IM style (off topic)
quasi
For those totally out of touch, IM style is a highly abbreviated form
of English that has evolved within the Instant Messaging (IM)
community.
I assume that the primary motivation for the style is to reduce the
amount of typing required. Perhaps it's also a dialect of a new
generation -- the IM generation, and so, by using the IM style, you
are identifying yourself as part of that group.
In any case, for now, it appears to be mainly used by youth. Of
course, when those youth become adults and, eventually, the current
generation of adults are gone or in old age homes, the IM style could
potentially become the norm. Thus, you can imagine IM style in
newspapers, books, dictionaries, even taught in school. In fact,
current English could become the next "Old English" and be viewed as
antiquated and unreadable except by specialists.
Personally, I think current English is, on the whole, simple and
beautiful, but they probably thought the same in the Middle Ages about
the English of that time.
So while I would hate to see the IM style take over, I recognize that
it's not so easy to defend against language change.
quasi
G. A. Edgar
To them, IM style may be completely incomprehensible.
Posters who want to have the widest possible readership should
therefore probably avoid it.
For the same reason, posts in this group in French, or other languages,
will get only limited readership.
And sometimes, even worse -- perhaps not in this newsgroup, fortunately
-- I have seen posts in some slangy sort of French... I can read
standard French well enough, but that slang was impossible for me.
--
G. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/
Phil Carmody
> Many readers of this group are not native speakers of English.
> To them, IM style may be completely incomprehensible.
Most of the culprits I've seen have been from far-off lands.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
fishfry
galathaea
mathematicians make up words left and right
if you are looking to ban communication
why not ban any new uses of the term "normal"?
seriously
though
if you think you have a say over what other people post
you are sorely mistaken...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
galathaea
umm
what about the
(shhhhh....)
*whisper* niggers */whisper*
?
they speak kinda funny you know
some of them with their "ebonics"
and some with that rasta 'ting
should we let them speak on sci.math
or the spics?
they got a funny way of saying things too
and fuckin' oiler
making up " hypergeometric "
what the fuck is up with them?
language evolution my ass..
Wordsmith
Let's kill all who aren't lily white. That'll make the world a better
place. Yay!
The above message was brought to you in the spirit of sarcasm by...
...Wordsmith : )
phog...@abo.fi
I am sorry, sir, but it is not entirely clear, what you actually are
trying to ask. You seemto be using a heavily non-standard variety of
the English language.
But if you are asking, what "Ebonics" means, as far as I have
understood corrextly, it is a dialect of American English usually
associated with the African-American population of the United States,
more correctly known as "African-American Vernacular English". It has
some very interesting aspectual markers, such as "been" in the
expression "I been know you" = "I have known you for a long time".
This is why it is able to express very subtle aspectual differences
and is in this respect much richer than Standard English.
I am no expert, but as far as I know, African-American vernacular
English is a variety that has evolved by successive decreolisation
from the pidginised and creolised varieties spoken by the first few
generations of African slaves in the United States. Subsequently, it
developed in interaction with the dialects of American South, and thus
many features of African.American Vernacular English are also
reminiscent of the dialects of the South.
As far as I know, few writers have employed African-American
Vernacular English as a literary medium. However, there is an
important body of folklore, known as Negro Spirituals, which are
widely esteemed as an authentic expression both of the Christian
belief and of a kind of world-weariness that is perceived to be part
of human condition. Many such spirituals have been translated into my
native language, and are sung as hymns in our churches. There are
several African-American writers of world-wide fame - notably James
Baldwin - but as far as I know, they usually prefer Standard English
for their works.
I must admit I am not an American, and I have never visited the United
States, so, my knowledge of both the African-American Vernacular
English and the culture of African-Americans is limited to what every
European of education and goodwill is supposed to know.
galathaea
perhaps the prototypical african-american vernacular english
can be studied in the term "muthafucka"
anglified to "motherfucker" in most written form
although horrifying to much of the "white" population
( where such distinctions make any sense )
it is now the fuel that brings millions of dollars
into the pockets of samuel l jackson
here's a pretty song about it
dating from early 20th century
( the incident is likely from late 1800's )
it's been called variously
stagger lee
stacker lee
stocker lee
...
as such dialects often grow variant codifications
-+-+-+-
Stagger Lee
Back in '32 when times were hard,
He had a Colt .45 and a deck of cards,
Rat-drawn shoes, an old Stetson hat,
A '28 Ford and payments on that.
His woman threw him out in the ice and snow,
And told him not to come back there no more.
He hadn't copped for a long, long time,
And he had to play with Jojo 'cause he didn't have a dime.
He walked through rain and he walked through mud,
Till he came to a place called the Bucket of Blood.
He said, "Mr. Motherfucker, you must know who I am."
Barkeep said, "No, and I don't give a good goddamn."
He said, "Well, bartender, it's plain to see,
I'm that bad motherfucker named Stagger Lee."
Barkeep said, "Yeah, I heard your name down the way,
But I kick motherfucking asses like you every day."
Well, those were the last words the barkeep said,
'Cause Stag put four holes in his motherfucking head.
Just then in came a broad named Nellie Brown,
Known to have more coins than any bitch in town.
She came 'cross the bar, pulling up her skirt,
The way the bitch always started to flirt.
She dug the barkeep and said, "He can't be dead."
Stag said, "Well just count them holes in the motherfucker's head."
She said, "You look like you ain't copped in quite a time.
Why not come to my pad. It won't cost you a dime."
"But there's something I'll have to say before you begin.
You'll have to be gone when Billy Dilly comes in."
"I'll stay there till Billy Dilly comes in, till time comes to pass.
And furthermore I'll fuck Billy Dilly in his motherfucking ass."
Well they started to fuck, and she started to fart.
He said, "What's wrong, bitch?" She said, "Coming, sweetheart."
