow of valuable
linguistic information not being explored_. Or some other qualified
opinion like that.
> I recall that I observed that usage sometimes, but I am not sure
> where. Is it very common? Is there a technical term for this?
Since the other interrogative pronouns are used in parallel
constructions it doesn't strike me as odd at all. It's less stilted than
"the way in which". To my ear, that is.
--
Trond Engen
Joachim Pense
> On Nov 20, 4:11 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
>>
>>
>>
>> > Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought of
>> > the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I really
>> > liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
>>
>> This idiomatic use of "how" looks interesting to me. I would rather have
>> expected "that", because the exception is probably not about the way how
>> the writing systems are ignored, but about the fact that it does ignore
>> them.
>>
>> I recall that I observed that usage sometimes, but I am not sure where.
>> Is it very common? Is there a technical term for this?
>
> It's short for "the way in which," not for "that." It seems akin to
What are different ways to ignore a topic in an Encyclopedia? If it is not
there it is not there, right?
> the "just because ... doesn't mean ..." that strikes me as solecistic.
Sorry, I don't understand. What goes into the ... places and how does it
relate to the "how" thing?
Joachicm
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 4:11 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
>
> >> > Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought of
> >> > the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I really
> >> > liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
>
> >> This idiomatic use of "how" looks interesting to me. I would rather have
> >> expected "that", because the exception is probably not about the way how
> >> the writing systems are ignored, but about the fact that it does ignore
> >> them.
>
> >> I recall that I observed that usage sometimes, but I am not sure where.
> >> Is it very common? Is there a technical term for this?
>
> > It's short for "the way in which," not for "that." It seems akin to
>
> What are different ways to ignore a topic in an Encyclopedia? If it is not
> there it is not there, right?
now you're taking "way" too literally!
> > the "just because ... doesn't mean ..." that strikes me as solecistic.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand. What goes into the ... places and how does it
> relate to the "how" thing?
Just because you sat in Chomsky's class for two semesters doesn't mean
you learned anything about X-bar theory.
Ekkehard Dengler
> Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
>
>>
>> Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought
>> of the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I really
>> liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
>>
>
> This idiomatic use of "how" looks interesting to me. I would rather
> have expected "that", because the exception is probably not about the
> way how the writing systems are ignored, but about the fact that it
> does ignore them.
Exactly.
> I recall that I observed that usage sometimes, but I am not sure
> where. Is it very common?
Yes. In informal speech or writing, "how" is often used to mean basically
the same as "that" (cf. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/how, conj. 2),
except that "how" adds vividness. The sentence "Remember how we used to
throw water bombs off the balcony?", for instance, is unlikely to be a
question about throwing techniques.
Another difference between "how" and "that" is that "how" can follow a
preposition. Think of it as meaning "the fact that":
http://www.weeno.ie/blog/a-guide-to-online-payment-processing/
"I still can't get over how we are moving toward using plastic for
everything."
http://www.uktvcookshop.co.uk/products.asp?partno=GOMAblTis
"This, of course, will give him the perfect excuse to go on and on about how
nowadays everything is being accessorised."
Regards,
Ekkehard
Joachim Pense
Du mich auch.
;-)
Joachim
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought of
> the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I really
> liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
As for me, I really like The World's Writing Systems
except how it ignores visual language.
> (He heard of me because his wife, Lise Menn, collaborated on a book
> with a good friend of mine, with whom I wrote a report on the 1990
> Toronto International Congress of Asian and North African Studies,
> which he saw. His letter began, "Permit me to introduce myself. I am
> an anthropological linguist ..." -- and this from the gentleman who
> had been the editor of Language for nearly 20 years, who had nearly
> singlehandedly shaped the discipline of sociolinguistics, and who made
> major contributions to both North American and Dravidian studies.)
And one Peter T. Daniels, in all probability our own
Peter T(he one and only) Daniels told me in sci.lang
that there is no such a thing as visual language.
Joachim Pense
(Not intended to be offensive. That was just an indication that I completely
lost track what you are talking about and how it relates to my question.)
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>
> Yes. In informal speech or writing, "how" is often used to mean basically
> the same as "that" (cf. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/how, conj. 2),
> except that "how" adds vividness. The sentence "Remember how we used to
> throw water bombs off the balcony?", for instance, is unlikely to be a
> question about throwing techniques.
>
> [more details snipped]
Thank you for the explanation. I think this sort of considerations is a
major aspect of what makes language attractive to me in the first place.
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 20, 8:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually, Bill Bright asked me -- out of the blue -- what I thought of
> > the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, and I said I really
> > liked it except how it ignored writing systems.
>
> As for me, I really like The World's Writing Systems
> except how it ignores visual language.
That would be because, if there were such a thing as "visual
language," it wouldn't be writing.
> > (He heard of me because his wife, Lise Menn, collaborated on a book
> > with a good friend of mine, with whom I wrote a report on the 1990
> > Toronto International Congress of Asian and North African Studies,
> > which he saw. His letter began, "Permit me to introduce myself. I am
> > an anthropological linguist ..." -- and this from the gentleman who
> > had been the editor of Language for nearly 20 years, who had nearly
> > singlehandedly shaped the discipline of sociolinguistics, and who made
> > major contributions to both North American and Dravidian studies.)
>
> And one Peter T. Daniels, in all probability our own
> Peter T(he one and only) Daniels told me in sci.lang
> that there is no such a thing as visual language.
That would be because there isn't.
Ekkehard Dengler
You're welcome. Funnily enough, it's only just occurred to me that Germ.
"wie" can be used in more or less the same way:
http://www.effi-briest.net/32-161.html
"Und wei�t du noch, wie der gute Giesh�bler mal dazukam und sich zu uns
setzen mu�te, und wie er dann sagte: So was Delikates habe er noch nie
gegessen."
http://tinyurl.com/yeuhwgu
"Es geht mir hier voll auf die Nerven, wie hier immer alles von Vista
schlecht gemacht wird."
Regards,
Ekkehard
António Marques
Good heavens, that certainly wasn't what I had in mind. I'm sorry for
giving that impression.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> That would be because, if there were such a thing as "visual
> language," it wouldn't be writing.
Human language arose with hominids two million
years ago and was embedded in gestures and
mimics and body language in general. Still today
gestures are an important aspect of speaking.
Not only Italians are gesturing, also Norwegians,
and Norwegians no less than Italians (result of
a recent study). Drawing arose from gesturing,
visual messages left on cave walls are a sort
of writing, lasting for over 30,000 years while
spoken words flow away immediately as signs
made with hand and arm.
> That would be because there isn't.
Of course there are visual languages. In a parralel
world you and me are working together on the book
The World's Visual Languages, Volume 1, A Glimpse
on the Beginnings. It will appear in 2015 and cost
99 dollars for active members of sci.lang=parallel,
a little more for libraries.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 21, 1:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That would be because, if there were such a thing as "visual
> > language," it wouldn't be writing.
>
> Human language arose with hominids two million
> years ago and was embedded in gestures and
> mimics and body language in general. Still today
> gestures are an important aspect of speaking.
Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
You cannot determine from a silent film of a conversation what the
topic of the conversation is.
Signed languages are not gesture.
> Not only Italians are gesturing, also Norwegians,
> and Norwegians no less than Italians (result of
> a recent study). Drawing arose from gesturing,
> visual messages left on cave walls are a sort
> of writing, lasting for over 30,000 years while
> spoken words flow away immediately as signs
> made with hand and arm.
You could do so much if you could learn to stop making these utterly
unjustified and unjustifiable leaps.
> > That would be because there isn't.
>
> Of course there are visual languages. In a parralel
> world you and me are working together on the book
> The World's Visual Languages, Volume 1, A Glimpse
> on the Beginnings. It will appear in 2015 and cost
> 99 dollars for active members of sci.lang=parallel,
> a little more for libraries.
