Re: All languages are equally fit
LEE Sau Dan
>> No. You seem to consider mathematical notation as a
>> prescriptivist considers English.
Nathan> Of course. Mathematical notation, unlike language, was
Nathan> consciously and intentionally designed.
Designed by whom? God?
If you realized that it is designed by human beings, would you still
suppose that it is flawless?
Nathan> Both systems have governing rules, but for language, we
Nathan> don't know what they are, so we can only describe the system
Nathan> through descriptive observation.
You don't know the *precise and complete* rules for mathematical
notations, either. And there is NO SINGLE system.
Nathan> In the case of mathematical notation however, we know the
Nathan> rules, because we designed them!
No. Even if we designed them, there could be flaws to leave in holes
for ambiguities. Sometimes, the designers DELIBERATLY allow ambiguities
for flexibility. These are not bugs, but features! Just revisit the
SQL example.
>> Strange attitude for a linguist.
Nathan> Hardly strange at all! Linguists don't describe English by
Nathan> how French speakers interpret it.
What does this have to do with how *human programmers* interpret program
code written by another *human programmer*?
What does this have anything to do with how *mathematicians* read
mathematical formulae written by another *mathematician*?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Nathan Sanders
LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> >>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> writes:
>
> >> No. You seem to consider mathematical notation as a
> >> prescriptivist considers English.
>
> Nathan> Of course. Mathematical notation, unlike language, was
> Nathan> consciously and intentionally designed.
>
> Designed by whom? God?
By humans, obviously.
> If you realized that it is designed by human beings, would you still
> suppose that it is flawless?
I don't "suppose" it; I know it.
Are you really unaware that mathematical logic defines the notion of
well-formed formula?
Can humans design flawed notation systems? Of course. Those are
broken systems that good mathematicians would not use, because such
systems result in exactly the kind of ambiguity and imprecision that
mathematical notation is ordinarily designed to avoid. How terrible
it would be to have a mathematical notation with no defined order of
operations or grouping!
> Nathan> Both systems have governing rules, but for language, we
> Nathan> don't know what they are, so we can only describe the system
> Nathan> through descriptive observation.
>
> You don't know the *precise and complete* rules for mathematical
> notations, either.
For any given well-defined notation, yes, we do. That's the whole
point of having a well-defined notation system.
> And there is NO SINGLE system.
I never said there was. In fact, I've been quite clear that there are
multiple systems, and what you think is ambiguity is really just
someone not having yet picked a system to use.
> Nathan> In the case of mathematical notation however, we know the
> Nathan> rules, because we designed them!
>
> No.
Are you suggesting that after we design a system, we magically forget
how we set it up? I should hope not!
> Even if we designed them, there could be flaws to leave in holes
> for ambiguities. Sometimes, the designers DELIBERATLY allow ambiguities
> for flexibility. These are not bugs, but features! Just revisit the
> SQL example.
As I explained in my response to the SQL example, there is no
ambiguity there. Just because someone without full knowledge of the
situation can't predict how a given command will be interpreted
doesn't mean that the command is ambiguous. It is fully predictable,
once you know all the relevant information (table statistics, queries,
etc.). A computer does have this knowledge, and so it will run the
command exactly the same way every single time if the information
necessary to run it stays constant.
> >> Strange attitude for a linguist.
>
> Nathan> Hardly strange at all! Linguists don't describe English by
> Nathan> how French speakers interpret it.
>
> What does this have to do with how *human programmers* interpret program
> code written by another *human programmer*?
Human programmers are "outside the system". The have their own rules
that may be different from how the computer language is defined.
Why is so hard for you to understand that when I say "computer
language", I mean "computer language", and not "whatever bastard
interpretation could possibly be assigned to a computer language when
you are allowed to ignore how it has been defined"?
> What does this have anything to do with how *mathematicians* read
> mathematical formulae written by another *mathematician*?
Mathematicians are "outside the system". The have their own rules
that may be different from how the mathematical notation is defined.
Why is so hard for you to understand that when I say "mathematical
notation", I mean "mathematical notation", and not "whatever bastard
interpretation could possibly be assigned to a mathematical notation
when you are allowed to ignore how it has been defined"?
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Joachim Pense
> In article <87fx8rg...@gmail.com>,
> LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> writes:
>>
>> >> No. You seem to consider mathematical notation as a
>> >> prescriptivist considers English.
>>
>> Nathan> Of course. Mathematical notation, unlike language, was
>> Nathan> consciously and intentionally designed.
>>
>> Designed by whom? God?
>
> By humans, obviously.
>
>> If you realized that it is designed by human beings, would you still
>> suppose that it is flawless?
>
> I don't "suppose" it; I know it.
>
> Are you really unaware that mathematical logic defines the notion of
> well-formed formula?
>
> Can humans design flawed notation systems? Of course. Those are
> broken systems that good mathematicians would not use, because such
> systems result in exactly the kind of ambiguity and imprecision that
> mathematical notation is ordinarily designed to avoid. How terrible
> it would be to have a mathematical notation with no defined order of
> operations or grouping!
>
Why is ambiguity in language more acceptable?
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >> >> No. You seem to consider mathematical notation as a
> >> >> prescriptivist considers English.
>
> >> Nathan> Of course. Mathematical notation, unlike language, was
> >> Nathan> consciously and intentionally designed.
>
> >> Designed by whom? God?
>
> > By humans, obviously.
>
> >> If you realized that it is designed by human beings, would you still
> >> suppose that it is flawless?
>
> > I don't "suppose" it; I know it.
>
> > Are you really unaware that mathematical logic defines the notion of
> > well-formed formula?
>
> > Can humans design flawed notation systems? Of course. Those are
> > broken systems that good mathematicians would not use, because such
> > systems result in exactly the kind of ambiguity and imprecision that
> > mathematical notation is ordinarily designed to avoid. How terrible
> > it would be to have a mathematical notation with no defined order of
> > operations or grouping!
>
> Why is ambiguity in language more acceptable?
Because language occurs in a social context that includes a great deal
of information that's not explicit in the utterance. And because
utterances carry presuppositions (and other properties), as shown by
the "only ... but" examples.
Joachim Pense
So you are not talking about real ambiguity but about pseudo-ambiguity that
occurs when you consider utterances isolated from their context?
I don't see a difference here between formulas, language, programming: If
you allow ambiguity that is neither eliminated by context nor irrelevant in
the context, then your communication (or programming) attempt fails.
(Except in those cases in poetry or jokes where you deliberately exploit
ambiguity).
Joachim
Nathan Sanders
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Because we have no control over the fundamental nature of language.
As rational people, we accept the properties of language, because
those properties are given to us as facts.
(Okay, not all of us accept those properties. Prescriptivists do
often try to change some of them, but it's well-known how unsuccessful
those attempts generally are, especially in spoken language.)
But formal languages are invented abstract objects (like Magdalenian
and Zamenhof's Esperanto), which means they have no intrinsic need to
adhere to the human brain's linguistic quirks. Free from these
limitations, we can make formal languages as different from human
language as our imaginations will allow. This includes allowing them
to lack ambiguity.
Joachim Pense
You are saying that we accept that a language allows ambiguity as a fact of
life, but does not mean we accept instances of ambiguity. We try to avoid
them when we use language, because we don't want to be misunderstood (or
maybe if we want to cheat we exploit ambiguities of language as in the
example of the man who paid for "intercourse with a young lady" and later
unsuccessfully complained that the lady only wanted to chat with him).
Of course a well designed notation system or programming language offers
almost no possibilities for ambiguity, but if they are present, they have
to be avoided.
Joachim
LEE Sau Dan
Joachim> You are saying that we accept that a language allows
Joachim> ambiguity as a fact of life, but does not mean we accept
Joachim> instances of ambiguity. We try to avoid them when we use
Joachim> language, because we don't want to be misunderstood (or
Joachim> maybe if we want to cheat we exploit ambiguities of
Joachim> language as in the example of the man who paid for
Joachim> "intercourse with a young lady" and later unsuccessfully
Joachim> complained that the lady only wanted to chat with him).
Ambiguities are not evil!
Sometimes, we use ambiguities to hide information. Sometimes, we
exploit them to convey hidden/secondary/deeper messages. (Many
dialogues in the film "Matrix", for instance, exploit ambiguity to
convey dual meanings.)
Nathan Sanders
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>
> > In article <hd3eqj$eg7$02$2...@news.t-online.com>,
> > Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> Why is ambiguity in language more acceptable?
> >
> > Because we have no control over the fundamental nature of language.
> > As rational people, we accept the properties of language, because
> > those properties are given to us as facts.