Just then Billy Dilly rolled in and said, "You must be
That bad motherfucker called Stagger Lee."
"Yeah I'm Stagger Lee, and you'd better get down on your knees and
slobber my head,
'Cause if you don't you're sure to be dead."
Billy dropped down and slobbered on his head,
But Stag filled him full of lead.
Glossary:
Bitch: Woman (not always pejorative)
Broad: Woman
Colt .45: Type of pistol
Cop: Obtain something illegally: sex, drugs, etc.
Dime: Ten cents
Fuck: Have sexual relations
Head: Glans of the penis
Jojo: Personification of the penis
Motherfucker: Person (not always pejorative)
Pad: Residence
Rat-drawn shoes: Pointed shoes
http://www.bad-seed.org/~cave/info/songs/mb_staggerlee.html
GatherNoMoss
You put on a good show.
[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz
>I am sorry, sir, but it is not entirely clear, what you actually are
>trying to ask. You seemto be using a heavily non-standard variety of
>the English language....
>...
<snip>
>I must admit I am not an American, and I have never visited the United
>States, so, my knowledge of both the African-American Vernacular
>English and the culture of African-Americans is limited to what every
>European of education and goodwill is supposed to know.
Do I take it correctly that English is not your natural language? If
so, then I say "Bravo!" to your highly literate exposition, never mind
the few small typos.
--Lynn
Gerry Myerson
Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "G. A. Edgar" <ed...@math.ohio-state.edu.invalid> writes:
> > Many readers of this group are not native speakers of English.
> > To them, IM style may be completely incomprehensible.
>
> Most of the culprits I've seen have been from far-off lands.
Of course, people from far-off lands may be native speakers
of English. Depending on where you locate the origin, far-off
lands may include any or all of the following: the USA, England,
Australia, South Africa, etc., etc. Something closely resembling
English is widely spoken in all of these.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Phil Carmody
And some of these people from far off lands understand tropes.
But others don't.
Scot
>> For those totally out of touch, IM style is a highly abbreviated form
>> of English that has evolved within the Instant Messaging (IM)
>> community.
>
>> I assume that the primary motivation for the style is to reduce the
>> amount of typing required. Perhaps it's also a dialect of a new
>> generation -- the IM generation, and so, by using the IM style, you
>> are identifying yourself as part of that group.
>>
>> In any case, for now, it appears to be mainly used by youth. Of
>> course, when those youth become adults and, eventually, the current
>> generation of adults are gone or in old age homes, the IM style could
>> potentially become the norm. Thus, you can imagine IM style in
>> newspapers, books, dictionaries, even taught in school. In fact,
>> current English could become the next "Old English" and be viewed as
>> antiquated and unreadable except by specialists.
>> Personally, I think current English is, on the whole, simple and
>> beautiful,
English is my first (and essentially only) language and I think it is a
mess.
Mostly, it is spelling that is the problem. There are supposed to be
rules of phonics but those rules are broken every time you turn around.
Here is a humorous quote attributed to Mark Twain
==========================================
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be
replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of
the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch"
formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling,
so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might
well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j"
anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue
iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and
Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist
konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov
ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen,
aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling
in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
========End of Quote======================
I don't suggest that Twain's plan be taken seriously. But it doesn't
even solve all of the problems. That plan only deals with consonants
but there are problems with vowels too.
(example : please explain why the word "have" does not
rhyme with "save" "Dave" nor "brave" ? )
Beyond spelling, there are problems with English grammar
as well. The grammar allows ambiguous sentences to be
created. Here's an example of syntactical ambiguity:
"He saw the farmer with binoculars".
In the example, who has the binoculars?
Here's an example of semantic ambiguity:
"My brother doesn't use glasses."
(Are we talking about glasses that might help his
eyesight? or might help him to drink?)
My point is, English is a mess. However,
constructions like "c u l8r " are only going to
make things worse.
Mate
> >> of English that has evolved within the Instant Messaging (IM)
> >> community.
>
> >> amount of typing required. Perhaps it's also a dialect of a new
A logical and universal language has been invented
long time ago: Esperanto.
Unfortunately mainly the native English speakers
refuse to adopt it as an international communication tool,
preferring to keep the "status quo".
Mate
Christopher Culver
> Unfortunately mainly the native English speakers
> refuse to adopt it as an international communication tool,
> preferring to keep the "status quo".
What nonsense. Esperanto isn't taken seriously in most European
countries where English is not the local language. Chinese speakers,
more numerous than native English speakers, also refuse to adopt it,
so where's your rant against the Chinese?
And by the way, I'm a native English speaker who prefers to upset the
status quo in speaking the native languages of most of my
friends. Babel is beautiful, there's no need to impose one single
language, and a monstrous artificial one at that, on the whole world.
De unde esti din Romania? Am rimarcat ca de obicei romaniilor lor
place sa vorbeasca englezeste. Tinerii clujeni deja vorbesc englezeste
asa de bine ca un nativ. Nu vad foarte mult de interes despre
Esperanto la Cluj.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter T. Daniels
> ========End of Quote======================
> I don't suggest that Twain's plan be taken seriously. But it doesn't
> even solve all of the problems. That plan only deals with consonants
> but there are problems with vowels too.
> (example : please explain why the word "have" does not
> rhyme with "save" "Dave" nor "brave" ? )
Because the standard spellings of various words are based on dialects
other than those that ended up prevailing in the mixed language that
turned into the London standard.
> Beyond spelling, there are problems with English grammar
> as well. The grammar allows ambiguous sentences to be
> created. Here's an example of syntactical ambiguity:
> "He saw the farmer with binoculars".
> In the example, who has the binoculars?
> Here's an example of semantic ambiguity:
> "My brother doesn't use glasses."
> (Are we talking about glasses that might help his
> eyesight? or might help him to drink?)