Under any useful definition of "language," there is no such thing as
"visual language."
Odysseus
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
It was an example of how one might fill in the blanks. The sentence
might be analysed to say "Your having sat in Chomsky's class for two
semesters does not imply that you learned something about X-bar theory."
A more commonplace example of this illogical-seeming construction (which
is one of many idioms that are difficult to parse) might be "Just
because you had a hard day at work doesn't mean you can shout at me."
--
Odysseus
LEE Sau Dan
>> Human language arose with hominids two million years ago and was
>> embedded in gestures and mimics and body language in
>> general. Still today gestures are an important aspect of
>> speaking.
Peter> Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
Peter> Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey
Peter> information. You cannot determine from a silent film of a
Peter> conversation what the topic of the conversation is.
So, you're telling people that mime is an impossible form of art?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
And drawings are gestures left on durable surfaces.
> Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
> You cannot determine from a silent film of a conversation what the
> topic of the conversation is.
Someone stopping a passerby with an asking
expression on the face, and that person rising
his arm and pointing in a certain direction ...
Translation. Where, please do I have to go?
That way.
> Signed languages are not gesture.
Signed languages are spoken word language
translated back into the previous language of gestures.
> You could do so much if you could learn to stop making these utterly
> unjustified and unjustifiable leaps.
From gestures to spoken language on the one hand
and to drawings on the other hand?
> Under any useful definition of "language," there is no such thing as
> "visual language."
So define language.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> Human language arose with hominids two million years ago and was
> >> embedded in gestures and mimics and body language in
> >> general. Still today gestures are an important aspect of
> >> speaking.
>
> Peter> Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
>
> Peter> Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey
> Peter> information. You cannot determine from a silent film of a
> Peter> conversation what the topic of the conversation is.
>
> So, you're telling people that mime is an impossible form of art?
What does that have to do with a silent film of a conversation?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 21, 8:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
>
> And drawings are gestures left on durable surfaces.
You're simply crazy.
Maybe you're paralyzed from the neck down and don't (unconsciously)
"know" how to gesture in your native language.
Maybe you've never picked up a brush or stylus and tried to draw a
picture.
The two activities are immensely different.
> > Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
> > You cannot determine from a silent film of a conversation what the
> > topic of the conversation is.
>
> Someone stopping a passerby with an asking
> expression on the face, and that person rising
> his arm and pointing in a certain direction ...
> Translation. Where, please do I have to go?
> That way.
How the bloody hell does the askee know where the asker wants to go?
> > Signed languages are not gesture.
>
> Signed languages are spoken word language
> translated back into the previous language of gestures.
Woohoo, yet ANOTHER thing you know absolutely nothing about!
> > You could do so much if you could learn to stop making these utterly
> > unjustified and unjustifiable leaps.
>
> From gestures to spoken language on the one hand
> and to drawings on the other hand?
I don't think that's what was in the bit you snipped that I commented
on, but yes, those too.
> > Under any useful definition of "language," there is no such thing as
> > "visual language."
>
> So define language.
Have you still NEVER looked up Hockett's design criteria?
(Googling indicates that most websites are not aware that he refined
the list beyond the canonical 13 criteria. You could begin with the
wikipedia article, but it goes wrong in the first sentence where it
dates them to the 1960s -- the best-known version was published in
Scientific American in September 1960, but there were earlier and
later versions.)
The last in the list and most important is "duality of patterning,"
what Martinet called "la double articulation."
An indefinitely large number of meaningful elements composed of a very
small number of meaningless elements (morphemes and phonemes
respectively).
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Nov 21, 10:38 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 1:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > That would be because, if there were such a thing as "visual
> > > language," it wouldn't be writing.
>
> > Human language arose with hominids two million
> > years ago and was embedded in gestures and
> > mimics and body language in general. Still today
> > gestures are an important aspect of speaking.
>
> Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
>
> Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
> You cannot determine from a silent film of a conversation what the
> topic of the conversation is.
>
> Signed languages are not gesture.
So whereas most people would say that, for example, making the sign of
the cross, or flipping the bird (giving the finger), or simply
pointing, are gestures which have meaning, you would be saying either:
(i) that while they may have meaning they do not have "semantic
content";
OR, more likely
(ii) that they are not gestures, using "gesture" in a narrow technical
sense of just those hand and body movements which (sometimes)
accompany speech.
Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this usage
derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous to use (without
comment) a term in a sense which (you must know) differs from the one
that others in the discussion will assume?
Ross Clark
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 22, 8:35 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 10:38 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 1:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > That would be because, if there were such a thing as "visual
> > > > language," it wouldn't be writing.
>
> > > Human language arose with hominids two million
> > > years ago and was embedded in gestures and
> > > mimics and body language in general. Still today
> > > gestures are an important aspect of speaking.
>
> > Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
>
> > Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
> > You cannot determine from a silent film of a conversation what the
> > topic of the conversation is.
>
> > Signed languages are not gesture.
>
> So whereas most people would say that, for example, making the sign of
> the cross, or flipping the bird (giving the finger), or simply
> pointing, are gestures which have meaning, you would be saying either:
>
> (i) that while they may have meaning they do not have "semantic
> content";
What meaning does crossing yourself convey? It does not convey
meaning. It is apotropaic.
Giving the finger conveys an emotion. Pointing has no meaning absent a
preceding query.
> OR, more likely
>
> (ii) that they are not gestures, using "gesture" in a narrow technical
> sense of just those hand and body movements which (sometimes)
> accompany speech.
>
> Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this usage
> derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous to use (without
> comment) a term in a sense which (you must know) differs from the one
> that others in the discussion will assume?
I refer to the sense of "gesture" used by e.g. McNeill of Chicago
(William, isn't it?), who investigated the all-but-obligatory nature
of the gestures accompanying speech.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Nov 22, 6:38 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 8:35 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 10:38 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 21, 1:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > That would be because, if there were such a thing as "visual
> > > > > language," it wouldn't be writing.
>
> > > > Human language arose with hominids two million
> > > > years ago and was embedded in gestures and
> > > > mimics and body language in general. Still today
> > > > gestures are an important aspect of speaking.
>
> > > Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
>
> > > Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
> > > You cannot determine from a silent film of a conversation what the
> > > topic of the conversation is.
>
> > > Signed languages are not gesture.
>
> > So whereas most people would say that, for example, making the sign of
> > the cross, or flipping the bird (giving the finger), or simply
> > pointing, are gestures which have meaning, you would be saying either:
>
> > (i) that while they may have meaning they do not have "semantic
> > content";
>
> What meaning does crossing yourself convey? It does not convey
> meaning. It is apotropaic.
>
> Giving the finger conveys an emotion.
As does "Fuck you!". And this does not qualify as a meaning? (Perhaps
you have fooled me by insisting on idiosyncratic understandings of
_both_ "gesture" _and_ "meaning".)
Pointing has no meaning absent a
> preceding query.
Nor does "Yes".
You fail to convince me.
>
> > OR, more likely
>
> > (ii) that they are not gestures, using "gesture" in a narrow technical
> > sense of just those hand and body movements which (sometimes)
> > accompany speech.
>
> > Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this usage
> > derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous to use (without
> > comment) a term in a sense which (you must know) differs from the one
> > that others in the discussion will assume?
>
> I refer to the sense of "gesture" used by e.g. McNeill of Chicago
> (William, isn't it?), who investigated the all-but-obligatory nature
> of the gestures accompanying speech.
Thank you. If I can identify this person I may try to see whether he
insists that "gesture" be restricted to this sense. Meanwhile, you
ignore my last question.
