Lessons in Logic for Linguisticians
Alexander Gross
only cannot read but even lack the most basic rudiments of logic, a
field where they like to imagine themselves as supreme.
In just one instance, we've recently seen RC fall flat on his fanny
in his silly assumption that all names ending in the letter "a" must
be feminine, followed by his sheer flight into madness in assuming
that Paul Wood & I must be the same person. With P. Tedious in
close pursuit (and I would be surprised if BS wasn't equally caught
up in this fantasy).
But now we see poor old RC going haywire once more, in this case
truly big-time:
> But this was no more than a lame joke in which Alex asserted
> (without even an attempt to substantiate the claim) that
> everybody from Aristotle to Chomsky, including everybody else on
> sci.lang, was really in search of a perfect language. What's to
> evade?
Uttterly ridiculous! It provides perfect proof, if any further
proof were truly needed, that the self-styled major players on sci.
lang urgently require remedial lessons both in reading and logic.
Something I will willingly provide for them in the three or four
more days I remain here, before leaving you again at Easter.
I call these
"Lessons in Logic for Linguisticians,"
because some of you are not linguists at all, rather you are the
morticians of language and linguistics. Hence the word
"linguisticians." You have murdered linguistics and continually
display its corpse in the coffin for everyone to gape at. The only
further ministrations you occasionally provide consist in trying to
make the corpse look a bit pretty, just to keep people from running
away in horror.
No, I did NOT "claim that everybody from Aristotle to Chomsky,
including everybody else on sci.lang, was really in search of a
perfect language." This is total nonsense, no more than the usual
strawman ploy.
What I DID say--and what I can document almost ad nauseam--is that
throughout recorded history so-called language experts have assumed
that there must be some underlying general grammar or conceptual
glossary that accounts for the almost infinite variations in
individual languages.
That's a remarkably different statement from the one RC attributes
to me and clearly shows his inability to read or to handle logic.
So as my first Lesson in Logic for Linguisticians, I propose to
prove to all of you logically and categorically that the search for
such logical and categorical certainty about language--as pursued by
Sowa, MIT, generations of MT researchers, all the language
engineers, and of course TGGniks--is doomed from the outset.
I shall do so by constructing before your very eyes the world's
simplest language. And then I shall prove to you that even this
protolingua does not work in a reliable manner.
Here is my language. It could not possibly be more simple. It is
entirely binary in its structure.
It consists of only two units (though there can be infinite numbers
of each of these units).
One unit consists of a "one" and a "zero."
The other unit consists of two "zeros."
Yet despite this simplicty of design, there can be absolutely no
agreement on how these two units are supposed to be combined
together. Moreover, there has been no agreement for thousands of
years.
But how do we know any of this? How can such a language even exist?
Easy. In fact it couldn't be easier to prove.
What I have just provided for you is a basic description of human
sexuality, beyond any doubt a language in its own right and one
used as a form of communication by more human beings than any other
idiom.
The unit with the "one" and the "zero" is of course the male,
possessing one appendage and one orifice.
The unit with the two "zeros" is of course the female, where (as I
assume at least some of you may have learned) two orifices are
present.
As we all know, despite this utter simplicity of design, there
is still no absolute agreement as to how these various members are
meant to combine. Nor is there even any agreement in all cases as
to which of the two units are meant to be combined together. Vast
and bitter religious wars have been fought in the past--and are
still being fought in the present--in an effort to dictate the rules
of "grammar" governing the "generative" processes between these two
units.
If such is the case for a language with only two units of meaning,
what are the odds against ever creating a workable formal grammar, a
dictionary of universal meanings, or a conceptual glossary for
languages that possess thousands of words and millions of possible
combinations?
You tell me.
In which case, what the hell are generative "mainstream" linguists
truly up to anyway?
QED.
(End of the First Lesson in Logic for Linguisticians)
Those that will combat use and custom by the strict rules of
grammar do but jest.
--Edmund Burke
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,
it is time to pause and reflect.