Please. You're cross-posting to sci.lang, a newsgroup for linguistics.
If languages -- all languages, not just English -- did not provide for
ambiguity, language would soon become useless, more a hindrance than
an evolutionary advantage.
Ruud Harmsen
>A logical and universal language has been invented
>long time ago: Esperanto.
But it too isn't fully unambiguous. For example, can the word
mekanismo or mehxanismo be used in a figurative sense, like I do in
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/eomech/eomecheo.htm ? Bilingual
dictionaries suggest that, but the Esperanto wikipedia at
http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekanismo knows the word only in relation
to mechanics, a composition of gears and levers and motors in a
technical sense. Who is right?
>Unfortunately mainly the native English speakers
>refuse to adopt it as an international communication tool,
>preferring to keep the "status quo".
Every language has its pros and cons. There are no better languages.
Esperanto isn't better than English, nor vice versa.
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
Steter Tropfen höhlt den Stein
beew...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is a shame you do not appreciate the humor or message of Twain's
plan.
- MO
galathaea
> [ignoring X-post to sci.math]
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Please. You're cross-posting to sci.lang, a newsgroup for linguistics.
>
maybe the point was lost in cryptic vulgarity
but this was most certainly about mathematics
it was about neologisms and neophobia
i copied it to sci.lang
because i expected some professional linguists
might be interested in real language evolution
and its presence in discussion of mathematics
mathematicians are neologists
that is what they do
there is no mathematics
without the creative construction of new symbologies
so every attempt to suppress this freedom
hinders the progress of math
> > If languages -- all languages, not just English -- did not provide for
> > ambiguity, language would soon become useless, more a hindrance than
> > an evolutionary advantage.
>
> I agree that ambiguities of the stated kind can be found in all languages,
> that they are not a hindrance to the function of the language, and that
> they are presumably unavoidable - for instance when words get additional
> meanings which is a normal process.
>
> On the other hand, there are ambiguities that have no significance
> whatsoever, as the syntactic ambiguity given as an example, or homonyms by
> mere chance.
>
> In both cases, I cannot see that the ambiguity is a feature without which
> the language would become useless. It is an unavoidable feature which does
> not impede the usefulness. Perhaps I would not have objected had the
> statement been "if languages were not able to cope with ambiguity" instead
> of "... did not provide for ambiguity". Ambiguity is not a feature that
> must be provided for, it is a feature which just is there.
indeed
because communication is a two-agent process
language never "gets so crazy" that ambiguity destroys it permanently
poets may connect words in unexpected ways
tantrums may turn to speaking tongues
people watch
attempting understanding as they may
and continue to communicate as needs require
pathologies are selected against
one day we may very well
"$peek nu 4ms"
but if "we" are doing it
there is understanding involved
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>one day we may very well
>"$peek nu 4ms"
> but if "we" are doing it
> there is understanding involved
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Oh I see, and you're the cutting-edge person who will lead us there,
by redefining "miscegenation" as some kind of racism, and coining
words that don't exist and have no meaning, like "fablist." I think we
should just throw out all definitions, all meanings, and all sense,
and simply follow you.
galathaea
> On 10 Apr 2007 10:29:06 -0700, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >one day we may very well
> >"$peek nu 4ms"
> > but if "we" are doing it
> > there is understanding involved
>
>
> by redefining "miscegenation" as some kind of racism, and coining
> words that don't exist and have no meaning, like "fablist." I think we
> should just throw out all definitions, all meanings, and all sense,
> and simply follow you.
no
i am most certainly one of the pathologies
phog...@abo.fi
> On 9 Apr 2007 11:36:57 -0700, phogl...@abo.fi wrote:
>
> >I am sorry, sir, but it is not entirely clear, what you actually are
> >trying to ask. You seemto be using a heavily non-standard variety of
> >the English language....
> >...
>
> <snip>
>
> >I must admit I am not an American, and I have never visited the United
> >States, so, my knowledge of both the African-American Vernacular
> >English and the culture of African-Americans is limited to what every
> >European of education and goodwill is supposed to know.
>
> Do I take it correctly that English is not your natural language?
Yes. I learnt it only at school, starting when I was nine years old.
If
> so, then I say "Bravo!" to your highly literate exposition, never mind
> the few small typos.
Thank you, but the literary, sort of artificial English is no problem
- it can be acquired by anyone. The difficult part would be to acquire
some colloquial variety spoken by native speakers but never codified
officially - the above-mentioned African-American vernacular English,
for example. Anyone can learn to write literary English, but only
native speakers can talk jive convincingly.
>
> --Lynn
Richard Wordingham
> Please explain why the word "have" does not
> rhyme with "save" "Dave" nor "brave" ?
In traditional English spelling, words do not end in 'i', 'u' or 'v'
unless they mean 'I' or 'you' (and that includes 'thou'.)
('Spaghetti' is an Italian spelling.)
I don't know if this is related to the principle that one writes 'on'
rather than 'un' to avoid confusion with 'im'. This rule is not
consistently applied, but the similar rule of 'ov' rather than 'uv' is
almost universally applied. That explains the spelling of 'love', but
many words ending in -ove have more complicated histories.
Richard.
Scot
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1176210797.2...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 6:06 am, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
>> ... there are problems with English grammar
>> as well. The grammar allows ambiguous sentences to be
>> created. Here's an example of syntactical ambiguity:
>> "He saw the farmer with binoculars".
>> In the example, who has the binoculars?
>>
>> Here's an example of semantic ambiguity:
>> "My brother doesn't use glasses."
>> (Are we talking about glasses that might help his
>> eyesight? or might help him to drink?)
>
> Please. You're cross-posting to sci.lang, a newsgroup for linguistics.
Why the "please" ? I don't any problem with posting this message
on a newsgroup for linguistics. (Other than the possible problem that
people on that newsgroup have already discussed these issues
too many times.)