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
Can you paraphrase the meaning, as in a dictionary definition? What
does "meaning" mean?
> you have fooled me by insisting on idiosyncratic understandings of
> _both_ "gesture" _and_ "meaning".)
>
> Pointing has no meaning absent a
>
> > preceding query.
>
> Nor does "Yes".
> You fail to convince me.
"Yes" appears to be a shifter.
> > > OR, more likely
>
> > > (ii) that they are not gestures, using "gesture" in a narrow technical
> > > sense of just those hand and body movements which (sometimes)
> > > accompany speech.
>
> > > Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this usage
> > > derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous to use (without
> > > comment) a term in a sense which (you must know) differs from the one
> > > that others in the discussion will assume?
>
> > I refer to the sense of "gesture" used by e.g. McNeill of Chicago
> > (William, isn't it?), who investigated the all-but-obligatory nature
> > of the gestures accompanying speech.
>
> Thank you. If I can identify this person I may try to see whether he
> insists that "gesture" be restricted to this sense. Meanwhile, you
> ignore my last question.
I don't know what sense others will or will not assume; I use the term
as I learned it from the American Descriptivists at Cornell (see
Bloomfield's "Meaning") and the Generative Semanticists at Chicago.
I think it's William T. McNeill, of the department that isn't called
Psychology (as opposed to the eminent historian William H. McNeill,
also of Chicago, author of *The Rise of the West* and many book-length
essays on world civilization). His book has "Language" and "Gesture"
in the title.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
No, it is made in a number of different contexts. (Try to think beyond
vampire movies.) But having just asked a practising Catholic what it
means, I'm not sure I'd want to attempt a paraphrase.
> > > Giving the finger conveys an emotion.
>
> > As does "Fuck you!". And this does not qualify as a meaning? (Perhaps
>
> Can you paraphrase the meaning, as in a dictionary definition?
If you can paraphrase "Fuck you!", it will probably work quite well
for the finger.
What
> does "meaning" mean?
I hope you and I don't have to decide this here. But you are the one
who started this by making pronouncements about what does and doesn't
have "meaning".
> > you have fooled me by insisting on idiosyncratic understandings of
> > _both_ "gesture" _and_ "meaning".)
>
> > Pointing has no meaning absent a
>
> > > preceding query.
>
> > Nor does "Yes".
> > You fail to convince me.
>
> "Yes" appears to be a shifter.
>
And shifters don't have meaning?
>
> > > > OR, more likely
>
> > > > (ii) that they are not gestures, using "gesture" in a narrow technical
> > > > sense of just those hand and body movements which (sometimes)
> > > > accompany speech.
>
> > > > Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this usage
> > > > derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous to use (without
> > > > comment) a term in a sense which (you must know) differs from the one
> > > > that others in the discussion will assume?
>
> > > I refer to the sense of "gesture" used by e.g. McNeill of Chicago
> > > (William, isn't it?), who investigated the all-but-obligatory nature
> > > of the gestures accompanying speech.
>
> > Thank you. If I can identify this person I may try to see whether he
> > insists that "gesture" be restricted to this sense. Meanwhile, you
> > ignore my last question.
>
> I don't know what sense others will or will not assume; I use the term
> as I learned it from the American Descriptivists at Cornell (see
> Bloomfield's "Meaning") and the Generative Semanticists at Chicago.
That's strange. I was exposed to the teachings of both groups and I
don't remember learning any such restrictive sense of "gesture". Maybe
I'll reread Bloomfield and see what light it sheds.
> I think it's William T. McNeill, of the department that isn't called
> Psychology (as opposed to the eminent historian William H. McNeill,
> also of Chicago, author of *The Rise of the West* and many book-length
> essays on world civilization). His book has "Language" and "Gesture"
> in the title.
No, it's David McNeill, whose name I knew as a psycholinguist back in
the day when I paid more attention to that field. Apparently he's been
pursuing this gesture research for the last 20 years or so. We'll see
whether he is the basis for the narrow reading of "gesture".
Ross Clark
Ekkehard Dengler
Imagine that you're in Tajikistan and want to warn a stranger (who's looking
in your direction) that something might be about to fall on their head.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Have you still NEVER looked up Hockett's design criteria?
>
> (Googling indicates that most websites are not aware that he refined
> the list beyond the canonical 13 criteria. You could begin with the
> wikipedia article, but it goes wrong in the first sentence where it
> dates them to the 1960s -- the best-known version was published in
> Scientific American in September 1960, but there were earlier and
> later versions.)
>
> The last in the list and most important is "duality of patterning,"
> what Martinet called "la double articulation."
>
> An indefinitely large number of meaningful elements composed of a very
> small number of meaningless elements (morphemes and phonemes
> respectively).
I did look up the list of Hockett, in the fall of 2004, as I recall,
and I told you my opinion back then. A duality of patterning
is also present in cave art, a horse can be a horse or the sun,
namely the sun horse. The constellations of elements in highly
organized caves such as Lascaux and Altamira convey
messages in a visual language. Or another example.
You may twiddle a reed stalk and snap it as a gesture of
impatience and held back anger, everybody will understand
such a gesture if he hasn't the bad luck of being an autist.
Now when chimps or bonobos (I can't remember which)
go hunting in the reeds they follow trample paths, walking
silently in small groups, one following the other, out of sight.
Now when the first small group comes to a forking and
chooses to go, say, to the left side, how do they announce
this to the next groups following them in greater distances?
One of the first group snaps a reed stalk and lays it to the left
side, thus saying to the following groups: we took the left way,
when you come to this forking go left ... Snapping a reed can
have different meanings, a snapped reed is a reed that has
been broken by a passing animal, or snapped in a gesture
of anger, or snapped by an ape as deliberate information.
Then body language. A tail can be wagged in order to keep
the balance when running, or it can be wagged as a sign of
pleasure and great joy. Duality of patterning - thank you,
Charles F. Hockett, for proving me right. Cave paintings are
visual language, and also animals have language, or rather
tailage in the case of the dog wagging his or her tail, and
even writing in the case of apes informing other apes by
snapping a reed stalk and laying the stalk so as to tell the
other apes where to go. And as for gestures: did you never
see an early Chaplin film, a silent movie without words?
Everybody understands the silent gestures very well, and
meanwhile we know how this understanding works: by means
of the so-called mirror neurons in the brain. We can not only
perform those gestures, part of body language, we can also
perfectly well read them. Body language composed of gestures
and mimics is actual language, the only insatisfactory part of
it is the French langue 'tongue' present in the word, claiming
that only spoken language involving a tongue is language.
Not even writing, for you don't use your tongue in writing
a letter or a message but a pencil or a pen or a keybord.
Richard Herring
<49a6410c-5553-45db...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> writes
>On Nov 21, 8:35�pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Gesture is an important part of (spoken) language.
>
>And drawings are gestures left on durable surfaces.
>
>> Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
>> You cannot determine from a silent film of a conversation what the
>> topic of the conversation is.
>
>Someone stopping a passerby with an asking
>expression on the face, and that person rising
>his arm and pointing in a certain direction ...
... or giving him some small change, or crossing the road to avoid the
lunatic...
The possibilities are endless until you can come up with an unambiguous
gesture for "post office".
--
Richard Herring
António Marques
> On Nov 23, 6:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 8:49 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz"<benli...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 1:24 pm, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 22, 6:38 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz"<benli...@ihug.co.nz>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 22, 8:35 am, "Peter T. Daniels"<gramma...@verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 21, 10:38 am, Franz Gnaedinger<f...@bluemail.ch>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Human language arose with hominids two million years ago
>>>>>>> and was embedded in gestures and mimics and body language
>>>>>>> in general. Still today gestures are an important aspect
>>>>>>> of speaking.