>
> You are saying that we accept that a language allows ambiguity as a fact of
> life, but does not mean we accept instances of ambiguity. We try to avoid
> them when we use language, because we don't want to be misunderstood (or
> maybe if we want to cheat we exploit ambiguities of language as in the
> example of the man who paid for "intercourse with a young lady" and later
> unsuccessfully complained that the lady only wanted to chat with him).
We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
Nathan
[1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
"them" refer to?
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <hd5un8$qne$0...@news.t-online.com>,> > > In article <hd3eqj$eg7$0...@news.t-online.com>,
> > > Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > >> Why is ambiguity in language more acceptable?
>
> > > Because we have no control over the fundamental nature of language.
> > > As rational people, we accept the properties of language, because
> > > those properties are given to us as facts.
>
> > You are saying that we accept that a language allows ambiguity as a fact of
> > life, but does not mean we accept instances of ambiguity. We try to avoid
> > them when we use language, because we don't want to be misunderstood (or
> > maybe if we want to cheat we exploit ambiguities of language as in the
> > example of the man who paid for "intercourse with a young lady" and later
> > unsuccessfully complained that the lady only wanted to chat with him).
>
> We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
> ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
> are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
> obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
> likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
>
> Nathan
>
> [1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
> "them" refer to?
Maybe it's syntactically ambiguous, but its referent is clear: "many
more ambiguities." Because the ""some" ambiguities" are ones you try
to avoid, hence they're not too subtle to even be noticed.
Nathan Sanders
<c0750cc6-2e56-4da0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:00�am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
> > ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. �Many of them
> > are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
> > obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
> > likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
> >
> > [1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? �Hint: What does
> > "them" refer to?
>
> Maybe it's syntactically ambiguous, but its referent is clear: "many
> more ambiguities." Because the ""some" ambiguities" are ones you try
> to avoid, hence they're not too subtle to even be noticed.
The corners could be also subtle, as could the languages!
"Them" is a perfectly fine reference for phrases quantified by
"every". Here are some examples from Google:
Check out every babysitter. Meet them, and ask for
references before you hire them.
Find every candle in the house, bring them into the
living room and light each and every one of them.
Give every student another strip. Ask them to
construct another container with many sides.
Nathan
Joachim Pense
I didn't. I see "them" only refer to "many more ambiguities". What else do
you suggest? I don't think "every corner" is possible.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> In article
> <c0750cc6-2e56-4da0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 8, 11:00 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
>> > ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
>> > are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
>> > obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
>> > likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
>> >
>> > [1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
>> > "them" refer to?
>>
>> Maybe it's syntactically ambiguous, but its referent is clear: "many
>> more ambiguities." Because the ""some" ambiguities" are ones you try
>> to avoid, hence they're not too subtle to even be noticed.
>
> The corners could be also subtle, as could the languages!
>
"Every corner" would have to be referred by "those" or maybe "these", but
not by "them". I can't give a rule from pragmatics theory to back that, but
an expert certainly can.
> "Them" is a perfectly fine reference for phrases quantified by
> "every". Here are some examples from Google:
>
> Check out every babysitter. Meet them, and ask for
> references before you hire them.
>
That's fine.
> Find every candle in the house, bring them into the
> living room and light each and every one of them.
>
Fine.
> Give every student another strip. Ask them to
> construct another container with many sides.
>
Here, "them" might refer to the strips (ignoring real-world context for a
minute). Again, I am only referring to my sprachgefühl, translated from
German.
Joachim
Nathan Sanders
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>
> > In article
> > <c0750cc6-2e56-4da0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 8, 11:00 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
> >> > ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
> >> > are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
> >> > obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
> >> > likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
> >> >
> >> > [1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
> >> > "them" refer to?
> >>
> >> Maybe it's syntactically ambiguous, but its referent is clear: "many
> >> more ambiguities." Because the ""some" ambiguities" are ones you try
> >> to avoid, hence they're not too subtle to even be noticed.
> >
> > The corners could be also subtle, as could the languages!
>
> "Every corner" would have to be referred by "those" or maybe "these", but
> not by "them".
The interpretation with "them" referring to "every corner" is
certainly the least preferred, but it is still a possible
interpretation.
> > Give every student another strip. Ask them to
> > construct another container with many sides.
>
> Here, "them" might refer to the strips (ignoring real-world context for a
> minute).
Yes, an other example of referential ambiguity. But the point remains
that reference from "them" to "every X" is possible.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:00 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> > > We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
> > > ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
> > > are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
> > > obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
> > > likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
>
> > > [1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
> > > "them" refer to?
>
> > Maybe it's syntactically ambiguous, but its referent is clear: "many
> > more ambiguities." Because the ""some" ambiguities" are ones you try
> > to avoid, hence they're not too subtle to even be noticed.
>
> The corners could be also subtle, as could the languages!
>
> "Them" is a perfectly fine reference for phrases quantified by
> "every". Here are some examples from Google:
>
> Check out every babysitter. Meet them, and ask for
> references before you hire them.
>
> Find every candle in the house, bring them into the
> living room and light each and every one of them.
>
> Give every student another strip. Ask them to
> construct another container with many sides.
Those didn't even occur to me, because under what interpretation could
they have been meant? They're ruled out even more than the "some
ambiguities"!
Peter T. Daniels
> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
All three examples look to me like singular "them," i.e. degenderized
language.
Nathan Sanders
<5b7ad689-3e5b-459a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > minute). Again, I am only referring to my sprachgef�hl, translated from
> > German.
>
> All three examples look to me like singular "them," i.e. degenderized
> language.
Even "every candle"?
Joachim Pense
> In article <hd76a9$78g$01$2...@news.t-online.com>,
> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>>
>> > In article
>> > <c0750cc6-2e56-4da0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Nov 8, 11:00 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
>> >> > ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
>> >> > are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
>> >> > obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
>> >> > likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
>> >> >
>> >> > [1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
>> >> > "them" refer to?
>> >>
>> >> Maybe it's syntactically ambiguous, but its referent is clear: "many
>> >> more ambiguities." Because the ""some" ambiguities" are ones you try
>> >> to avoid, hence they're not too subtle to even be noticed.
>> >
>> > The corners could be also subtle, as could the languages!
>>
>> "Every corner" would have to be referred by "those" or maybe "these", but
>> not by "them".
>
> The interpretation with "them" referring to "every corner" is
> certainly the least preferred, but it is still a possible
> interpretation.
>
I differ (at least I would consider the German equivalent as wrong). I am
lacking the expertise in pragmatics, but I am is certainly some literature
that states the rule what a pronoun can refer to.
>> > Give every student another strip. Ask them to
>> > construct another container with many sides.
>>
>> Here, "them" might refer to the strips (ignoring real-world context for a
>> minute).
>
> Yes, an other example of referential ambiguity. But the point remains
> that reference from "them" to "every X" is possible.
I think you cannot just look at the syntax. You have to analyse the
pragmatic roles of the sentence elements to decide what references are
possible.
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
> > > German.
>
> > All three examples look to me like singular "them," i.e. degenderized
> > language.
>
> Even "every candle"?
Umm, candles are inherently male?
Nathan Sanders
<f53a8ba0-3c20-42f9...@j19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > minute). Again, I am only referring to my sprachgef�hl, translated from
> > > > German.
> >
> > > All three examples look to me like singular "them," i.e. degenderized
> > > language.
> >
> > Even "every candle"?
>
> Umm, candles are inherently male?
Touch�.
Nathan Sanders
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
If "them" can refer to "every language" (which it is), then it can
refer to "every corner".
> >> > Give every student another strip. Ask them to
> >> > construct another container with many sides.
> >>
> >> Here, "them" might refer to the strips (ignoring real-world context for a
> >> minute).
> >
> > Yes, an other example of referential ambiguity. But the point remains
> > that reference from "them" to "every X" is possible.
>
> I think you cannot just look at the syntax. You have to analyse the
> pragmatic roles of the sentence elements to decide what references are
> possible.
Syntax and/or semantics (the resolution of the "and/or" depends on who
you ask) give us all the possible interpretations, based on lexical
meaning, sentence structure, and the principle of compositionality.
Pragmatics whittles down the possible interpretations to the most
cooperative and felicitous ones. It also adds in extra meaning, such
as presuppositions and implicatures.
Nathan Sanders
<a0174d33-5935-4ca7...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 12:12�pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c0750cc6-2e56-4da0-a41a-60072385d...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > �"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 8, 11:00�am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
> > > > ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. �Many of them
> > > > are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
> > > > obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
> > > > likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
> >
> > > > [1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? �Hint: What does
> > > > "them" refer to?