> If languages -- all languages, not just English -- did not provide for
> ambiguity, language would soon become useless, more a hindrance than
> an evolutionary advantage.
I don't understand your point. (Your sentence might be ambiguous!)
Are you saying
"if a language did not provide [a way to resolve] ambiguity then
that language would soon become useless...?"
In that case I would agree. But what is wrong with avoiding ambiguity
in the first place? I don't know German but I have heard
that because of German's syntax there is no syntactic ambiguity.
Please notice that
(1) I said *syntactic* ambiguity.
and
(2) I don't know German so I cannot support nor refute that
assertion. I'm hoping one of the linguists out there might be able
to shed some light.
guenther vonKnakspot
> On Apr 10, 6:06 am, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
>
> > ========End of Quote======================
> > I don't suggest that Twain's plan be taken seriously. But it doesn't
> > even solve all of the problems. That plan only deals with consonants
> > but there are problems with vowels too.
> > (example : please explain why the word "have" does not
> > rhyme with "save" "Dave" nor "brave" ? )
>
> Because the standard spellings of various words are based on dialects
> other than those that ended up prevailing in the mixed language that
> turned into the London standard.
>
> > Beyond spelling, there are problems with English grammar
> > as well. The grammar allows ambiguous sentences to be
> > created. Here's an example of syntactical ambiguity:
> > "He saw the farmer with binoculars".
> > In the example, who has the binoculars?
> > Here's an example of semantic ambiguity:
> > "My brother doesn't use glasses."
> > (Are we talking about glasses that might help his
> > eyesight? or might help him to drink?)
>
> Please. You're cross-posting to sci.lang, a newsgroup for linguistics.
determining which articles posted thereon are on topic and which not.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1176210797.2...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 10, 6:06 am, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
> >> ... there are problems with English grammar
> >> as well. The grammar allows ambiguous sentences to be
> >> created. Here's an example of syntactical ambiguity:
> >> "He saw the farmer with binoculars".
> >> In the example, who has the binoculars?
>
> >> Here's an example of semantic ambiguity:
> >> "My brother doesn't use glasses."
> >> (Are we talking about glasses that might help his
> >> eyesight? or might help him to drink?)
>
> > Please. You're cross-posting to sci.lang, a newsgroup for linguistics.
>
> Why the "please" ? I don't any problem with posting this message
> on a newsgroup for linguistics. (Other than the possible problem that
> people on that newsgroup have already discussed these issues
> too many times.)
>
> > If languages -- all languages, not just English -- did not provide for
> > ambiguity, language would soon become useless, more a hindrance than
> > an evolutionary advantage.
>
> I don't understand your point. (Your sentence might be ambiguous!)
> Are you saying
> "if a language did not provide [a way to resolve] ambiguity then
> that language would soon become useless...?"
Don't you suppose that if I had meant 'a way to resolve', I would have
said "a way to resolve"?
> In that case I would agree. But what is wrong with avoiding ambiguity
> in the first place? I don't know German but I have heard
> that because of German's syntax there is no syntactic ambiguity.
> Please notice that
> (1) I said *syntactic* ambiguity.
> and
> (2) I don't know German so I cannot support nor refute that
> assertion. I'm hoping one of the linguists out there might be able
> to shed some light.
Which is exactly the problem. For some reason, people think they can
repeat the most ridiculous assertions about language because they
"heard it" or because they think it "ought" to be that way.
If it was not possible to make anything but strictly logical,
perfectly and permanently consistent statements in language, most
communication would not exist. (The vast majority of utterances are
not used for imparting information.)
And, as I said, language could never change, adapt, grow.
Scot
I suppose that if you had made your meaning clear in the first place
then we wouldn't be arguing over what you mean. I also suppose that
you are now being difficult rather than trying to clear up the issue. I
don't
see why you are being snippy with me. Maybe you are just trying to
start a fight.
> If it was not possible to make anything but strictly logical,
> perfectly and permanently consistent statements in language, most
> communication would not exist. (The vast majority of utterances are
> not used for imparting information.)
> And, as I said, language could never change, adapt, grow.
Are you bothering to distinguish between "vagueness" and
"ambiguity"? There is a difference.
I would say that communication REQUIRES an appropriete
level of logical, and consistent statements. Sometimes
vagueness isn't a big problem. (example: the preceding sentence
is vague but I think it is sufficient for my purpose.) Sometimes
careful precision is required. (The preceding sentence is also
vague because of the "sometimes".) But I see no purpose in
AMBIGUITY. A sentence is AMBIGUOUS when it has more
than one clear meaning ... but you can't tell which meaning is
correct.
Here's the example I gave of syntactical ambiguity:
"He saw the farmer with binoculars".
In the example, who has the binoculars?
Here's the example I gave of semantic ambiguity:
"My brother doesn't use glasses."
(Are we talking about glasses that might help his
eyesight? or might help him to drink?)
By the way, I did a little googling for "German
unambiguous grammar" and I found a site
which shows that some instances of syntactic
ambiguity are possible in German.
If you actually give a damn:
http://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/reversible/node7.html
The German phrase (translated to English) was:
"withdraw the army from Croatia".
It is ambiguous because the speaker could mean
[1] "withdraw our German army from Croatia"
or
[2] "withdraw the Croatian army from our Germany".
Joachim Pense
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> I suppose that if you had made your meaning clear in the first place
> then we wouldn't be arguing over what you mean. I also suppose that
> you are now being difficult rather than trying to clear up the issue. I
> don't
> see why you are being snippy with me. Maybe you are just trying to
> start a fight.
>
BINGO!
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1176292921.2...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Are you aware that you're using technical terms in linguistics, but
that you don't seem to know how they're used in linguistics?
> There is a difference.
> I would say
On what basis? Is this your "feeling," or have you studied the
literature on philosophical and linguistic semantics and on semiotics?