>>
>>>>>> information. You cannot determine from a silent film of a
>>>>>> conversation what the topic of the conversation is.
>>>>>
>>>>> narrow technical sense of just those hand and body movements
>>>>> which (sometimes) accompany speech.
>>
>>>>> Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this
>>>>> usage derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous
>>>>> to use (without comment) a term in a sense which (you must
>>>>> know) differs from the one that others in the discussion will
>>>>> assume?
>>
>>>> I refer to the sense of "gesture" used by e.g. McNeill of
>>>> Chicago (William, isn't it?), who investigated the
>>>> all-but-obligatory nature of the gestures accompanying speech.
>>
>>> Thank you. If I can identify this person I may try to see whether
>>> he insists that "gesture" be restricted to this sense. Meanwhile,
>>> you ignore my last question.
>>
>> I don't know what sense others will or will not assume; I use the
>> term as I learned it from the American Descriptivists at Cornell
>> (see Bloomfield's "Meaning") and the Generative Semanticists at
>> Chicago.
>
> That's strange. I was exposed to the teachings of both groups and I
> don't remember learning any such restrictive sense of "gesture".
> Maybe I'll reread Bloomfield and see what light it sheds.
What took you from:
>> Still today gestures are an important aspect of speaking
>
> Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey
> information. You cannot determine from a silent film of a
> conversation what the topic of the conversation is.
to something like 'No gesture can ever convey meaning everywhere'?
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> ... or giving him some small change, or crossing the road to avoid the
> lunatic...
>
> The possibilities are endless until you can come up with an unambiguous
> gesture for "post office".
Someone comes my way, waving a letter, looking at me
with an asking glance and a facial expression of mild
helplessness, I immediately understand that he asks me
where the post office may be - it is just across the street,
so I point in the direction, he understands, nods for saying
thank you, and heads across the street toward the post
office. A silent dialogue. Gestures are a direct language
where the context is given and you look at each other.
Back to the doubling of patterning. I can scratch my head
because my scalp itches. Or I can scratch my head as
a silent gesture of not understanding. Or I can scratch
my head as an ironic or serious gesture of desperation,
saying silently: he crazy or what? Doubling of patterning,
ergo language. Or fingerage, as I scratch my head with
a finger. And armage, as I raise my arm in doing so.
And eyeage, as I cast glances while scratching my head.
And headage when someone replies to me with a silent
nod: yes, he lost his marbles. And lipage when I smirk:
I thought so. And tailage in the case of a dog wagging
the tail. And eyebrowage when the dog asks me to
share my sandwich, very convingly and eloquent in the
case of our Nera, black with white eyebrows ...
John Atkinson
>>
> [...] Pointing has no meaning absent a
> preceding query.
>
Not always so. Yesterday, I had just left some neighbours who were
having a barbecue behind the surf club when I saw another neighbour and
her little girl walking up the path from the beach. She looked up and
saw me. I pointed towards where the others were (they were out of sight
behind the building). The meaning was clear -- "If you go round there
you'll find something of interest going on."
Obviously, the meaning of this pointing was context dependent -- just as
that of ordinary speech usually is; but, equally obviously, there was
no preceding query -- or any other preceding communication whatever.
J.
Peter T. Daniels
The only vampire movies I've ever seen have involved Bela Lugosi,
whereas I have observed many, many Episcopalians and Roman Catholics.
What is the "meaning" of crossing onself?
> > > > Giving the finger conveys an emotion.
>
> > > As does "Fuck you!". And this does not qualify as a meaning? (Perhaps
>
> > Can you paraphrase the meaning, as in a dictionary definition?
>
> If you can paraphrase "Fuck you!", it will probably work quite well
> for the finger.
So, you're saying you can't?
> What
>
> > does "meaning" mean?
>
> I hope you and I don't have to decide this here. But you are the one
> who started this by making pronouncements about what does and doesn't
> have "meaning".
>
> > > you have fooled me by insisting on idiosyncratic understandings of
> > > _both_ "gesture" _and_ "meaning".)
>
> > > Pointing has no meaning absent a
>
> > > > preceding query.
>
> > > Nor does "Yes".
> > > You fail to convince me.
>
> > "Yes" appears to be a shifter.
>
> And shifters don't have meaning?
Do they?
> > > > > OR, more likely
>
> > > > > (ii) that they are not gestures, using "gesture" in a narrow technical
> > > > > sense of just those hand and body movements which (sometimes)
> > > > > accompany speech.
>
> > > > > Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this usage
> > > > > derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous to use (without
> > > > > comment) a term in a sense which (you must know) differs from the one
> > > > > that others in the discussion will assume?
>
> > > > I refer to the sense of "gesture" used by e.g. McNeill of Chicago
> > > > (William, isn't it?), who investigated the all-but-obligatory nature
> > > > of the gestures accompanying speech.
>
> > > Thank you. If I can identify this person I may try to see whether he
> > > insists that "gesture" be restricted to this sense. Meanwhile, you
> > > ignore my last question.
>
> > I don't know what sense others will or will not assume; I use the term
> > as I learned it from the American Descriptivists at Cornell (see
> > Bloomfield's "Meaning") and the Generative Semanticists at Chicago.
>
> That's strange. I was exposed to the teachings of both groups and I
> don't remember learning any such restrictive sense of "gesture". Maybe
> I'll reread Bloomfield and see what light it sheds.
When did either of those groups ever talk about gesture? You asked
about the meaning of "meaning."
Peter T. Daniels
He hasn't mastered the art of pickiness?
Peter T. Daniels
You'd do that by "pointing"?
And which deictic gesture would you use? The index finger, like an
American? The head-tilt, like a Greek?
Peter T. Daniels
Sounds like either you were meddling, or she made a query with her
expression.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 22, 2:33 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Have you still NEVER looked up Hockett's design criteria?
>
> > (Googling indicates that most websites are not aware that he refined
> > the list beyond the canonical 13 criteria. You could begin with the
> > wikipedia article, but it goes wrong in the first sentence where it
> > dates them to the 1960s -- the best-known version was published in
> > Scientific American in September 1960, but there were earlier and
> > later versions.)
>
> > The last in the list and most important is "duality of patterning,"
> > what Martinet called "la double articulation."
>
> > An indefinitely large number of meaningful elements composed of a very
> > small number of meaningless elements (morphemes and phonemes
> > respectively).
>
> I did look up the list of Hockett, in the fall of 2004, as I recall,
> and I told you my opinion back then. A duality of patterning
> is also present in cave art, a horse can be a horse or the sun,
So you didn't understand the concept of "duality of patterning," or
phonemes.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 23, 12:42 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... or giving him some small change, or crossing the road to avoid the
> > lunatic...
>
> > The possibilities are endless until you can come up with an unambiguous
> > gesture for "post office".
>
> Someone comes my way, waving a letter, looking at me
> with an asking glance and a facial expression of mild
> helplessness, I immediately understand that he asks me
> where the post office may be - it is just across the street,
> so I point in the direction, he understands, nods for saying
> thank you, and heads across the street toward the post
> office. A silent dialogue. Gestures are a direct language
> where the context is given and you look at each other.
And you really don't see that there was far, far more than "gesture"
in that interaction?
Franz Gnaedinger
The other way round: gestures are a rich language in
itself, with way more possibilites than you concede.
Have you never led a silent dialogue when attending
school, looking at a comrade, yawning, laying your
head on the palm and closing your eyes, thus telling
him: how boring this lesson is, I could just fall asleep:
And he nodded, or grinned, and produced a fake yawn
himself. Perfectly well understandable body language
composed of gestures and mimics and glances. And
why can't you explain what the doubling of patterning
is if I did not get it right? You are always referring to
concepts nobody seems to care about and authors
nobody knows, instead of giving your opinions and
convictions in your own words?