> >
> > > Maybe it's syntactically ambiguous, but its referent is clear: "many
> > > more ambiguities." Because the ""some" ambiguities" are ones you try
> > > to avoid, hence they're not too subtle to even be noticed.
> >
> > The corners could be also subtle, as could the languages!
>
> Those didn't even occur to me, because under what interpretation could
> they have been meant? They're ruled out even more than the "some
> ambiguities"!
Possibility and plausibility are different concepts.
A medicine label that says "take one pill twice a day" still has the
possible interpretation that the patient should take the same pill
twice (perhaps by regurgitating it after the first swallow), even
though it's clearly not the most plausible interpretation.
Semantics gives us all the possible interpretations; pragmatics sorts
through those and gives us the most plausible ones. But the possible
interpretations are still possible.
Herman Rubin
Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote:
>In article <hd5un8$qne$01$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>> > In article <hd3eqj$eg7$02$2...@news.t-online.com>,
>> > Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
...................
>> You are saying that we accept that a language allows ambiguity as a fact of
>> life, but does not mean we accept instances of ambiguity. We try to avoid
>> them when we use language, because we don't want to be misunderstood (or
>> maybe if we want to cheat we exploit ambiguities of language as in the
>> example of the man who paid for "intercourse with a young lady" and later
>> unsuccessfully complained that the lady only wanted to chat with him).
>We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
>ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
>are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
>obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
>likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
>Nathan
>[1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
>"them" refer to?
The ability to avoid this ambiguity by the simple use of
variables should be taught with beginning reading.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
António Marques
> In article <nsanders-A3FE6D.12002208112...@adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net>,
> Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> >We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
> >ambiguities lurking in every corner of every language. Many of them
> >are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
> >obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
> >likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
> >Nathan
> >[1] Did you notice the ambiguity in this sentence? Hint: What does
> >"them" refer to?
>
> The ability to avoid this ambiguity by the simple use of
> variables should be taught with beginning reading.
But the point is that human language performs with those ambiguities
(in fact, they are so ubiquitous one doesn't even notice them),
whereas programming languages wouldn't be able to function with them.
And the reason for it is that human language has a much wider scope of
usage and performance requirements. Whereas all that programming
languages need/are-able to express (even Prolog) ultimately comes down
to a mundane sequence of 0 and 1.
Peter T. Daniels
Then maybe pragmatics shouldn't have been hived off into a separate
field!
Joachim Pense
(1) There was a pencil in the bag. I gave it to my friend.
(2) The bag contained a pencil. I gave it to my friend.
(3) There was a bag containing a pencil. I gave it to my friend.
My interpretation:
(1) "it" can only refer to the pencil.
(2) ambiguous.
(3) "it" refers to the bag.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> Possibility and plausibility are different concepts.
>
> A medicine label that says "take one pill twice a day" still has the
> possible interpretation that the patient should take the same pill
> twice (perhaps by regurgitating it after the first swallow), even
> though it's clearly not the most plausible interpretation.
>
> Semantics gives us all the possible interpretations; pragmatics sorts
> through those and gives us the most plausible ones. But the possible
> interpretations are still possible.
>
In your pill example, it is not pragmatics but real-world-knowledge that
gives us the most plausible interpretation.
"I found a pencil in a bag and gave it to my friend". Would the
interpretation of "it" as the bag be impossible or implausible, and why?
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
> >> > Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> >> >> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>
> >> >> > In article
Again, pragmatically (or Griceanly) speaking, why would you mention
the pencil if it was the bag you were interested in?
Joachim Pense
> On Nov 9, 2:45 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Can you recommend a textbook that discusses this kind of questions?
Joachim
Nathan Sanders
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>
> > Possibility and plausibility are different concepts.
> >
> > A medicine label that says "take one pill twice a day" still has the
> > possible interpretation that the patient should take the same pill
> > twice (perhaps by regurgitating it after the first swallow), even
> > though it's clearly not the most plausible interpretation.
> >
> > Semantics gives us all the possible interpretations; pragmatics sorts
> > through those and gives us the most plausible ones. But the possible
> > interpretations are still possible.
>
> In your pill example, it is not pragmatics but real-world-knowledge that
> gives us the most plausible interpretation.
The context in which an utterance is made is a huge factor in
pragmatics, and the real-world is part of that context.
> "I found a pencil in a bag and gave it to my friend". Would the
> interpretation of "it" as the bag be impossible or implausible, and why?
It's certainly not impossible. I'm not sure I would even say
implausible, just less plausible.
Alan Munn
Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Just another data point:
There was a pencil in the bag. I gave it to my friend anyway.
This shifts the preferred interpretation to the bag.
Alan
>
> Can you recommend a textbook that discusses this kind of questions?
>
> Joachim
Some classic work on this is Centering Theory: (not a textbook, though)
Barbara Grosz, Aravind Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. June 1995.
"Centering: A Framework for Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse."
In Computational Linguistics 2(21), pp. 203-225.
Peter Gordon, Barbara Grosz, and Laura Gillom. 1993. "Pronouns, Names,
and the Centering of Attention in Discourse." Cognitive Science 3(17),
pp. 311-347.
Gordon, P.C., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives and discourse
coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 216-231.
Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J., & Gilliom, L.A. (1993). Pronouns, names and
the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
Gordon, P.C., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing
of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 389-424.
If you chase down more recent work that cites these papers you'll
probably find plenty of relevant work.
Joachim Pense
I don't even feel that the German version is acceptable:
Ich fand einen Bleistift in der Tasche und gab sie meinem Freund.
And, thanks to gender agreement, it even is grammatically clear that "sie"
must refer to "Tasche".
Joachim
jimbo...@gmail.com
Stephen C. Levinson, 1983,_Pragmatics_, CUP
Yan Huang, 2006, Pragmatics, Oxford University Press.
Levinson is something of a classic volume and obviously Huang is more
recent.
Jim
Bart Mathias
> On Nov 8, 2:34 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>> Nathan Sanders (in sci.lang):
>>
>>> "Them" is a perfectly fine reference for phrases quantified by
>>> "every". Here are some examples from Google:
>>> Check out every babysitter. Meet them, and ask for
>>> references before you hire them.
>> That's fine.
>>
>>> Find every candle in the house, bring them into the
>>> living room and light each and every one of them.
>> Fine.
>>
>>> Give every student another strip. Ask them to
>>> construct another container with many sides.
>
> All three examples look to me like singular "them," i.e. degenderized
> language.
This seems to imply that you would find these acceptable:
Check out every babysitter. Meet her or him, and ask for
references before hiring any.
Find every candle in the house, bring it into the
living room and light each and every one of it.
Give every student another strip. Ask him or her to
construct another container with many sides.
What do you really mean?
Herman Rubin
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio_Marques?= <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 2:05=A0am, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <nsanders-A3FE6D.12002208112...@adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.=
>sbcglobal.net>,
>> Nathan Sanders =A0<nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>> >We try to avoid *some* ambiguities, but there are many more
>> >are too subtle to even be noticed[1], and even those that are more
>> >obvious will often just get ignored or resolved by convention,
>> >likelihood, or just plain old gut instinct.
>> >Nathan
>> >"them" refer to?
<> The ability to avoid this ambiguity by the simple use of
<> variables should be taught with beginning reading.
<But the point is that human language performs with those ambiguities
<(in fact, they are so ubiquitous one doesn't even notice them),
<whereas programming languages wouldn't be able to function with them.
<And the reason for it is that human language has a much wider scope of
<usage and performance requirements. Whereas all that programming
<languages need/are-able to express (even Prolog) ultimately comes down
<to a mundane sequence of 0 and 1.
How well does the language perform? The problem with pronouns
is a major problem, and the simple use of variables allows for
a treatment of them which does not require relearning. Having
an unlimited supply of "procharacters" is a simple extension
to any of the existing languages.
António Marques
As good as it gets.
> The problem with pronouns
> is a major problem, and the simple use of variables allows for
> a treatment of them which does not require relearning. Having
> an unlimited supply of "procharacters" is a simple extension
> to any of the existing languages.
Again: human language has a much wider scope of usage and performance
requirements[; w]hereas all that programming languages need/are-able to
Nathan Sanders
hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
Well enough that humankind has not only survived, but flourished.
> The problem with pronouns is a major problem,
If the problem were major enough to seriously impede ordinary
communication (the primary mode of communication among the population
as a whole), then it would have been eliminated a long time ago.
Language change happens quite rapidly (in some cases, as short as on
the order of decades), whereas language has been around for a
comparatively much longer time (at least on the order of tens of
thousands of years).