> that communication REQUIRES an appropriete
> level of logical, and consistent statements. Sometimes
> vagueness isn't a big problem. (example: the preceding sentence
> is vague but I think it is sufficient for my purpose.) Sometimes
> careful precision is required. (The preceding sentence is also
> vague because of the "sometimes".) But I see no purpose in
> AMBIGUITY. A sentence is AMBIGUOUS when it has more
> than one clear meaning ... but you can't tell which meaning is
> correct.
It is EXTREMELY rare that "you can't tell which meaning is correct,"
and those few examples are usually intentional -- i.e., jokes and
puns.
> Here's the example I gave of syntactical ambiguity:
> "He saw the farmer with binoculars".
> In the example, who has the binoculars?
In context, no ambiguity whatsoever.
Linguistic utterances do not occur outside contexts.
> Here's the example I gave of semantic ambiguity:
> "My brother doesn't use glasses."
> (Are we talking about glasses that might help his
> eyesight? or might help him to drink?)
You tell me. Does it come from a conversation about eyesight, or about
beverages?
> By the way, I did a little googling for "German
> unambiguous grammar" and I found a site
> which shows that some instances of syntactic
> ambiguity are possible in German.
I don't know why you would have thought they aren't.
> If you actually give a damn:http://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/reversible/node7.html
> The German phrase (translated to English) was:
> "withdraw the army from Croatia".
> It is ambiguous because the speaker could mean
> [1] "withdraw our German army from Croatia"
> or
> [2] "withdraw the Croatian army from our Germany".-
Where's the "our" in the original?
When did a Croatian army invade Germany?
Scot
> On Apr 11, 9:34 am, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
>> Are you bothering to distinguish between "vagueness" and
>> "ambiguity"?
>
> Are you aware that you're using technical terms in linguistics,
Yes, I am aware that I'm using technical terms, and based
on textbook that I used in university which I still have, I
am using the terms correctly.
> but that you don't seem to know how they're used in linguistics?
I know what *I* mean by "vagueness" and "ambiguity" and
my textbook seems to agree with me. You haven't given
any indication of what *you* mean. Feel free to prepare
a statement of how these terms are used in linguistics
perhaps a web reference, or feel free to go play with
someone else. I'm tired of you.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1176323440.2...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:34 am, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
> >> Are you bothering to distinguish between "vagueness" and
> >> "ambiguity"?
>
> > Are you aware that you're using technical terms in linguistics,
>
> Yes, I am aware that I'm using technical terms, and based
> on textbook that I used in university which I still have, I
> am using the terms correctly.
>
> > but that you don't seem to know how they're used in linguistics?
>
> I know what *I* mean by "vagueness" and "ambiguity" and
> my textbook seems to agree with me. You haven't given
> any indication of what *you* mean. Feel free to prepare
> a statement of how these terms are used in linguistics
What's "my textbook"? Is that anything like the "my dictionary" that
folks are always citing?
> perhaps a web reference, or feel free to go play with
> someone else. I'm tired of you.
_You_ came here. I didn't drop into sci.math claiming I knew how to
square the circle or trisect the angle, or whatever folks try to do to
you these days.
Scot
Alright... so you are one of the "experts" on sci.lang. Then
please, oh great one, enlighten me as to how terms
like "syntactic ambiguity", "semantic ambiguity" and
"vagueness" are used in linguistics.
phog...@abo.fi
Scot wrote:
> Alright... so you are one of the "experts" on sci.lang.
Peter Daniels is not an especially nice or well-mannered person, but
AFAIK he does know something about alphabets and writing systems that
the rest of us don't. So, please leave out the quotation marks.
Then
> please, oh great one, enlighten me as to how terms
> like "syntactic ambiguity", "semantic ambiguity" and
> "vagueness" are used in linguistics.
Syntactic ambiguity means, that a sentence is constructed in such a
way that the word-order and the way how words depend on each other
suggests more than one way how the sentence can be interpreted.
Semantic ambiguity means, that you have a word which can have several
very different meanings, and the word is in such a context - in such
an environment of other words - that more than one of those meanings
can be assigned to it.
These are, of course, explanations for the layman, and Peter will
doubtlessly find fault with them. But if you were genuinely
interested, you should get some idea of what those expressions mean.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1176348409.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Syntactic ambiguity" refers to strings of words that have more than
one parsing.
A very familiar example is "Flying planes can be dangerous."
I suppose "semantic ambiguity" could refer to lexical polysemy, This
is uninteresting to linguistics because it has nothing to do with the
structure of the language but merely refers to the properties of
words. John Lyons uses the example "They passed the port at midnight."
He notes that there are simply two different words "port" that happen
to sound alike.
I suppose "vagueness" could refer to underspecification. Perhaps you'd
be interested in Grice's Postulates of Conversation.
Peter T. Daniels
> Scot wrote:
> > Alright... so you are one of the "experts" on sci.lang.
>
> Peter Daniels is not an especially nice or well-mannered person, but
> AFAIK he does know something about alphabets and writing systems that
> the rest of us don't. So, please leave out the quotation marks.
phoglund is an autodidact -- the most unfortunate sort of "authority"
-- and is very quick to resort to racial slurs and other absurd
generalizations when someone disagrees with him. Perhaps he knows the
English expression "The pot is calling the kettle black."
> Then
>
> > please, oh great one, enlighten me as to how terms
> > like "syntactic ambiguity", "semantic ambiguity" and
> > "vagueness" are used in linguistics.
>
> Syntactic ambiguity means, that a sentence is constructed in such a
> way that the word-order and the way how words depend on each other
> suggests more than one way how the sentence can be interpreted.
>
> Semantic ambiguity means, that you have a word which can have several
> very different meanings, and the word is in such a context - in such
> an environment of other words - that more than one of those meanings
> can be assigned to it.