Ekkehard Dengler
How else?
> And which deictic gesture would you use? The index finger, like an
> American? The head-tilt, like a Greek?
It's neither here nor there which particular gesture I would use; the point
is that it would be understood. It's not true that pointing "has no meaning
absent a preceding query". Deixis -- be it verbal or non-verbal -- is a form
of meaning.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Richard Herring
<331ae834-f037-4d6e...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Franz Gnaedinger <fr...@bluemail.ch> writes
>On Nov 23, 12:42 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>> ... or giving him some small change, or crossing the road to avoid the
>> lunatic...
>>
>> The possibilities are endless until you can come up with an unambiguous
>> gesture for "post office".
>
>Someone comes my way, waving a letter, looking at me
>with an asking glance and a facial expression of mild
>helplessness, I immediately understand that he asks me
>where the post office may be
Unfortunately the letter had to be delivered by hand to his bank...
>- it is just across the street,
>so I point in the direction, he understands, nods for saying
>thank you, and heads across the street toward the post
>office. A silent dialogue. Gestures are a direct language
>where the context is given and you look at each other.
>
>Back to the doubling of patterning.
Not doubling, _duality_.
--
Richard Herring
John Atkinson
to see her face, or to speak to her without shouting, I obviously
wouldn't have bothered pointing, but simply said: "Hi, Liz and the
others are round the back," wouldn't I?
Meddling???? I guess it must be customary in New York to ignore your
friends when you see them across the street. But this is suburbia, life
is different here.
Joachim Pense
There are deictic gestures that are only understood on the basis of a
convention. If I (a German) want to ask or invite someone to come closer to
me, I would make a sort of shoveling gesture with my hand, palm up. An
Italian would make a similar gesture, but palm down. I would misunderstand
the Italian's gesture as "go away!".
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
No, it would _not_ be understood. You transport someone to a different
culture, where they don't know the language _or_ the "body language,"
and they cannot immediately interact. They probably never acquire all
the nuances.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 7:28 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>> [...] Pointing has no meaning absent a
> >>> preceding query.
>
> >> Not always so. Yesterday, I had just left some neighbours who were
> >> having a barbecue behind the surf club when I saw another neighbour and
> >> her little girl walking up the path from the beach. She looked up and
> >> saw me. I pointed towards where the others were (they were out of sight
> >> behind the building). The meaning was clear -- "If you go round there
> >> you'll find something of interest going on."
>
> >> Obviously, the meaning of this pointing was context dependent -- just as
> >> that of ordinary speech usually is; but, equally obviously, there was
> >> no preceding query -- or any other preceding communication whatever.
>
> > Sounds like either you were meddling, or she made a query with her
> > expression.
>
> I've no idea what her expression was. If she'd been close enough for me
> to see her face, or to speak to her without shouting, I obviously
> wouldn't have bothered pointing, but simply said: "Hi, Liz and the
> others are round the back," wouldn't I?
What made you think she was looking for Liz and the others?
> Meddling???? I guess it must be customary in New York to ignore your
> friends when you see them across the street. But this is suburbia, life
> is different here.-
You just changed her from "neighbor" to "friend." Around here, those
are generally two quite different categories.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Nov 23, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 7:28 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
> > > Someone comes my way, waving a letter, looking at me
> > > with an asking glance and a facial expression of mild
> > > helplessness, I immediately understand that he asks me
> > > where the post office may be - it is just across the street,
> > > so I point in the direction, he understands, nods for saying
> > > thank you, and heads across the street toward the post
> > > office. A silent dialogue. Gestures are a direct language
> > > where the context is given and you look at each other.
>
> > And you really don't see that there was far, far more than "gesture"
> > in that interaction?
>
> The other way round: gestures are a rich language in
> itself, with way more possibilites than you concede.
> Have you never led a silent dialogue when attending
> school, looking at a comrade, yawning, laying your
> head on the palm and closing your eyes, thus telling
> him: how boring this lesson is, I could just fall asleep:
Heavens no.
Though it perhaps does explain why you seem not to have learned much
in school.
> And he nodded, or grinned, and produced a fake yawn
> himself. Perfectly well understandable body language
> composed of gestures and mimics and glances. And
> why can't you explain what the doubling of patterning
> is if I did not get it right? You are always referring to
> concepts nobody seems to care about and authors
> nobody knows, instead of giving your opinions and
> convictions in your own words?
It is not "doubling of patterning." It is "duality of patterning" or
(in French) "double articulation."
Your picture of a horse is a picture of a horse, not a meaningless
element from which the meaningful components are assembled!
I don't see how it can be any clearer.
Joe Fineman
> Pointing has no meaning absent a preceding query.
What if I am writing something, and you come up behind me and read it,
and point, silently, at a mistake I have made?
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: If you want it bad, you get it bad. :||
Trond Engen
> Ekkehard Dengler:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Ekkehard Dengler:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> Ross Clark:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Franz Gnaedinger:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
I've lost track of who means what here, and why, but, possibly, the
facts that gestures have different meanings and that the same or similar
meanings are expressed through different but similar signs in different
cultures are indications that gestures do have semantics, that they may
be inherited or borrowed and go through semantic and "phonetic"
development. On another vein, it's obvious from the sheer existence of
signed languages, even natural languages with native, monolingual
speakers, that there's an inbuilt human capacity of assigning semantics
to gestures as well as to combinations of sounds. One could then argue
that what defines the marginal position of gestures among speakers (i.e.
of spoken languages) is not so much a lack of semantics as a lack of
grammaticalization.
The next, then: Why don't speakers grammaticalize gestures as well as --
or rather than -- sounds? And, are there societies with a large
proportion of hearing native signers with a developed spoken/signed
creole? And (since I seem to be taking a "yes" for granted) how do they
work? Or why aren't there?
--
Trond Engen
António Marques
> One could then argue that what defines the marginal position of
> gestures among speakers (i.e. of spoken languages) is not so much a
> lack of semantics as a lack of grammaticalization.
This began with the assertion that you couldn't tell what a conversation
is about by looking at it. The interesting question, in my view, is what
the purpose and nature of gestures are in that situation. Nothing at all
to do with pointing people to the post office or how gestures may be in
fact the medium for language when voice is not available.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > Pointing has no meaning absent a preceding query.
>
> What if I am writing something, and you come up behind me and read it,
> and point, silently, at a mistake I have made?
Good grief.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
I didn't say this, and I don't know what it would mean. Did you mean
to say "...anywhere"?
Peter's statement:
> > Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey
> > information.
would be easy to interpret in the very general sense you propose. But
since this general statement is clearly contradicted by everyday
experience, I wanted to see whether Peter was going to hedge it by a
restricted sense of "gesture" or a restricted sense of "have semantic
content/convey meaning". He seems to be doing both.
Ross Clark
benl...@ihug.co.nz
As I just explained, I would not want to attempt a definition at this
point, but it is more than apotropaic.
>
> > > > > Giving the finger conveys an emotion.
>
> > > > As does "Fuck you!". And this does not qualify as a meaning? (Perhaps
>
> > > Can you paraphrase the meaning, as in a dictionary definition?
>
> > If you can paraphrase "Fuck you!", it will probably work quite well
> > for the finger.
>
> So, you're saying you can't?
>
Of many possible paraphrases we could take "I fart in your general
direction", from the famous Monty Python scene.
>
> > What
>
> > > does "meaning" mean?
>
> > I hope you and I don't have to decide this here. But you are the one
> > who started this by making pronouncements about what does and doesn't
> > have "meaning".
>
> > > > you have fooled me by insisting on idiosyncratic understandings of
> > > > _both_ "gesture" _and_ "meaning".)