Of course, ambiguity is a problem for science and engineering, hence
the invention of formal notation. But no one uses formal notation as
a native language, and I believe that no one ever could, because,
unlike natural languages, formal notation had not had the benefit of
thousands of generations of native speakers optimizing it for use as a
native language.
> and the simple use of variables allows for
> a treatment of them which does not require relearning. Having
> an unlimited supply of "procharacters" is a simple extension
> to any of the existing languages.
Apparently not simple enough for the human brain to have ever adopted
it as part of a natural spoken language at any point in human history.
(If such a system had ever been adopted, it surely would have stuck
around, since it is supposedly a "simple" solution to a "major
problem"!)
The closest would be something like the Bantu languages, which have
more than 20 noun classes, but even then, ambiguity can arise if a
pronoun has multiple possible referents from the same class.
A better example would be American Sign Language (and possibly other
sign languages; I don't know the details), though the possibility for
arbitrary numbers of distinct referents[1] is facilitated by ASL, as a
sign language, having rather free access to 3-dimensional space, while
spoken language is forced to progress in exactly one direction
(forward) in exactly one dimension (time).
Nathan
[1] There may in fact be some known upper bound on the number of
possible distinct referents that is possible in ASL, but for the
purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming there isn't. If there is a
limit, it's probably due to limits on human processing and memory, not
something inherent to ASL itself, unlike the way Bantu noun classes
work.
Peter T. Daniels
I mean that I looked at the beginning and end of the list and missed
the middle. And it's quite possible that there was in fact only one
candle in the house.
Peter T. Daniels
> A better example would be American Sign Language (and possibly other
> sign languages; I don't know the details), though the possibility for
> arbitrary numbers of distinct referents[1] is facilitated by ASL, as a
> sign language, having rather free access to 3-dimensional space, while
> spoken language is forced to progress in exactly one direction
> (forward) in exactly one dimension (time).
>
> Nathan
>
> [1] There may in fact be some known upper bound on the number of
> possible distinct referents that is possible in ASL, but for the
> purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming there isn't. If there is a
> limit, it's probably due to limits on human processing and memory, not
> something inherent to ASL itself, unlike the way Bantu noun classes
> work.
When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deictics
are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it would
be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is the
number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
Nathan Sanders
<8746f483-d91b-4640...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
That's my hunch, too.
Nathan
Herman Rubin
Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote:
>In article <hd9le5$i...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,
> hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article
>> <21ccde0d-1015-4370...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio_Marques?= <ent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 9, 2:05=A0am, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> >> In article <nsanders-A3FE6D.12002208112...@adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.=
>> >sbcglobal.net>,
>> >> Nathan Sanders =A0<nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
...................
>> <> The ability to avoid this ambiguity by the simple use of
>> <> variables should be taught with beginning reading.
>> <But the point is that human language performs with those ambiguities
>> <(in fact, they are so ubiquitous one doesn't even notice them),
>> <whereas programming languages wouldn't be able to function with them.
>> <And the reason for it is that human language has a much wider scope of
>> <usage and performance requirements. Whereas all that programming
>> <languages need/are-able to express (even Prolog) ultimately comes down
>> <to a mundane sequence of 0 and 1.
>> How well does the language perform?
>Well enough that humankind has not only survived, but flourished.
>> The problem with pronouns is a major problem,
>If the problem were major enough to seriously impede ordinary
>communication (the primary mode of communication among the population
>as a whole), then it would have been eliminated a long time ago.
>Language change happens quite rapidly (in some cases, as short as on
>the order of decades), whereas language has been around for a
>comparatively much longer time (at least on the order of tens of
>thousands of years).
This argument is fallacious. Simple improvements can
be difficult to see; the arbitrary use of variables for
ANYTHING in mathematics only goes back to the last
century.
>Of course, ambiguity is a problem for science and engineering, hence
>the invention of formal notation. But no one uses formal notation as
>a native language, and I believe that no one ever could, because,
>unlike natural languages, formal notation had not had the benefit of
>thousands of generations of native speakers optimizing it for use as a
>native language.
>> and the simple use of variables allows for
>> a treatment of them which does not require relearning. Having
>> an unlimited supply of "procharacters" is a simple extension
>> to any of the existing languages.
>Apparently not simple enough for the human brain to have ever adopted
>it as part of a natural spoken language at any point in human history.
>(If such a system had ever been adopted, it surely would have stuck
>around, since it is supposedly a "simple" solution to a "major
>problem"!)
Until someone explicitly presents it, it will not be done.
>The closest would be something like the Bantu languages, which have
>more than 20 noun classes, but even then, ambiguity can arise if a
>pronoun has multiple possible referents from the same class.
Again, the simple idea of variables solves the problem.
>A better example would be American Sign Language (and possibly other
>sign languages; I don't know the details), though the possibility for
>arbitrary numbers of distinct referents[1] is facilitated by ASL, as a
>sign language, having rather free access to 3-dimensional space, while
>spoken language is forced to progress in exactly one direction
>(forward) in exactly one dimension (time).
Written language makes a small use of two dimensions, but
is still basically one dimensional. I suspect ASL is similar
to written language in this respect.
>Nathan
>[1] There may in fact be some known upper bound on the number of
>possible distinct referents that is possible in ASL, but for the
>purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming there isn't. If there is a
>limit, it's probably due to limits on human processing and memory, not
>something inherent to ASL itself, unlike the way Bantu noun classes
>work.
--
Herman Rubin
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 2:08=A0pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>> A better example would be American Sign Language (and possibly other
>> sign languages; I don't know the details), though the possibility for
>> arbitrary numbers of distinct referents[1] is facilitated by ASL, as a
>> sign language, having rather free access to 3-dimensional space, while
>> spoken language is forced to progress in exactly one direction
>> (forward) in exactly one dimension (time).
>> [1] There may in fact be some known upper bound on the number of
>> possible distinct referents that is possible in ASL, but for the
>> purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming there isn't. =A0If there is a
>> limit, it's probably due to limits on human processing and memory, not
>> something inherent to ASL itself, unlike the way Bantu noun classes
>> work.
>When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deictics
>are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it would
>be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is the
>number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
Since mathematicians deal with more, and sentences often go
to 100 words, this is clearly not the case. Also, the sentences
in a paragraph may have far more concepts than this.
We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
handle these ambiguities. We have a simple addition which
can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 9, 2:08=A0pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> >> A better example would be American Sign Language (and possibly other
> >> sign languages; I don't know the details), though the possibility for
> >> arbitrary numbers of distinct referents[1] is facilitated by ASL, as a
> >> sign language, having rather free access to 3-dimensional space, while
> >> spoken language is forced to progress in exactly one direction
> >> (forward) in exactly one dimension (time).
> >> [1] There may in fact be some known upper bound on the number of
> >> possible distinct referents that is possible in ASL, but for the
> >> purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming there isn't. =A0If there is a
> >> limit, it's probably due to limits on human processing and memory, not
> >> something inherent to ASL itself, unlike the way Bantu noun classes
> >> work.
> >When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deictics
> >are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it would
> >be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is the
> >number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
>
> Since mathematicians deal with more, and sentences often go
> to 100 words, this is clearly not the case. Also, the sentences
> in a paragraph may have far more concepts than this.
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
You _seem_ to be claiming that deaf mathematicians don't write
formulas like other mathematicians, but communicate them in a signed
language.
> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
> handle these ambiguities. We have a simple addition which
> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <nsanders-D109A5.15081209112...@adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net>,
> Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
> >In article <hd9le5$...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>,> >> <21ccde0d-1015-4370-8ff0-2189dd045...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
But since language goes back a couple thousand generations at least,
it's had ample time to devise some sort of "variables" scheme akin to
that recently invented by mathematicians -- yet nowhere has this
happened.
> >Of course, ambiguity is a problem for science and engineering, hence
> >the invention of formal notation. But no one uses formal notation as
> >a native language, and I believe that no one ever could, because,
> >unlike natural languages, formal notation had not had the benefit of
> >thousands of generations of native speakers optimizing it for use as a
> >native language.
> >> and the simple use of variables allows for
> >> a treatment of them which does not require relearning. Having
> >> an unlimited supply of "procharacters" is a simple extension
> >> to any of the existing languages.
> >Apparently not simple enough for the human brain to have ever adopted
> >it as part of a natural spoken language at any point in human history.
> >(If such a system had ever been adopted, it surely would have stuck
> >around, since it is supposedly a "simple" solution to a "major
> >problem"!)
>
> Until someone explicitly presents it, it will not be done.
Changes in language do not come about because someone proposes them.