--Mark Twain
visit the language home... http://language.home.sprynet.com
benlizross
It's a no-win situation, isn't it Alex? If I told you that you were
neither amusing nor interesting nor relevant on the subject of language,
it would just confirm your beliefs (as if confirmation were needed) as
to the mental debility of those who respond to you. And you have proved
again and again that your continued posting here to people you consider
incapable of understanding you is more of a symptom of some pathology
than a rational activity.
Have a happy Resurrection.
Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
<lang...@sprynet.com> wrote:
[...]
>Here is my language. It could not possibly be more simple. It is
>entirely binary in its structure.
>It consists of only two units (though there can be infinite numbers
>of each of these units).
>One unit consists of a "one" and a "zero."
>The other unit consists of two "zeros."
Apparently the poor fellow actually thinks that he's described a
language.
>Yet despite this simplicty of design, there can be absolutely no
>agreement on how these two units are supposed to be combined
>together. Moreover, there has been no agreement for thousands of
>years.
>But how do we know any of this? How can such a language even exist?
>Easy. In fact it couldn't be easier to prove.
>What I have just provided for you is a basic description of human
>sexuality,
So he hasn't a clue about human sexuality, ...
> beyond any doubt a language in its own right and one
>used as a form of communication by more human beings than any other
>idiom.
... has an absurdly broad private definition of 'language', ...
>The unit with the "one" and the "zero" is of course the male,
>possessing one appendage and one orifice.
... and can't count.
Pretty sad for a man who claims to be almost 70.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Alexander Gross
>> The other unit consists of two "zeros."
................
>> The unit with the "one" and the "zero" is of course the male,
>> possessing one appendage and one orifice.
> ... and can't count.
> Pretty sad for a man who claims to be almost 70.
Sounds like you guys have never made it beyond the mammaries. Or
perhaps you've needed to wear an extra prosthesis for so long that
you assume it's normal.
PS--Is the preceding message sexist? No, because as I pointed out
last spring, you guys are the ones responsible for chasing women
away from the newsgroup. At that time I wrote:
Although most of your members profess p.c. values about sexism,
racism, and other social issues, sci.lang is most definitely sexist
in its outlook to the extent that it frightens off almost all
participation by females. Women simply take one look at this
newsgroup and see that it is just the "same old same old"--
doctrinaire, totalitarian males locked in futile conflict over
dubious absolutes...
(Hey, come to think of it, yet another reason why Nicola was unlikely
to be female...)
mith...@indiana.edu
Alexander Gross wrote:
> >> One unit consists of a "one" and a "zero."
>
> >> The other unit consists of two "zeros."
>
> ................
>
> >> The unit with the "one" and the "zero" is of course the male,
> >> possessing one appendage and one orifice.
>
> > ... and can't count.
>
> > Pretty sad for a man who claims to be almost 70.
Maybe he's counting in dog years.
> Sounds like you guys have never made it beyond the mammaries. Or
> perhaps you've needed to wear an extra prosthesis for so long that
> you assume it's normal.
And pretty sad for a guy who's trying to palm himself off as
polymorphously perverse--obviously he's just palming himself off. It's
like a white guy in the inner cities dressed in a leather jacket, plus
fours and argyle socks saying, "Yes, my fellow home boys, not only am I
bad too, in point of fact I am *worse* than you!"
Or maybe he's confessing he has a two-way digestive tract.
> PS--Is the preceding message sexist?
No, just stupid. MAT
piermario
news:3AD711B4...@indiana.edu...
>
>
> Alexander Gross wrote:
>
> > >> One unit consists of a "one" and a "zero."
> >
> > >> The other unit consists of two "zeros."
> >
> > ................
> >
> > >> The unit with the "one" and the "zero" is of course the male,
> > >> possessing one appendage and one orifice.
> >
> > > ... and can't count.
> >
> > > Pretty sad for a man who claims to be almost 70.