>
> These are, of course, explanations for the layman, and Peter will
> doubtlessly find fault with them. But if you were genuinely
> interested, you should get some idea of what those expressions mean.
You didn't do "vague."
Nathan Sanders
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I suppose "vagueness" could refer to underspecification. Perhaps you'd
> be interested in Grice's Postulates of Conversation.
When I've seen "vagueness" used formally, it referred to predicates
with fuzzy or uncertain boundaries, like "tall" and "old", and even
verbs like "dance" (just how rhythmic do you have to be to qualify as
dancing rather than flailing about?) and nouns like "pile" (how many
grains of sand are needed to form a pile?).
Many (most?) of these predicates are at least doubly vague. On the
one hand, there is the vagueness in defining what is and isn't tall
for a particular group. Is 5'11" tall for human males? What about
5'10"? 5'9-1/2"? The other type of vagueness in the predicate is the
changing boundaries across groups. What counts as tall for a human
male is not the same as what counts as tall for a building.
Also unmentioned so far is "scope ambiguity" in which there are
multiple possible ways for quantifiers, definiteness, tense, modals,
negation, etc. to interact. For example, "every legislator voted yes
on a bill to raise taxes" can mean either (i) all the legislators
voted yes on the same particular bill, or (ii) various bills to raise
taxes have been proposed, and each legislator voted yes on (at least)
one of them, but not necessarily the same one for all legislators. In
(i), the bill (presumably) passed, but in (ii), it's quite possible
that no bill to raise taxes actually passed.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
phog...@abo.fi
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:43 am, phogl...@abo.fi wrote:
> > Scot wrote:
> > > Alright... so you are one of the "experts" on sci.lang.
> >
> > Peter Daniels is not an especially nice or well-mannered person, but
> > AFAIK he does know something about alphabets and writing systems that
> > the rest of us don't. So, please leave out the quotation marks.
>
> phoglund is an autodidact -- the most unfortunate sort of "authority"
It is always a better one than yours, as regards Irish, the
sociolinguistic situation of Ireland, or Ireland's modern history, or
even pidgins and creoles. It is amazing how you have the sheer
audacity to pose as authority on issues of which you do not even have
the autodidact kind of knowledge.
You should at least have the good manners (you and good manners, HA)
to admit how confused you are.
>
> > Then
> >
> > > please, oh great one, enlighten me as to how terms
> > > like "syntactic ambiguity", "semantic ambiguity" and
> > > "vagueness" are used in linguistics.
> >
> > Syntactic ambiguity means, that a sentence is constructed in such a
> > way that the word-order and the way how words depend on each other
> > suggests more than one way how the sentence can be interpreted.
> >
> > Semantic ambiguity means, that you have a word which can have several
> > very different meanings, and the word is in such a context - in such
> > an environment of other words - that more than one of those meanings
> > can be assigned to it.
> >
> > These are, of course, explanations for the layman, and Peter will
> > doubtlessly find fault with them. But if you were genuinely
> > interested, you should get some idea of what those expressions mean.
>
> You didn't do "vague."
I left it to you, the renowned expert.
rrh...@acme.com
> On Apr 9, 2:58 pm, "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You put on a good show.
You think so? I found it hackneyed and predictable.
Nathan Sanders
Nathan Sanders <nsan...@williams.edu> wrote:
> Also unmentioned so far is "scope ambiguity"
I should also add in the ambiguity that arises from ellipsis, as in
"John called his mother today, but Bill can't until tomorrow", where
the missing "call his mother" in the second clause could have either a
strict (his=John's) or sloppy (his=Bill's) reading.
rrh...@acme.com
> > Alright... so you are one of the "experts" on sci.lang.
>
> Peter Daniels is not an especially nice or well-mannered person, but
> AFAIK he does know something about alphabets and writing systems that
> the rest of us don't. So, please leave out the quotation marks.
I'll second that. I am strictly a layman, though I like to think a
reasonably informed one, in linguistics. So far as I can tell Peter
Daniels knows what he is talking about within that limited scope. I
wouldn't rely on him outside of the field. I rarely post to sci.lang,
but a few years ago he and I got into an argument about whether there
can be tie games in baseball, with him being unimpressed by cites of
actual rules and examples of actual ties. He went into classic usenet
idiot mode, trying to substitute flash and dazzle for those dreary
fact thingies. So yes, he can and will bullshit. But as a said, he
seems not to within the field of linguistics.
Richard R. Hershberger
Scot
Vagueness aside (for now)... you have cleared up the question of
two forms of ambiguity. Fantastic. Now let's get back to your
claim. Ah.... here it is:
Peter's claim:
> If languages -- all languages, not just English -- did not provide for
> ambiguity, language would soon become useless, more a hindrance than
> an evolutionary advantage.
Peter's statement is itself ambiguous. "provide for ambiguity" could
be interpreted as "provide [a method to resolve] ambiguity" or interpreted
as "provide [possibility to create] ambiguity". Perhaps there are other
possible interpretations, but in another post Peter has indicated that
he meant the latter, not the former and not any other interpretation.
If so then Peter's claim can be restated:
If languages -- all languages, not just English -- did not provide
possibilities of creating ambiguity, language would soon become
useless, more a hindrance than an evolutionary advantage.
And finally, it is clear that Peter's claim is nothing but an
unsupported assertion and appears, on the face of it, to be
incorrect. Care to explain Peter?
Peter T. Daniels
Shouldn't that have been discussed at a sports newsgroup rather than
sci.lang?
Someday, if you bring it up again, I'll be able to find the little
booklet of Official Rules and you can try your silly claim again.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <1176382018.818587.238...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I suppose "vagueness" could refer to underspecification. Perhaps you'd
> > be interested in Grice's Postulates of Conversation.