> >The closest would be something like the Bantu languages, which have
> >more than 20 noun classes, but even then, ambiguity can arise if a
> >pronoun has multiple possible referents from the same class.
>
> Again, the simple idea of variables solves the problem.
What problem?
> >A better example would be American Sign Language (and possibly other
> >sign languages; I don't know the details), though the possibility for
> >arbitrary numbers of distinct referents[1] is facilitated by ASL, as a
> >sign language, having rather free access to 3-dimensional space, while
> >spoken language is forced to progress in exactly one direction
> >(forward) in exactly one dimension (time).
>
> Written language makes a small use of two dimensions, but
> is still basically one dimensional. I suspect ASL is similar
> to written language in this respect.
You clearly have never looked at any of the work of Roy Harris on the
nature of writing. Its multidimensionality is, for him, a very
important property -- and distinguishes it from the unidimensionality
of speech.
PaulJK
It's interesting how the degree of plausibility changes with
seemingly irrelevant changes of meaning, e.g.
"I found a pencil in a bag, then gave it to my friend."
"I removed the pencil from the bag, then gave it to my friend."
Now it's more likely to be the pencil that I gave to my friend.
AFAICT, that is.
pjk
LEE Sau Dan
Nathan> Of course, ambiguity is a problem for science and
Nathan> engineering, hence the invention of formal notation. But no
Nathan> one uses formal notation as a native language, and I believe
Nathan> that no one ever could, because, unlike natural languages,
Nathan> formal notation had not had the benefit of thousands of
Nathan> generations of native speakers optimizing it for use as a
Nathan> native language.
You mean, given enough time, such formal notations can evolve into a
native language?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
LEE Sau Dan
>> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can handle
>> these ambiguities. We have a simple addition which can go a long
>> way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
Vietnamese?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can handle
> >> these ambiguities. We have a simple addition which can go a long
> >> way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
>
> Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
> Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> Vietnamese?
Good one. Korean, too. I guess that says something about Chinese
writing.
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>> Vietnamese?
Peter> Good one. Korean, too. I guess that says something about
Peter> Chinese writing.
Is "Chinese" one language?
Do you want to say something about "Germanic writing", too?
Joachim Pense
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can handle
> >> these ambiguities. We have a simple addition which can go a long
> >> way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
>
> Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
> Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> Vietnamese?
>
Maybe also Turkish, where an alphabet replaced an Abjad.
Korean, too.
Joachim
Nathan Sanders
LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> >>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> writes:
>
> Nathan> Of course, ambiguity is a problem for science and
> Nathan> engineering, hence the invention of formal notation. But no
> Nathan> one uses formal notation as a native language, and I believe
> Nathan> that no one ever could, because, unlike natural languages,
> Nathan> formal notation had not had the benefit of thousands of
> Nathan> generations of native speakers optimizing it for use as a
> Nathan> native language.
>
> You mean, given enough time, such formal notations can evolve into a
> native language?
It would first require some form of corresponding linguistic
articulation that can be acquired by babies (i.e., speech or signing;
babies can't read or write), a rich enough vocabulary to talk about
ordinary human experiences, and sufficiently regular use by enough
adults in the babies' environment for them to acquire it. Otherwise,
it could never become a native language to begin with.
If all this did happen, the resulting native language would be
radically different from the original source notation, introducing all
sorts of ambiguities and irregularities that didn't exist in the
original. We only need to look at other instances of nativization
(such as creolization of pidgins, Nicaraguan Sign Language) to see
what differences arise when languages become "newly" native.
And this is just the first few generations. After a while, we'd start
noticing even more significant differences due to the natural process
of language change.
Nathan
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
> Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> >> Vietnamese?
>
> Peter> Good one. Korean, too. I guess that says something about
> Peter> Chinese writing.
>
> Is "Chinese" one language?
No. It's one script.
> Do you want to say something about "Germanic writing", too?
No. I'd say things about roman writing (meaning writing using the
roman alphabet, which is the Latin alphabet plus lots of additions for
different languages).
Peter T. Daniels
>
> > >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can handle
> > >> these ambiguities. We have a simple addition which can go a long
> > >> way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
>
> > Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
> > Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> > Vietnamese?
>
> Maybe also Turkish, where an alphabet replaced an Abjad.
Not for 90+% of the people.
> Korean, too.
Herman Rubin
>> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups=>> >On Nov 9, 2:08=3DA0pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
..................`
>> >When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deictics
>> >are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it would
>> >be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is the
>> >number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
>> Since mathematicians deal with more, and sentences often go
>> to 100 words, this is clearly not the case. =A0Also, the sentences
>> in a paragraph may have far more concepts than this. =A0
>Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
>You _seem_ to be claiming that deaf mathematicians don't write
>formulas like other mathematicians, but communicate them in a signed
>language.
I never claimed any such thing. What I was arguing against
were Miller's limitations.
>> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
>> handle these ambiguities. =A0We have a simple addition which
>> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
>Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
>writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. In both cases,
a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
DKleinecke
> In article <4f88002d-7781-4a04-8263-32ee65cef...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
I don't think Greek is a fair example. The Greeks, apart from Cyprus,
appear to have simply stopped writing altogether and then restarted.
I don't know about the origin of Coptic and I am not sure that anyone
knows. But certainly, on the surface, it does appear that it replaced
another older script.
Another example would be Maya. I assume that the old inscriptions
could still be read - at least by a learned elite - when the Spanish
arrived. A lifetime later they were writing Maya in the same script as
Spanish. Of course, we know why that happened and it puts a strain on
the meaning of "replace".
Now if Pinyin were only a bit more popular ...
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:f53a8ba0-3c20-42f9...@j19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Umm, candles are inherently male?
Distinctly phallic.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <4f88002d-7781-4a04-8263-32ee65cef...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 9, 7:44=A0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 9, 2:08=3DA0pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
>
> ..................`
>
> >> >When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deictics
> >> >are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it would
> >> >be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is the
> >> >number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
> >> Since mathematicians deal with more, and sentences often go
> >> to 100 words, this is clearly not the case. =A0Also, the sentences
> >> in a paragraph may have far more concepts than this. =A0
> >Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
> >You _seem_ to be claiming that deaf mathematicians don't write
> >formulas like other mathematicians, but communicate them in a signed
> >language.
>
> I never claimed any such thing. What I was arguing against
> were Miller's limitations.
What you cited has nothing whatsoever to do with Miller's
observations.
> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
> >> handle these ambiguities. =A0We have a simple addition which
> >> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
> >Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
> >writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. In both cases,
> a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
That's simply wrong. Linear B was gone long, long before the alphabet
came along, and the Cypriote syllabary coexisted with the alphabet for
centuries.
No pagan Egyptian started writing their language with the Greek
alphabet, and no Christian Egyptian wrote their language with
hieroglyphs/hieratic or with demotic.
Joachim Pense
>
> I don't think Greek is a fair example. The Greeks, apart from Cyprus,
> appear to have simply stopped writing altogether and then restarted.
>
> I don't know about the origin of Coptic and I am not sure that anyone
> knows. But certainly, on the surface, it does appear that it replaced
> another older script.
>
It derived from Greek; the Coptic alphabet is basically the Greek alphabet
with some extra letters taken from Demotic.
It replaced Demotic.
Joachim
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
IMHO pronouns _are_ variables. Also most nouns are variables -
abstractions of instances.
E.g. this piece of Perl code
@students = ('John', 'Mary');
for my $student (@students) {
print $student;
}
can also be written
for (@students) {
print $_;
}
using $_ (the current item) like the pronoun 'it' in a natural language.
The problems with the pronouns is their misuse. Speakers and writers
have the choice between very abstract words (e.g. pronouns) or less
abstract words. In programming languages or mathematical notation you
have the same problem related to human readers.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
> Again: human language has a much wider scope of usage and performance
> requirements[; w]hereas all that programming languages need/are-able to
> express (even Prolog) ultimately comes down to a mundane sequence of 0
> and 1.
Human language also comes down to sequences of 0 and 1 in the human
brain (synapses fire or not). The difference is that programming
languages are strictly defined/specified giving predictable results for
the same piece of code, whereas human languages can be unpredictable in
the resulting association by the receiver, i.e. the concept of e.g.
'red' can be different between sender and receiver. IMHO it's very
important for the efficiency of natural languages to allow such differences.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Herman Rubin wrote:
> > In article <21ccde0d-1015-4370-8ff0-2189dd045...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Jakobson called them "shifters" (along with deictics and such).
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>> Vietnamese?
Joachim> Maybe also Turkish, where an alphabet replaced an Abjad.
Abjad is not alphabetic?