>
> > > > Pointing has no meaning absent a
>
> > > > > preceding query.
>
> > > > Nor does "Yes".
> > > > You fail to convince me.
>
> > > "Yes" appears to be a shifter.
>
> > And shifters don't have meaning?
>
> Do they?
>
You don't think personal pronouns, tense markers, etc. have meaning??
You don't think "yes" has meaning??
>
> > > > > > OR, more likely
>
> > > > > > (ii) that they are not gestures, using "gesture" in a narrow technical
> > > > > > sense of just those hand and body movements which (sometimes)
> > > > > > accompany speech.
>
> > > > > > Am I right that it's (ii)? And if so: From whence does this usage
> > > > > > derive? And don't you think it's a little un-Griceous to use (without
> > > > > > comment) a term in a sense which (you must know) differs from the one
> > > > > > that others in the discussion will assume?
>
> > > > > I refer to the sense of "gesture" used by e.g. McNeill of Chicago
> > > > > (William, isn't it?), who investigated the all-but-obligatory nature
> > > > > of the gestures accompanying speech.
>
> > > > Thank you. If I can identify this person I may try to see whether he
> > > > insists that "gesture" be restricted to this sense. Meanwhile, you
> > > > ignore my last question.
>
> > > I don't know what sense others will or will not assume; I use the term
> > > as I learned it from the American Descriptivists at Cornell (see
> > > Bloomfield's "Meaning") and the Generative Semanticists at Chicago.
>
> > That's strange. I was exposed to the teachings of both groups and I
> > don't remember learning any such restrictive sense of "gesture". Maybe
> > I'll reread Bloomfield and see what light it sheds.
>
> When did either of those groups ever talk about gesture? You asked
> about the meaning of "meaning."
No, we were not. If you will follow the preceding discussion from my
"Am I right...", it was entirely concerned with your idiosyncratic use
of the term "gesture". So apparently at "I don't know..." you lost
track of this fact and started talking about "meaning", which was (i)
in my original response.
Ross Clark
Ekkehard Dengler
So?
>>> And which deictic gesture would you use? The index finger, like an
>>> American? The head-tilt, like a Greek?
>>
>> It's neither here nor there which particular gesture I would use;
>> the point is that it would be understood. It's not true that
>> pointing "has no meaning absent a preceding query". Deixis -- be it
>> verbal or non-verbal -- is a form of meaning.
>
> No, it would _not_ be understood.
Yes, it probably would. It's perfectly possible to correctly interpret a
pointing gesture you've never seen used before. Pointing is fairly
self-explanatory. Even dogs are capable of understanding human pointing
gestures:
http://tinyurl.com/yayf5cg
"The researchers carried out two studies, one on pointing gestures with the
arm and another on pointing with the leg. [...]
With leg gestures, again the three-year-old children responded correctly for
all four gestures, including pointing with just the knee, while the
two-year-olds and dogs responded correctly only to the foot-pointing
gestures. The authors believe that the results of the leg-pointing study
suggest that the subjects were able to generalise from their previous
experience to a relatively novel directional gesture.
[...]
Three-year-olds seem to recognise the index finger as a general directional
signal. In younger children, protruding body parts provide the main cue for
deducing directionality. At least at the functional level, dogs show a
similar performance as two-year-olds, that can be explained as a joint
outcome of their evolutionary history and their socialisation in a human
environment."
Actually, it doesn't matter whether or not a particular gesture is
universal. The fact that a Tajik passer-by would be unlikely to understand a
warning in English obviously doesn't mean that English is intrinsically
meaningless. Similarly, the fact that some gestures may be misunderstood
doesn't mean that they have no meaning. I admit that Tajikistan was a bit of
a red herring; let's consider a more familiar situation where verbal
communication is impossible. Imagine you're in Chicago but the person you
want to warn is wearing headphones.
Regards,
Ekkehard
António Marques
Of course you didn't. I'm asking you how did you get from the original
to what you're complaining about (yes, I meant anywhere; I didn't find
it worthwhile to correct it).
> and I don't know what it would mean. Did you mean
> to say "...anywhere"?
>
> Peter's statement:
>
> > > Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey
>
> > > information.
>
> would be easy to interpret in the very general sense you propose. But
> since this general statement is clearly contradicted by everyday
> experience, I wanted to see whether Peter was going to hedge it by a
> restricted sense of "gesture" or a restricted sense of "have semantic
> content/convey meaning". He seems to be doing both.
Of course the statement has to be read in context. And in context I
find it pretty clear that it doesn't intend the 'very general sense'
you and others have taken issue with. And that wouldn't be a big deal
if it weren't a recurring trend around here. How's one supposed to
communicate without context?
This isn't innocuous - it confuses everybody and diverts what little
attention is left from the few interesting points that come up to
endless sessions of drivel. You say you 'wanted to see' exactly how
Peter would qualify his statement - well, what for did you want to see
that? What possible insight is there in such a debate? What are you
hoping to get, a world-shattering theory on how exactly the 'general
statement' might be conceived?
At the risk of sounding like Frants, I used to think of Usenet as a
place for the exchange of ideas. Not as a playground where the
favourite sport seems to be 'I think I just thaw you thay thomething
which (when incorrectly interpreted, which is never, except willingly)
thoundth prepothterouth and *I* can point that out!'. It doesn't make
you look smarter (I'm not talking about you, Ross). It makes you look
stoopid and you don't even notice that because you're busy gloating in
your tired, insipid usenetese. Ok, maybe most of Usenet is like that,
but my expectations for this small corner of it [still] are a bit
higher.
Here, I won't insult you by signing this with some meaningless
pretentious prefab parting phrase such as we sometimes see hereabouts.
John Atkinson
> On Nov 23, 9:30 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 7:28 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>>> [...] Pointing has no meaning absent a
>>>>> preceding query.
>>
>>>> Not always so. Yesterday, I had just left some neighbours who were
>>>> having a barbecue behind the surf club when I saw another neighbour and
>>>> her little girl walking up the path from the beach. She looked up and
>>>> saw me. I pointed towards where the others were (they were out of sight
>>>> behind the building). The meaning was clear -- "If you go round there
>>>> you'll find something of interest going on."
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, the meaning of this pointing was context dependent -- just as
>>>> that of ordinary speech usually is; but, equally obviously, there was
>>>> no preceding query -- or any other preceding communication whatever.
>>
>>> Sounds like either you were meddling, or she made a query with her
>>> expression.
>>
>> I've no idea what her expression was. If she'd been close enough for me
>> to see her face, or to speak to her without shouting, I obviously
>> wouldn't have bothered pointing, but simply said: "Hi, Liz and the
>> others are round the back," wouldn't I?
>
> What made you think she was looking for Liz and the others?
>
she wouldn't be glad to see them, as she usually is.
>
>> Meddling???? I guess it must be customary in New York to ignore your
>> friends when you see them across the street. But this is suburbia, life
>> is different here.-
>
> You just changed her from "neighbor" to "friend." Around here, those
> are generally two quite different categories.
>>
between the two categories. As I'm sure you know, that NY City is
different from other places (in the USA and elsewhere) in such respects
is a widely believed generalisation. (I'd class it as an urban legend,
except that it actually seems have to have a considerable element of
fact behind it.)
J.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
So exactly how would you interpret Peter's statement "in context"?
Replying to Franz's (?) comment that
Still today gestures are an important aspect of speaking
Peter says:
Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
He does not say 'Those gestures' (i.e. the ones that accompany
speech), but generic 'Gesture'. So I read him as making a very wide
general statement about gestures. He then goes on to give the example
of the silent movie, involving those speech-accompanying gestures
again. But (I'm thinking) this is only one particular instance from
the wide variety of gestures that exist, and surely there are many
cases which do have meaning.