>
> Maybe he's counting in dog years.
in that case it would be *15*
piermario
Alexander Gross
piermario <ig...@nomine.deus.est> wrote in message
news:OmEB6.6413$D9.3...@dbsch1.home.nl...
in which case I would be *17 1/2*
For a mathematician Brian seems rather unimaginative and trapped in dated
notations.
Alexander Gross
But not an answer in sight.
So what I'll do is simply repeat the questions again and see if that does
any good.
Here goes:
_As we all know, despite this utter simplicity of design, there
is still no absolute agreement as to how these various members are
meant to combine. Nor is there even any agreement in all cases as
to which of the two units are meant to be combined together. Vast
and bitter religious wars have been fought in the past--and are
still being fought in the present--in an effort to dictate the rules
of "grammar" governing the "generative" processes between these two
units.
_If such is the case for a language with only two units of meaning,
what are the odds against ever creating a workable formal grammar, a
dictionary of universal meanings, or a conceptual glossary for
languages that possess thousands of words and millions of possible
combinations?
_You tell me.
_In which case, what the hell are generative "mainstream" linguists
truly up to anyway?_
Wonder if there will be any answers this time. Or just the usual pro forma
claims that no questions have really been asked.
But they have been.
Gary Holden
<lang...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> No, I did NOT "claim that everybody from Aristotle to Chomsky,
> including everybody else on sci.lang, was really in search of a
> perfect language." This is total nonsense, no more than the usual
> strawman ploy.
>
Hi Alex - I see you've got the Grossbot doing irony now. Or do you
still need human intervention for that?
Best wishes
Gary
benlizross
>
> I asked a question. In fact, I asked two questions.
>
> But not an answer in sight.
>
> So what I'll do is simply repeat the questions again and see if that does
> any good.
What you might do instead is ask yourself what's wrong with your
questions.
> Here goes:
>
> _As we all know, despite this utter simplicity of design, there
> is still no absolute agreement as to how these various members are
> meant to combine. Nor is there even any agreement in all cases as
> to which of the two units are meant to be combined together. Vast
> and bitter religious wars have been fought in the past--and are
> still being fought in the present--in an effort to dictate the rules
> of "grammar" governing the "generative" processes between these two
> units.
>
> _If such is the case for a language with only two units of meaning,
> what are the odds against ever creating a workable formal grammar, a
> dictionary of universal meanings, or a conceptual glossary for
> languages that possess thousands of words and millions of possible
> combinations?
>
> _You tell me.
There are a number of dubious assumptions built into this question, and
it is framed as if you already knew the answer and merely wanted others
to assent. These two devices ("When did you stop beating your wife?"
type presuppositions, and rhetorical question) are common indicators of
a non-serious question, neither expecting nor deserving an answer.
However, if we look at the overall form of the argument, it seems to be
"Since there are apparently simple things that people cannot agree on
their understanding of, what hope is there for understanding really
complex things?"
Put like this, it is still not really a question, but it sounds like a
defeatist argument against most scientific activity.
> _In which case, what the hell are generative "mainstream" linguists
> truly up to anyway?_
A real optimist might interpret this as a first glimmer of awareness
that you don't know.
> Wonder if there will be any answers this time. Or just the usual pro forma
> claims that no questions have really been asked.
Well, they were pro forma questions anyway.
> But they have been.
And while you waste your time and our time with this kind of
pseudo-questioning, garnished with insult and self-adulation, elsewhere
on sci.lang on this fine sunny morning, I notice that people are having
serious and often quite interesting discussions about language...
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I asked a question. In fact, I asked two questions.
>
> But not an answer in sight.
>
> So what I'll do is simply repeat the questions again and see if that does
> any good.
>
> Here goes:
>
> _As we all know, despite this utter simplicity of design, there
> is still no absolute agreement as to how these various members are
> meant to combine. Nor is there even any agreement in all cases as
> to which of the two units are meant to be combined together. Vast
> and bitter religious wars have been fought in the past--and are
> still being fought in the present--in an effort to dictate the rules
> of "grammar" governing the "generative" processes between these two
> units.