Joachim> Korean, too.
Korean? Is Hangul regarded as an alphabetic system?
LEE Sau Dan
Helmut> E.g. this piece of Perl code
Helmut> @students = ('John', 'Mary');
Helmut>
Helmut> for my $student (@students) {
Helmut> print $student;
Helmut> }
Helmut> can also be written
Helmut> for (@students) {
Helmut> print $_;
Helmut> }
Or even short (and cryptic):
for (@students) {
print;
}
Helmut> using $_ (the current item) like the pronoun 'it' in a
Helmut> natural language.
And $_ is the default operand for the "print" statement! ;)
Is that an implicit referent?
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
>>>>>> "Joachim" == Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes:
> Joachim> Maybe also Turkish, where an alphabet replaced an Abjad.
> Abjad is not alphabetic?
Abjad is Abjad.
In a context where the term 'Abjad' is used the term 'alphabet' means
'alphabet' in the _narrow_ sense.
> Joachim> Korean, too.
> Korean? Is Hangul regarded as an alphabetic system?
IMHO yes, because Hangul has vowels and consonants.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
> Helmut> E.g. this piece of Perl code
>
> Helmut> @students = ('John', 'Mary');
> Helmut>
> Helmut> for my $student (@students) {
> Helmut> print $student;
> Helmut> }
>
> Helmut> can also be written
>
> Helmut> for (@students) {
> Helmut> print $_;
> Helmut> }
>
> Or even short (and cryptic):
>
> for (@students) {
> print;
> }
Every experienced Perl programmer will understand it. But you can
imagine how hard this would be if the loop body containes e.g. 50 lines
of code.
Shortest:
print @students;
> Helmut> using $_ (the current item) like the pronoun 'it' in a
> Helmut> natural language.
> And $_ is the default operand for the "print" statement! ;)
> Is that an implicit referent?
Whatsoever ... the terminology of Perl is very confusing in some parts.
$_ is a predefined, global variable, implicitely used - with all
disadvantages of global variables.
See also 'perldoc perlvar' on your console.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
LEE Sau Dan
Helmut> Shortest:
Helmut> print @students;
But I like the LISP-centric version:
map {print} @students; # :)
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
>>>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel...@wollmersdorfer.at> writes:
> Helmut> Shortest:
> Helmut> print @students;
> But I like the LISP-centric version:
> map {print} @students; # :)
A good example that the style of one language should not be used for
another one.
First the 'map' is not necessary in this case and will confuse a human
reader.
Second 'print' is called on each item of the list, thus the overhead of
the call-context multiplies by the number of elements. Usually this
overhead will only be microseconds (not worth human time for
benchmarking) but it's not necessary. So you see: "simple is best" in
most cases.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Joachim" == Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> writes:
>
> Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
> Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> >> Vietnamese?
>
> Joachim> Maybe also Turkish, where an alphabet replaced an Abjad.
>
> Abjad is not alphabetic?
Why would you know the word "abjad" if you don't know the distinction
from "alphabet"?
> Joachim> Korean, too.
>
> Korean? Is Hangul regarded as an alphabetic system?
Of course! Why would you suppose it isn't?
(It is also called "featural," because of the correspondence of the
letter-shapes to phonetic features of the sounds represented, but
that's a clever incidental property of the shapes and doesn't impact
the way the letters represent the sounds.)
António Marques
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels<gram...@verizon.net> writes:
> Peter> Good one. Korean, too. I guess that says something about
> Peter> Chinese writing.
>
> Is "Chinese" one language?
>
> Do you want to say something about "Germanic writing", too?
There actually is one, sort of. Mostly that double letters thing, use of
<e> for /@/...
Just as there is, to an extent, a 'slavic' writing.
António Marques
>>>>>> "Joachim" == Joachim Pense<sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes:
>
> Peter> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced
> Peter> some other writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> >> Vietnamese?
>
> Joachim> Maybe also Turkish, where an alphabet replaced an Abjad.
>
> Abjad is not alphabetic?
>
>
> Joachim> Korean, too.
>
> Korean? Is Hangul regarded as an alphabetic system?
It has been said that Hangul is not an alphabet and that puzzles people,
but the fact is that is isn't an alphabet in the same sense as an
alphabet isn't a syllabary - Hangul is not an alphabet if one defines
'alphabet' as being composed of glyphs which bear no relationship to
phonetic value - Hangul's glyphs are methodically built around such a
relationship (though as time goes by and sound changes go on, both the
relationship and the internal organisation may become lost).
There's also the fact that it isn't used (syllabic blocks) as alphabets
are, but I think that's another matter.
António Marques
> Another example would be Maya. I assume that the old inscriptions
> could still be read - at least by a learned elite - when the Spanish
> arrived. A lifetime later they were writing Maya in the same script as
> Spanish. Of course, we know why that happened and it puts a strain on
> the meaning of "replace".
In the case of Nahuatl, literary production strongly incresed with the
adoption of the latin alphabet - but it doesn't count, because the
system employed previously by the aztecs was not writing; it was
precisely the kind of ideographic-like system some people here have
trouble understanding chinese is not. Well, just compare the two.
António Marques
> Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
> writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
The latin alhpabet replaced cyrillic in Romania (and was later on
replaced by a different cyrillic in Moldova, and has since been
restored), and not a few languages spoken in the former soviet space
have been going back and forth between latin and cyrillic - but in all
of these cases, an alphabet replaced an alphabet, not a diferent system.
I suppose some of those languages may have previously used an
arabic-derived script, but it's not likely that a significant part of
the population was literate in those times.
Yusuf B Gursey
I remember seeing a slab of Egyptian hierogrlyphic writing with a
cross on it in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum a few years ago. it
was left standing in the garden without any explanation. I posted
about it, and IIRC you had said that it was possible. if I had taken a
photo of it, I could send it, but it will take time.
Peter T. Daniels
If it was a Christian cross, why couldn't it have been added later, in
an attempt to sanctify a treasured, but pagan, object?
Yusuf B Gursey
it was a Christian cross, not an `ankh . OK. what you say is possible.
just wondered.
Yusuf B Gursey
last time I had concluded from your reply that some overlap between
Christianity and hierogrliphic writing was possible and you hadn't
objected.
here is your reply to my original query:
Message-ID: <4169C2...@worldnet.att.net>
From: "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: Hieroglyphics, Christian era?
References: <222ae656.0410...@posting.google.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:15:28 GMT
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> in the Istanbul Archealogical Museum there was an unlabeled marble
> with crosses and what apeeared to be cursive heieroglyphs (demotic?
> hieratic?)
>
> but it was NOT Coptic. did the writing survive into the christian era?
The latest dated hieroglyphic inscription is from somewhere in the
fourth c. CE.
--
Peter T. Daniels gramma...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
> From: "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@worldnet.att.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval
> Subject: Re: Hieroglyphics, Christian era?
> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:15:28 GMT
>
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > in the Istanbul Archealogical Museum there was an unlabeled marble
> > with crosses and what apeeared to be cursive heieroglyphs (demotic?
> > hieratic?)
>
> > but it was NOT Coptic. did the writing survive into the christian era?
>
> The latest dated hieroglyphic inscription is from somewhere in the
> fourth c. CE.
"Christian era" is a measure of time, not an assertion about religion.
Yusuf B Gursey
of course, but there were considrable amount of christians in the 4th
cent. CE, and it includes the era after Constantine.
Herman Rubin
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 2:13=A0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <4f88002d-7781-4a04-8263-32ee65cef...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>> >On Nov 9, 7:44=3DA0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> >> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 9, 2:08=3D3DA0pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote=
>:
......................
>> I never claimed any such thing. =A0What I was arguing against
>> were Miller's limitations.
>> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
>> >> handle these ambiguities. =3DA0We have a simple addition which
>> >> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
>> >Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
>> >writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>> I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. =A0In both cases,
>> a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
>I don't think Greek is a fair example. The Greeks, apart from Cyprus,
>appear to have simply stopped writing altogether and then restarted.
That we do not have inscriptions on stone or metal
does not mean that they stopped writing altogether.
>I don't know about the origin of Coptic and I am not sure that anyone
>knows. But certainly, on the surface, it does appear that it replaced
>another older script.
Coptic very definitely appears to be the evolution of
Egyptian, which was written in the Demotic syllabary
at the time of the Rosetta stone.
>Another example would be Maya. I assume that the old inscriptions
>could still be read - at least by a learned elite - when the Spanish
>arrived. A lifetime later they were writing Maya in the same script as
>Spanish. Of course, we know why that happened and it puts a strain on
>the meaning of "replace".