It turns out later that he wishes to restrict the term "gesture" to
these speech-accompanying movements. Even if this is an established
technical sense in some circles, it is hardly well known even among
linguists, and it seems at least misleading to use the word this way
(without explanation) in a general discussion group.
Elsewhere he says "Sign language is not gesture", which seems equally
perverse, even if strictly true with the restricted understanding of
"gesture" just mentioned. About like saying "(Spoken) language is not
vocal sound".
He also seems to want to restrict the sense of "meaning" in some way,
though exactly how is less clear.
Believe me I do not do this just for the sake of nitpicking or scoring
cheap points. As the responses here indicate, most people's experience
is that there are gestures that have meaning. Peter (one of the
professionals on this group) appears to be claiming that linguistic
science has proved that this is not true. If this were so, we would
want to hear the evidence and good reason behind it. But it turns out
it's just done by fiddling with the meanings of the terms. As cheap a
trick as Jacques Derrida saying that "Writing precedes speech". This
sort of thing annoys me.
Ross Clark
Franz Gnaedinger
Good study, children and dogs understanding pointing.
You may also consider glances indicating directions.
Wolves circling a big prey such as an elk deliberately
look away, not at the elk, so as to fool him, for a direct
look would warn the elk, saying: I come to you and
will get you ..., so deliberately looking away is a trick,
only necessary because even animals can understand
eyeage, the language that makes no use of the tongue,
French langue, but of eyes. Eyeage is understood in all
cultures, already by babies, and by animals as well,
and it can develop various meanings, a direct look in
the eyes required in some cultures, forbidden in others.
In Magdalenian times a firm look into each other's eyes
was the way of saying yes, OC meaning the right eye,
and AY meaning the left eye, OC AY meaning right
and left eye, looking into each other's eyes, Scottish
Och, Aye, American okay. In the langue d'oc in southern
France we have oc for yes and in the langue d'oil we have
oil for yes that became oui 'yes' while oeil means eye.
The inverse of OC AY, namely AY OC, became German
Augen, while the inverse of AY, namely YA, became
German Ja English yeah and yes that is again similar
to French yeux 'eyes'. You really can't overlook the
many parallels of words for eyes and yes that testify
to glances and gestures as origin of the human word
language. And anybody who ever loved knows that
a look into each other's eyes is a form of saying yes.
António Marques
> On Nov 24, 1:30 pm, António Marques<ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course the statement has to be read in context. And in context I
>> find it pretty clear that it doesn't intend the 'very general sense'
>> you and others have taken issue with. And that wouldn't be a big deal
>> if it weren't a recurring trend around here. How's one supposed to
>> communicate without context?
>
> So exactly how would you interpret Peter's statement "in context"?
>
> Replying to Franz's (?) comment that
>
> Still today gestures are an important aspect of speaking
>
> Peter says:
>
> Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
>
> He does not say 'Those gestures' (i.e. the ones that accompany
> speech),
He does, since he goes on in the same paragraph (hence clearly
connected) saying 'You cannot determine from a silent film of a
conversation what the topic of the conversation is'. Not to mention that
Franze was talking about gestures as 'an ... aspect of speaking'.
Maybe Peter's first sentence is not optimally worded, but I don't see
how anyone paying attention to the conversation could misread it. Of
course, once the rest of the conversation has been left behind, it's
normal to think the topic were gestures in general.
Again, I think the interesting thing here, which no one went on
exploring, is precisely the nature of speech-accompanying gestures.
Besides, just what the semantic content of *any* gesture is is
debatable. Even with convention, the meaning of gestures can vary wildly
depending on context. More often than not, they're simply 'calls for
attention' and it's up to context to fill the rest. Not unlike 'Hey!'
can mean 'Ross!' or a lot of other things.
> Believe me I do not do this just for the sake of nitpicking or scoring
> cheap points. As the responses here indicate, most people's experience
> is that there are gestures that have meaning. Peter (one of the
> professionals on this group) appears to be claiming that linguistic
> science has proved that this is not true. If this were so, we would
> want to hear the evidence and good reason behind it. But it turns out
> it's just done by fiddling with the meanings of the terms. As cheap a
> trick as Jacques Derrida saying that "Writing precedes speech". This
> sort of thing annoys me.
Only because you're looking at it from the wrong end. It's one thing to
produce absurd propositions for show and tell people to go twisting
definitions until they can find the one combination that may or may not
make the proposition work. That is more than annoying, not to say
idiotic outright. But that is *not* what's going on here. Here there's
either 1) lack of attention (I usually think twice before entering a
thread, lest I misinterpret something, but that's not always enough), 2)
deliberate misunderstanding (which I might do for pedagogical purposes,
granted), 3) a wish to correct unsufferable usage (in which case an 'Or
do you mean...' clause is in order), or 4) genuine curiosity (hard to
believe, but hey).
I'm not 'defending' Peter's original choice of words. I'm just
expressing my annoyance at the effort spent on catering to (continued)
1, (self-defeating) 2 and (prickly) 3. It poisons the environment and
drains energy.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote, on 24-11-2009 02:59:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 1:30 pm, António Marques<ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Of course the statement has to be read in context. And in context I
> >> find it pretty clear that it doesn't intend the 'very general sense'
> >> you and others have taken issue with. And that wouldn't be a big deal
> >> if it weren't a recurring trend around here. How's one supposed to
> >> communicate without context?
>
> > So exactly how would you interpret Peter's statement "in context"?
>
> > Replying to Franz's (?) comment that
>
> > Still today gestures are an important aspect of speaking
>
> > Peter says:
>
> > Gesture alone has no semantic content -- does not convey information.
>
> > He does not say 'Those gestures' (i.e. the ones that accompany
> > speech),
>
> He does, since he goes on in the same paragraph (hence clearly
> connected) saying 'You cannot determine from a silent film of a
> conversation what the topic of the conversation is'. Not to mention that
> Franze was talking about gestures as 'an ... aspect of speaking'.
The fact that the sentences on either side refer specifically to
speech-accompanying gestures does not alter the actual wording of
Peter's central statement, which is "Gesture..." rather than "Those
gestures..." or "Such gestures..." or "Speech-accompanying
gestures...".
> Maybe Peter's first sentence is not optimally worded, but I don't see
> how anyone paying attention to the conversation could misread it.
I think it would be very easy. It is quite normal to move from
discussion of a particular instance to enunciation of a general rule
or principle in the very next sentence. Furthermore, when I adduced a
few familiar examples of meaningful gestures, Peter appeared to be
defending the very general claim, by arguing that in one way or
another these did not really have "meaning".
Of
> course, once the rest of the conversation has been left behind, it's
> normal to think the topic were gestures in general.
>
> Again, I think the interesting thing here, which no one went on
> exploring, is precisely the nature of speech-accompanying gestures.
Interesting, sure. And at least we've established that David McNeill
is the guy to read on the subject. But I don't think either of us
knows much more about it.
> Besides, just what the semantic content of *any* gesture is is
> debatable. Even with convention, the meaning of gestures can vary wildly
> depending on context. More often than not, they're simply 'calls for
> attention' and it's up to context to fill the rest. Not unlike 'Hey!'
> can mean 'Ross!' or a lot of other things.
Yes, the meanings may be highly context-sensitive and hard to
paraphrase. As I tried to point out, this is also true of utterances
that are indubitably part of language. And of course some gestures are
part of explicit codified systems with clear-cut meanings (e.g. hand
signals of football referees).
And the side issue that was introduced by Peter -- the well known fact
that different cultures have different conventions of gesture, as
illustrated in many popular books -- actually further supports their
meaningfulness. For what could it mean to say that a Greek head-nod
was somehow equivalent to somebody else's finger-pointing, unless
there was some meaning which the two had in common?