I think this one referred to copulation? As has already been suggested,
you'd better do a recount of "orifices." If you need visual aids, check
out recent pornography of any variety. Copulating pairs, of course, are
not in the slightest analogous to language; the single most basic,
essential defining property of language is duality, and duality is not
found in organisms.
> _If such is the case for a language with only two units of meaning,
> what are the odds against ever creating a workable formal grammar, a
> dictionary of universal meanings, or a conceptual glossary for
> languages that possess thousands of words and millions of possible
> combinations?
Since the antecedent is absurd, any consequent is irrelevant.
There is, however, no interest in "a dictionary of universal meanings
[etc.]" except among benighted philosophers like Leibniz.
> _You tell me.
>
> _In which case, what the hell are generative "mainstream" linguists
> truly up to anyway?_
There doesn't to be anyone around here that might be able to tell you,
except perhaps Greg; John Lawler presumably has to teach that stuff, so
you might find some answers at his website.
> Wonder if there will be any answers this time. Or just the usual pro forma
> claims that no questions have really been asked.
>
> But they have been.
Not meaningful ones, however.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Alexander Gross
Shades of alt.fan.noam-chomsky!
My god, I've been doing this for two years now (though only
intermittently :-) ). Pretty close to time for me to consider
stopping. Actually, I will be stopping, later tonight, at least for
the next six months.
I'm a bit more organized this time around, as you can see from my
website, URL as below, with many publications by me and others.
Only about 20% of it is about linguistics, and only about a third of
that deals with the Great Beast.
As I recall, you were one of more pleasant ones there, as opposed
to somebody named Jim who continually denounced me or Nathan at
Stanford who insisted that any day now they would prove all this
stuff by constructing "a perfect replica of the human brain."
In any case, glad to see you!
very best,
alex
visit the language home... http://language.home.sprynet.com
Gary Holden <gaho...@nowaitrose.spamcom> wrote in message
news:140420012110555173%gaho...@nowaitrose.spamcom...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Gary, good to see you!
>
> Shades of alt.fan.noam-chomsky!
>
> My god, I've been doing this for two years now (though only
> intermittently :-) ). Pretty close to time for me to consider
> stopping. Actually, I will be stopping, later tonight, at least for
> the next six months.
Note that he failed to acknowledge the two serious replies to his
so-called questions. He also failed to keep his promised appointment
(prelude to stalking, probably) at an NYU lecture on Friday. Probably
because this week he's being "Paul," who's "in Europe." Oh, and the
e-mails in which he threatened to make this personal appearance were
quite abusive, but I don't publish private e-mails.
> I'm a bit more organized this time around, as you can see from my
> website, URL as below, with many publications by me and others.
> Only about 20% of it is about linguistics, and only about a third of
> that deals with the Great Beast.
>
> As I recall, you were one of more pleasant ones there, as opposed
> to somebody named Jim who continually denounced me or Nathan at
> Stanford who insisted that any day now they would prove all this
> stuff by constructing "a perfect replica of the human brain."
>
> In any case, glad to see you!
>
> very best,
>
> alex
>
> visit the language home... http://language.home.sprynet.com
>
> Gary Holden <gaho...@nowaitrose.spamcom> wrote in message
> news:140420012110555173%gaho...@nowaitrose.spamcom...
> > In article <9b2o26$bk2$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, Alexander Gross
> > <lang...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > No, I did NOT "claim that everybody from Aristotle to Chomsky,
> > > including everybody else on sci.lang, was really in search of a
> > > perfect language." This is total nonsense, no more than the usual
> > > strawman ploy.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Alex - I see you've got the Grossbot doing irony now. Or do you
> > still need human intervention for that?
D. Edward Gund v. Brighoff
Careful when you wield that big, black brush! Well before the end of his
life, Leibniz realised that such a dictionary would be impossible, since
there was no way to determine the primitives. So I think it's unfair to
call him "benighted" just for once entertaining the idea.
--
Daniel "Da" von Brighoff /\ Dilettanten
(de...@midway.uchicago.edu) /__\ erhebt Euch
/____\ gegen die Kunst!