>Now if Pinyin were only a bit more popular ...
Herman Rubin
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 5:13=A0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <4f88002d-7781-4a04-8263-32ee65cef...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
>> >On Nov 9, 7:44=3DA0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> >> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 9, 2:08=3D3DA0pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote=
>:
..................`
<> >> >When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deictics
<> >> >are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it woul=
>d
<> >> >be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is the
<> >> >number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
<> >> Since mathematicians deal with more, and sentences often go
<> >> to 100 words, this is clearly not the case. =3DA0Also, the sentences
<> >> in a paragraph may have far more concepts than this. =3DA0
<> >Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
<> >You _seem_ to be claiming that deaf mathematicians don't write
<> >formulas like other mathematicians, but communicate them in a signed
<> >language.
<> I never claimed any such thing. =A0What I was arguing against
<> were Miller's limitations.
>What you cited has nothing whatsoever to do with Miller's
>observations.
Miller must have gotten his observations from people who do
not work in mathematics or science.
<> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
<> >> handle these ambiguities. =3DA0We have a simple addition which
<> >> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
<> >Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
<> >writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
<> I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. =A0In both cases,
<> a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
>That's simply wrong. Linear B was gone long, long before the alphabet
>came along, and the Cypriote syllabary coexisted with the alphabet for
>centuries.
Are you claiming that the Greeks had NO writing in this
interval?
>No pagan Egyptian started writing their language with the Greek
>alphabet, and no Christian Egyptian wrote their language with
>hieroglyphs/hieratic or with demotic.
Are you claiming that there was a sudden transition form
pagan writing to Christian writing?
Yusuf B Gursey
> In article <eb789518-f103-42bc-ab38-33822d6f7...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
it's an evolved form of New Kingdom Egyptian with Greek loans as a
language, and essentially a form of greek script with some additional
signs from Demotic Egyptian as a script.
> >knows. But certainly, on the surface, it does appear that it replaced
> >another older script.
>
> Coptic very definitely appears to be the evolution of
> Egyptian, which was written in the Demotic syllabary
> at the time of the Rosetta stone.
I don;t think Demotic was ever a syllabary. it was just a cursive and
simplified form of
Peter T. Daniels
> cent. CE, and it includes the era after Constantine.- \
No Christian inscriptions were written with native Egyptian scripts.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <eb789518-f103-42bc-ab38-33822d6f7...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
There isn't the slightest reason to believe that Linear B was ever
written on anything but clay tablets.
> >I don't know about the origin of Coptic and I am not sure that anyone
> >knows. But certainly, on the surface, it does appear that it replaced
> >another older script.
>
> Coptic very definitely appears to be the evolution of
> Egyptian, which was written in the Demotic syllabary
> at the time of the Rosetta stone.
Do not confuse the Coptic language (which is the latest form of the
Egyptian language) with the Coptic alphabet, which was innovated by
Egyptian Christians and owes nothing to the pagan hieroglyphic script.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <779250d0-ab6a-4cd0-9e73-f23eda5df...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 5:13=A0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >> In article <4f88002d-7781-4a04-8263-32ee65cef...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 9, 7:44=3DA0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >> >> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.googlegro=
> >ups=3D
> >> >.com>,
> >> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> <> >> >When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deictics
> <> >> >are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it would
> <> >> >be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is the
> <> >> >number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
> <> >> Since mathematicians deal with more, and sentences often go
> <> >> to 100 words, this is clearly not the case. =3DA0Also, the sentences
> <> >> in a paragraph may have far more concepts than this. =3DA0
> <> >Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
> <> >You _seem_ to be claiming that deaf mathematicians don't write
> <> >formulas like other mathematicians, but communicate them in a signed
> <> >language.
>
> <> I never claimed any such thing. =A0What I was arguing against
> <> were Miller's limitations.
>
> >What you cited has nothing whatsoever to do with Miller's
> >observations.
>
> Miller must have gotten his observations from people who do
> not work in mathematics or science.
No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot tell
at a glance whether a random array of objects on a table comprises 17
objects or 19 objects.
No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot
recall a list of 23 random items unless you construct elaborate
mnemonic devices.
The limitation on mental processing is "five plus or minus two."
> <> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
> <> >> handle these ambiguities. =3DA0We have a simple addition which
> <> >> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
> <> >Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
> <> >writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
>
> <> I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. =A0In both cases,
> <> a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
>
> >That's simply wrong. Linear B was gone long, long before the alphabet
> >came along, and the Cypriote syllabary coexisted with the alphabet for
> >centuries.
>
> Are you claiming that the Greeks had NO writing in this
> interval?
Yes. Do you have any _evidence_ to the contrary? No, you do not.
> >No pagan Egyptian started writing their language with the Greek
> >alphabet, and no Christian Egyptian wrote their language with
> >hieroglyphs/hieratic or with demotic.
>
> Are you claiming that there was a sudden transition form
> pagan writing to Christian writing?
Of course not. There were pagan people, and there were Christian
people. No pagans wrote pagan texts with the Greek alphabet, and no
Christians wrote Christian texts with the hieroglyphic
logoconsonantary. The two scripts were in use simultaneously, but not
by the same communities, for a few hundred years. Eventually, there
were no more pagans.
Yusuf B Gursey
my sources posit a hiroglyphic / hieratic / demotic origin of some of
the consonantal signs not found in greek.
Yusuf B Gursey
Hieroglyphic.
Peter T. Daniels
Then your sources are wrong. The seven extra letters are from demotic
only.
Yusuf B Gursey
OK. I remembered wrong or was unsure. but aren't the demotic signs
themselves derived from hieroglyphic?
Joachim Pense
> Do not confuse the Coptic language (which is the latest form of the
> Egyptian language) with the Coptic alphabet, which was innovated by
> Egyptian Christians and owes nothing to the pagan hieroglyphic script.
Except those few letters taken from demotic?
Joachim
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[ca . 50 lines or quotes snipped]
[1 line of comment]
>No Christian inscriptions were written with native Egyptian scripts.
Why this bad netiquette?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
> On Nov 11, 9:12 pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
[George Miller's "five plus or minus two,"]
>> Miller must have gotten his observations from people who do
>> not work in mathematics or science.
> No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot tell
> at a glance whether a random array of objects on a table comprises 17
> objects or 19 objects.
I still remember that it took me more than two looks to verify that a
classmate had 6 toes on each foot.
Same for long numbers without punctuation between the digits: one look
works up to 5 or 6.
> No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot
> recall a list of 23 random items unless you construct elaborate
> mnemonic devices.
One of the popular methods is creating a story around the items. E.g.
magicians use a system where each number (up to 1000 and more) is
associated with the name of a thing (e.g. 4 with 'chair' or 'deer').
This method allows to remember the random order of e.g. 52 cards in a deck.
This works IMHO because the episodic memory has larger capacity.
> The limitation on mental processing is "five plus or minus two."
Miller didn't distinguish between different parts of 'short term' or
'working' memory. More recent papers
[http://www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/misart.pdf] state that for remembering
random words the 'phonological loop' is limited by time (~ number of
syllables) and not words.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Peter T. Daniels
There is no synchronic connection. You can't transcribe demotic into
hieroglyphic/hieratic or vice versa.
Peter T. Daniels
Not even them.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 9:12 pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
> [George Miller's "five plus or minus two,"]
>
> >> Miller must have gotten his observations from people who do
> >> not work in mathematics or science.
> > No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot tell
> > at a glance whether a random array of objects on a table comprises 17
> > objects or 19 objects.
>
> I still remember that it took me more than two looks to verify that a
> classmate had 6 toes on each foot.
>
> Same for long numbers without punctuation between the digits: one look
> works up to 5 or 6.
>
> > No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot
> > recall a list of 23 random items unless you construct elaborate
> > mnemonic devices.
>
> One of the popular methods is creating a story around the items. E.g.
> magicians use a system where each number (up to 1000 and more) is
> associated with the name of a thing (e.g. 4 with 'chair' or 'deer').
> This method allows to remember the random order of e.g. 52 cards in a deck.
Penn & Teller (meta-illusionists) once demonstrated how to do "Is this
your card?" for whichever card had been chosen -- they had to remember
where in the area every one of the 52 cards had been concealed. They
didn't explain how they managed _that_.
> This works IMHO because the episodic memory has larger capacity.
>
> > The limitation on mental processing is "five plus or minus two."
>
> Miller didn't distinguish between different parts of 'short term' or
> 'working' memory. More recent papers
> [http://www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/misart.pdf] state that for remembering
> random words the 'phonological loop' is limited by time (~ number of
> syllables) and not words.