> > Believe me I do not do this just for the sake of nitpicking or scoring
> > cheap points. As the responses here indicate, most people's experience
> > is that there are gestures that have meaning. Peter (one of the
> > professionals on this group) appears to be claiming that linguistic
> > science has proved that this is not true. If this were so, we would
> > want to hear the evidence and good reason behind it. But it turns out
> > it's just done by fiddling with the meanings of the terms. As cheap a
> > trick as Jacques Derrida saying that "Writing precedes speech". This
> > sort of thing annoys me.
>
> Only because you're looking at it from the wrong end. It's one thing to
> produce absurd propositions for show and tell people to go twisting
> definitions until they can find the one combination that may or may not
> make the proposition work. That is more than annoying, not to say
> idiotic outright. But that is *not* what's going on here. Here there's
> either 1) lack of attention (I usually think twice before entering a
> thread, lest I misinterpret something, but that's not always enough), 2)
> deliberate misunderstanding (which I might do for pedagogical purposes,
> granted), 3) a wish to correct unsufferable usage (in which case an 'Or
> do you mean...' clause is in order), or 4) genuine curiosity (hard to
> believe, but hey).
>
> I'm not 'defending' Peter's original choice of words. I'm just
> expressing my annoyance at the effort spent on catering to (continued)
> 1, (self-defeating) 2 and (prickly) 3. It poisons the environment and
> drains energy.
I'd say (3) is closest to what is going on. And 'Or do you mean...' is
a pretty fair summary of my original response. Peter makes what seems
to be an untenable general statement. (And as I said above, he speaks
with a certain authority here.) This could be due to (1) lack of
attention on his part. But I want to challenge the general claim. In
an ideal discussion, perhaps Peter would accept some qualifications
and we could arrive at a formulation we could all believe in. Instead
he either defends the indefensible general claim, or restricts it on
the basis of idiosyncratic interpretations of the terms -- or both, as
in this case. If this is 'prickly' (on my part or his), I still prefer
it to allowing untenable statements to go unquestioned.
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
If you're going to yank contextual statements out of context and take
them as generalizations -- as if you were a prosecuting attorney --
then I'm not going to bother to respond.
Witnesses (especially witnesses for the defense) are strongly
cautioned never to answer more than "yes" or "no" and never, ever to
volunteer information.
Antonio manages to understand.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> On Nov 24, 2:42 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 4:52 am, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > > I'm not 'defending' Peter's original choice of words. I'm just
> > > expressing my annoyance at the effort spent on catering to (continued)
> > > 1, (self-defeating) 2 and (prickly) 3. It poisons the environment and
> > > drains energy.
>
> > I'd say (3) is closest to what is going on. And 'Or do you mean...' is
> > a pretty fair summary of my original response. Peter makes what seems
> > to be an untenable general statement. (And as I said above, he speaks
> > with a certain authority here.) This could be due to (1) lack of
> > attention on his part. But I want to challenge the general claim. In
> > an ideal discussion, perhaps Peter would accept some qualifications
> > and we could arrive at a formulation we could all believe in. Instead
> > he either defends the indefensible general claim, or restricts it on
> > the basis of idiosyncratic interpretations of the terms -- or both, as
> > in this case. If this is 'prickly' (on my part or his), I still prefer
> > it to allowing untenable statements to go unquestioned.
>
> If you're going to yank contextual statements out of context and take
> them as generalizations -- as if you were a prosecuting attorney --
> then I'm not going to bother to respond.
If your statement was meant to be so restricted, why was it not
appropriately worded? Context is not free. As I pointed out above, it
is quite normal for general statements to be juxtaposed to statements
about very specific cases.
And why did you appear to be defending the general claim by denying
that any of my examples had meaning?
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
I guess I'm not "quite normal"? Context is context.
> And why did you appear to be defending the general claim by denying
> that any of my examples had meaning?
That topic reached a dead end when you refused to say what you mean by
"meaning."
Trond Engen
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 8:50 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> And which deictic gesture would you use? The index finger, like an
>>>> American? The head-tilt, like a Greek?
>>>
>>> It's neither here nor there which particular gesture I would use;
>>> the point is that it would be understood. It's not true that
>>> pointing "has no meaning absent a preceding query". Deixis -- be it
>>> verbal or non-verbal -- is a form of meaning.
>>
>> No, it would _not_ be understood.
>
> Yes, it probably would. It's perfectly possible to correctly
> interpret a pointing gesture you've never seen used before. Pointing
> is fairly self-explanatory. Even dogs are capable of understanding
> human pointing gestures:
Regardless of it's universality, even though I suspect it to be
relevant, pointing seems like the most obvious candidate for a gesture
that's been grammati- and/or lexicalized and is part of language. We use
it all the time as the default way of expressing certain meanings in an
otherwise spoken message, and we have developed words and grammatical
features to include it, e.g. "there" turning an accompanying gesture
into an adverb.
--
Trond Engen
benl...@ihug.co.nz
On the contrary, I think you're perfectly normal. You just don't want
to admit it in this case.
Here's a little PTD from last year:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[referring to certain BBC pronunciations to which you objected:]
It's clearly not a whim; it's analogy. They know that in their silly
dialect, "garage" > "garridge"; the identically stressed and vowelled
"Barack" therefore becomes "barrick."
They simply don't realize that (as I've been saying for years) the
unFrench pronunciation of "garage" is disrespectful to start with, and
that (as I've also been saying for years) names are not words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So we move from a discussion clearly focused on a couple of examples
(one of them a name) to an enunciation of a general proposition
("names are not words"), which is actually embedded in a complement
clause, conjoined with another complement referring to the highly
specific "garage". What's that if not "context"? But does this mean
that we are to understand that "names are not words" applies only to
the name "Barack"? or to "names pronounced by the BBC"? I am quite
sure you never intended any such restriction during those years you've
been saying it.
> > And why did you appear to be defending the general claim by denying
> > that any of my examples had meaning?
>
> That topic reached a dead end when you refused to say what you mean by
> "meaning."
Aw, did I? Thus leaving us bereft of any concept of meaning to work
with? Wasn't that mean of me... But wait! You didn't seem to have a
problem declaring that gestures _don't_ have meaning. So you must have
had some notion in mind. Indeed, you referred us to Bloomfield's
chapter on the subject. Here's what he says there:
"We have defined the meaning of a linguistic form as the situation in
which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth in
the hearer."
Now many people would find this definition inadequate. But if it suits
you, and you think it satisfactorily characterizes the meanings of
linguistic forms, then why shouldn't we extend it to say that the
meaning of a gesture is "the situation in which the gesturer makes it
and the response which it calls forth in the seer"? Then you could
explain why, under this definition, my examples do not have meaning.
Ross Clark
Ekkehard Dengler
Besides, it's difficult to see how this narrow definition of "gesture(s)"
would be consistent with Peter's added claim that unprompted pointing has no
meaning.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Yusuf B Gursey
> > discount until January 15, 2010, atwww.oup.com/us/holidaysale
>
> It's $185 andout of stock. Amazon has it new from $84.99 all the way up
> to $444.12 at some outfit called Oak Book.
well, it's not out of stock, as I bought it at the discounted price
from the URL and it was delivered to me today. I rarely had a chance
to look at it in the library as it was being frequently checked out.
great book!
Peter T. Daniels
Hmm. In the libraries around here, it's a reference book.
Yusuf B Gursey
I found that it's in the reference section of the Rare Book Library
(probably as an aid to reading rare books), but it's very difficult to
get in there unless you have a stated purpose. the circulating edition
is currently checked out long term (as usual). I know some librarians,
perhaps I will suggest that they get a copy for the Main Reading Room,
which currently still has Diringer.