>
> When I've seen "vagueness" used formally, it referred to predicates
> with fuzzy or uncertain boundaries, like "tall" and "old", and even
> verbs like "dance" (just how rhythmic do you have to be to qualify as
> dancing rather than flailing about?) and nouns like "pile" (how many
> grains of sand are needed to form a pile?).
>
> Many (most?) of these predicates are at least doubly vague. On the
> one hand, there is the vagueness in defining what is and isn't tall
> for a particular group. Is 5'11" tall for human males? What about
> 5'10"? 5'9-1/2"? The other type of vagueness in the predicate is the
> changing boundaries across groups. What counts as tall for a human
> male is not the same as what counts as tall for a building.
>
> Also unmentioned so far is "scope ambiguity" in which there are
> multiple possible ways for quantifiers, definiteness, tense, modals,
> negation, etc. to interact. For example, "every legislator voted yes
> on a bill to raise taxes" can mean either (i) all the legislators
> voted yes on the same particular bill, or (ii) various bills to raise
> taxes have been proposed, and each legislator voted yes on (at least)
> one of them, but not necessarily the same one for all legislators. In
> (i), the bill (presumably) passed, but in (ii), it's quite possible
> that no bill to raise taxes actually passed.
"Vague" doesn't appear at all in the indexes to Lyons's *Semantics*;
scope ambiguity strikes me as a kind of syntactic ambiguity.
The kind of vagueness you mention would seem to belong to the area of
prototype semantics, which tends to be investigated by sociolinguists
rather than by semanticists.
Nathan Sanders
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Well, that was 1977. Chris Kennedy at UChicago taught a seminar on
vagueness, and most of the references are from after 1977:
<http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/s06/vagueness.html>
> scope ambiguity strikes me as a kind of syntactic ambiguity.
Sort of. It's structural ambiguity of logical form (if one believes
that such a form exists). It's certainly not the same kind of
structural ambiguity as in "I saw the man with the binoculars", which
has two legitimately different surface syntactic structures.
In comparison, "every legislator voted yes on a bill to raise taxes"
has only one relevant surface structure, with "every legislator"
located in subject position and "a bill to raise taxes" in object
position. The ambiguity lies solely in the interpretation of the
relative scope of the quantifiers, and has nothing to do with their
surface structure.
phog...@abo.fi
galathaea wrote:
>
> perhaps the prototypical african-american vernacular english
> can be studied in the term "muthafucka"
> anglified to "motherfucker" in most written form
I am sorry, Sir, but "motherfucker" is in my opinion influenced by
Slavonic languages (notably Russian), where the expression "f**k your
mother" (Russian: "yob tvoyu mat'") is a very widespread expletive.
stumper
I suspect that expression is very popular in all languages.
--
~Stumper
Tak To
> phog...@abo.fi wrote:
>
>> galathaea wrote:
>>
>>> perhaps the prototypical african-american vernacular english
>>> can be studied in the term "muthafucka"
>>> anglified to "motherfucker" in most written form
>>
>> I am sorry, Sir, but "motherfucker" is in my opinion influenced by
>> Slavonic languages (notably Russian), where the expression "f**k your
>> mother" (Russian: "yob tvoyu mat'") is a very widespread expletive.
Does that mean (1) "I f**k your mother" or (2) "you f**k your mother"?
> I suspect that expression is very popular in all languages.
Agree for (1); not sure about (2).
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
stumper
> stumper wrote:
>
>> phog...@abo.fi wrote:
>>
>>> galathaea wrote:
>>>
>>>> perhaps the prototypical african-american vernacular english
>>>> can be studied in the term "muthafucka"
>>>> anglified to "motherfucker" in most written form
>>>
>>> I am sorry, Sir, but "motherfucker" is in my opinion influenced by
>>> Slavonic languages (notably Russian), where the expression "f**k your
>>> mother" (Russian: "yob tvoyu mat'") is a very widespread expletive.
>
> Does that mean (1) "I f**k your mother" or (2) "you f**k your mother"?
>
>> I suspect that expression is very popular in all languages.
>
> Agree for (1); not sure about (2).
>
It's probably the other way around.
Both quite juvenile anyway.
Are you going somewhere with this?
--
~Stumper
Herman Rubin
>> [ignoring X-post to sci.math]
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > Please. You're cross-posting to sci.lang, a newsgroup for linguistics.
>> And at least one more newsgroup where it does not belong.
>> > If languages -- all languages, not just English -- did not provide for
>> > ambiguity, language would soon become useless, more a hindrance than
>> > an evolutionary advantage.
I know of no "natural" language in the sense of Peter
Daniels which does a decent job of providing for ambiguity.
This is why the development of "mathematical language", with
its conciseness and major removal of ambiguity (no, it is
not complete; we have what we call "systematic ambiguities"),
made the rapid development of mathematics from the 17th
century on possible.
The major problem in applying mathematics or statistics to
a "real world" problem is the translation to a precise
formulation. Finding out what the problem is, not the
vaguely worded version usually communicated to the one
asked to solve it, is very often the major part of the
process of applying science to practice.
>> I agree that ambiguities of the stated kind can be found in all languages,
>> that they are not a hindrance to the function of the language, and that
>> they are presumably unavoidable - for instance when words get additional
>> meanings which is a normal process.
>> On the other hand, there are ambiguities that have no significance
>> whatsoever, as the syntactic ambiguity given as an example, or homonyms by
>> mere chance.
>> In both cases, I cannot see that the ambiguity is a feature without which
>> the language would become useless. It is an unavoidable feature which does
>> not impede the usefulness. Perhaps I would not have objected had the
>> statement been "if languages were not able to cope with ambiguity" instead
>> of "... did not provide for ambiguity". Ambiguity is not a feature that
>> must be provided for, it is a feature which just is there.