In the early 80s I was in a longitudinal study that involved, among
many other things, repeating a standard list of things. No matter how
many times I did it, though I always recognized that the list was the
same every time, I could never get past the first seven or so
accurately.
Yusuf B Gursey
OK. but my source, D. Diringer, "the Alphabet" v. ii, p. 331 gives
under "phonetic value" the hieroglyphic equivalents. argueabely, this
is just "phonetic value", but in some cases there is a resemblace of
shape as well.
Peter T. Daniels
See p. 370 of the text. Also p. 35-36. Note the cross reference to
"part 2, chapter 8," evidence of sloppy preparation of the third
edition, in which the chapter numbering did not start over in part 2.
Herman Rubin
>> On Nov 11, 3:46=A0pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[Long series of attibutions deleted.]
>> > > > > > > > I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. =A0In both cases=
>,
>> > > > > > > > a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
>> > > > > > > That's simply wrong. Linear B was gone long, long before the =
>alphabet
>> > > > > > > came along, and the Cypriote syllabary coexisted with the alp=
>habet for
>> > > > > > > centuries.
>> > > > > > > No pagan Egyptian started writing their language with the Gre=
>ek
>> > > > > > > alphabet, and no Christian Egyptian wrote their language with
>> > > > > > > hieroglyphs/hieratic or with demotic.
>> > > > > > I remember seeing a slab of Egyptian hierogrlyphic writing with=
> a
>> > > > > > cross on it in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum a few years a=
>go. it
>> > > > > > was left standing in the garden without any explanation. I post=
>ed
>> > > > > > about it, and IIRC you had said that it was possible. if I had =
>taken a
>> > > > > > photo of it, I could send it, but it will take time.-
>> > > > > If it was a Christian cross, why couldn't it have been added late=
>r, in
>> > > > > an attempt to sanctify a treasured, but pagan, object?
>> > > > it was a Christian cross, not an `ankh . OK. what you say is possib=
>le.
>> > > > just wondered.
>> > > last time I had concluded from your reply that some overlap between
>> > > Christianity and hierogrliphic writing was possible and you hadn't
>> > > objected.
>> > > here is your reply to my original query:
>> > > Message-ID: <4169C290.6...@worldnet.att.net>
>> > > From: "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@worldnet.att.net>
>> > > Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.history.ancient,soc.history.medieval
>> > > Subject: Re: Hieroglyphics, Christian era?
>> > > References: <222ae656.0410100842.2864...@posting.google.com>
>> > > Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:15:28 GMT
>> > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> > > > in the Istanbul Archealogical Museum there was an unlabeled marble
>> > > > with crosses and what apeeared to be cursive heieroglyphs (demotic?
>> > > > hieratic?)
>> > > > but it was NOT Coptic. did the writing survive into the christian e=
>ra?
>> > > The latest dated hieroglyphic inscription is from somewhere in the
>> > > fourth c. CE.
>> > "Christian era" is a measure of time, not an assertion about religion.
>> of course, but there were considrable amount of christians in the 4th
>> cent. CE, and it includes the era after Constantine.- \
>No Christian inscriptions were written with native Egyptian scripts.
There certainly must have been a transition from Egyptian
written in Demotic to Egyptian written in the Coptic
alphabet. The Coptic of the 4th century CE was still
the Egyptian of that time.
Herman Rubin
>> In article <eb789518-f103-42bc-ab38-33822d6f7...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> DKleinecke =A0<dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 10, 2:13=3DA0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote=
>:
>> >> In article <4f88002d-7781-4a04-8263-32ee65cef...@g27g2000yqn.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 9, 7:44=3D3DA0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) w=
>rote:
>> >> >> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Nov 9, 2:08=3D3D3DA0pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
....................
<> >> I never claimed any such thing. =3DA0What I was arguing against
<> >> were Miller's limitations.
<> >> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
<> >> >> handle these ambiguities. =3D3DA0We have a simple addition which
<> >> >> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
<> >> >Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
<> >> >writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
<> >> I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. =3DA0In both cases,
<> >> a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
<> >I don't think Greek is a fair example. The Greeks, apart from Cyprus,
<> >appear to have simply stopped writing altogether and then restarted.
<> That we do not have inscriptions on stone or metal
<> does not mean that they stopped writing altogether.
>There isn't the slightest reason to believe that Linear B was ever
>written on anything but clay tablets.
<> >I don't know about the origin of Coptic and I am not sure that anyone
<> >knows. But certainly, on the surface, it does appear that it replaced
<> >another older script.
<> Coptic very definitely appears to be the evolution of
<> Egyptian, which was written in the Demotic syllabary
<> at the time of the Rosetta stone.
>Do not confuse the Coptic language (which is the latest form of the
>Egyptian language) with the Coptic alphabet, which was innovated by
>Egyptian Christians and owes nothing to the pagan hieroglyphic script.
I never said it did. The word used was "replaced",
and has nothing to do with evolution of the script.
It can be quite easy to replace one form of written
communication with another, although there may be a
period of resolution of ambiguities.
Herman Rubin
>> In article <779250d0-ab6a-4cd0-9e73-f23eda5df...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups=>> >On Nov 10, 5:13=3DA0pm, hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote=
>:
>> >> In article <4f88002d-7781-4a04-8263-32ee65cef...@g27g2000yqn.googlegro=
>rote:
>> >> >> In article <8746f483-d91b-4640-bb46-8201617eb...@j11g2000vbi.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
<> <> >> >When someone brought this up recently, I asked how many such deict=
>ics
<> <> >> >are possible in a conversation and got no response. I'd guess it w=
>ould
<> <> >> >be George Miller's "five plus or minus two," which he suggests is =
>the
<> <> >> >number of items the human mind likes to deal with at once.
<> <> >> Since mathematicians deal with more, and sentences often go
<> <> >> to 100 words, this is clearly not the case. =3D3DA0Also, the senten=
>ces
<> <> >> in a paragraph may have far more concepts than this. =3D3DA0
<> <> >Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
<> <> >You _seem_ to be claiming that deaf mathematicians don't write
<> <> >formulas like other mathematicians, but communicate them in a signed
<> <> >language.
<> <> I never claimed any such thing. =3DA0What I was arguing against
<> <> were Miller's limitations.
<> >What you cited has nothing whatsoever to do with Miller's
<> >observations.
<> Miller must have gotten his observations from people who do
<> not work in mathematics or science.
>No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot tell
>at a glance whether a random array of objects on a table comprises 17
>objects or 19 objects.
>No matter how "mathematical" or "scientific" you are, you cannot
>recall a list of 23 random items unless you construct elaborate
>mnemonic devices.
>The limitation on mental processing is "five plus or minus two."
<> <> >> We are not primitive people; we need a language which can
<> <> >> handle these ambiguities. =3D3DA0We have a simple addition which
<> <> >> can go a long way, just as the alphabet simplified writing.
<> <> >Hunh? Can you name any culture where an alphabet replaced some other
<> <> >writing system (a more complicated one, perhaps)?
<> <> I can name at least two, Greek and Coptic. =3DA0In both cases,
<> <> a syllabary was replaced by an alphabet.
<> >That's simply wrong. Linear B was gone long, long before the alphabet
<> >came along, and the Cypriote syllabary coexisted with the alphabet for
<> >centuries.
<> Are you claiming that the Greeks had NO writing in this
<> interval?
>Yes. Do you have any _evidence_ to the contrary? No, you do not.
<> >No pagan Egyptian started writing their language with the Greek
<> >alphabet, and no Christian Egyptian wrote their language with
<> >hieroglyphs/hieratic or with demotic.
<> Are you claiming that there was a sudden transition form
<> pagan writing to Christian writing?
>Of course not. There were pagan people, and there were Christian
>people. No pagans wrote pagan texts with the Greek alphabet, and no
>Christians wrote Christian texts with the hieroglyphic
>logoconsonantary. The two scripts were in use simultaneously, but not
>by the same communities, for a few hundred years. Eventually, there
>were no more pagans.
Are you stating that the earliest Egyptian Christians
immediately discarded Demotic and jumped into the
Coptic alphabet, with no transition period?
Andrew Woode
of the theory that if had been written exclusively on clay,
it would have changed the shape of the signs to something easier
(perhaps
vaguely reminiscent of cuneiform). I'm sure Chadwick mentioned that
idea years ago.
(There is also the little matter of the absence of any dating system
for years on the tablets (beyond 'this year', 'next year' )- easily
explicable if the data on them were going to be copied into another
medium for more permanent storage. )
Of course this theory does not require any use of the scripts outside
the major administration centres, nor imply any survival of the script
beyond its attested period.