>If there were a way to exclude any sort of ambiguity, it wouldn't be
>possible for any speaker to exercise creativity, and the language
>would not change -- and we would still all be talking like the very
>first human, unable to discuss the environment we'd changed!
In mathematical language, it is possible, but not always
necessary, to exclude ambiguities, but the subject certainly
develops. New entities are added, and new types as well.
I do not see how and unambiguous language would prevent
creativity, nor even rhyming poetry. Just leave room to
create new words, and there is no problem. One needs this
type of incompleteness, not ambiguity; if everything statable
or writable in a language already has a known precise meaning,
that is when creativity cannot occur.
--
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
galathaea
i agree with much of this
but at one metalevel back
it is important to have metalinguistic methoodologies
for agreeing upon any language game
methods to agree upon correlations
between utterance/symbol and experience/referrent
if these are unclear to a student
i think they do much more to damage understanding
than simple immersion in the unknown
but i am against monolanguage
i don't like to think of mathematics as a single linguistic enterprise
graph theory is a language apart from group theory
and their expression in other more fundamentally expressive
languages
like set theory or category theory
are another enterprise entirely
this is not to discourage those enterprises either
interrelationships are approaches to understanding
however
if we can agree on the referrent game
( which we do to a large degree when we communicate in a language )
then we can learn any formalism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
of course
i'm also very adamant about the understanding
that the symbol is not the referrent
that fundamentally
everything we say is a lie
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Peter T. Daniels
How did it get from the streets of Moscow to the streets of American
black ghettos?
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <1176235949.573129.90...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
Er, when I said "provide for ambiguity," I meant 'make ambiguity
available to speakers'. You apparently took it to mean 'avoid
ambiguity' -- which might be a job for mathematical expressions (not,
of course, "language"), but is most emphatically not a desideratum for
human language.
Give us some examples of poetry "written in mathematics." (And what's
"rhyming" got to do with it?)
"New words," as I apparently continually need to stress, are by far
the least significant part of the enterprise.
Lee Rudolph
Earl Browder and his Moscow gold!
ObMath: Felix, Bill, and Andy.
Lee Rudolph (b.t.w., phoglund--chinga tu madre!)
OwlHoot
>
> There have been a few recent posts in sci.math made using "IM style".
>
> For those totally out of touch, IM style is a highly abbreviated form
> of English that has evolved within the Instant Messaging (IM)
> community.
>
> [..]
Mind you, cryptic abbreviated styles are nothing new. Medievil
documents, such as the Domesday book, are notoriously abbreviated,
probably due to the expense of parchment and oak gall ink (still
in perfect condition after almost a thousand years though, which
is more than can be said for most of my 3.5" disks, which are
unreadable already!)
Also, here's a lawyer's letter in Charles Dickens' novel Bleak
House, published in 1852-3. Presumably it was based on practice
at the time, even if maybe slightly exaggerated for satirical
effect:
Old Square, Lincoln's Inn
Madam,
Jarndyce and Jarndyce
Our clt Mr. Jarndyce being abt to rece into his house,
under an Order of the Ct of Chy, a Ward of the Ct in
this cause, for whom he wishes to secure an elgble compn,
directs us to inform you that he will be glad of your
serces in the afsd capacity.
We have arrngd for your being forded, carriage free,
pr eight o'clock coach from Reading, on Monday morning
next, to White Horse Cellar, Piccadilly, London, where
one of our clks will be in waiting to convey you to our
offe as above.
We are, Madam, Your obedt Servts,
Kenge and Carboy
I'd guess instant messaging abbreviations are a temporary
phenomenon, and in ten or twenty years mobile phones will
will be able to prepare full text messages by lip reading,
like HAL in the film 2001.
Cheers
John R Ramsden
Bob Kolker
>
> How did it get from the streets of Moscow to the streets of American
> black ghettos?
Incest tabus forbidding mother-son sexual relations are nearly universal.
Bob Kolker
>
Scot
news:1176493921....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
So once again, we see that your statement "provide for
ambiguity" was itself, ambiguous . You still haven't
demonstrated that the ability to make ambiguous statements
is a desideratum for human language. In fact, your
ambiguous statement kept us from discussing this issue.
Thus your ambiguous statement demonstrates adequately
that the ability to make ambiguous statements is NOT a
desideratum for human language.
> "New words," as I apparently continually need to stress, are by far
> the least significant part of the enterprise.
So then what are the significant parts of the enterprise? (Of
course, this is a separate issue from whether the ability
to make ambiguous statements is helpful to the usefulness,
and growth of a natural language.)
Peter T. Daniels
Which rather counters the suggestion that such an epithet was
transferred from one subculture halfway around the globe to another,
rather than originating independently more than once.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1176493921....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Er, when I said "provide for ambiguity," I meant 'make ambiguity
> > available to speakers'. You apparently took it to mean 'avoid
> > ambiguity' -- which might be a job for mathematical expressions (not,
> > of course, "language"), but is most emphatically not a desideratum for
> > human language.
>
> So once again, we see that your statement "provide for
> ambiguity" was itself, ambiguous .
No, I find Herman's tendentious interpretation highly unreasonable: I
do not accept that "provide for" is a reasonable locution for "ward
against'.
> You still haven't
> demonstrated that the ability to make ambiguous statements
> is a desideratum for human language.
Maybe because it strikes any linguist as so obvious. If no statement
can have no more than one interpretation under any circumstances, even
if circumstances change, then there is no possibility of the language
changing to accommodate new circumstances; and language is constantly
in flux -- and not all that slowly, either. The differences between
the speech of grandparent and grandchild (and, once again, I am NOT
talking about vocabulary differences) are not all that subtle; there
is no need for people as close together as four generations to be able
to intercommunicate flawlessly (i.e., great-grandchildren are very
rare, and ones that are fully competent in their language -- i.e.,
adult great-grandchildren like Harry and Wills vis-a-vis the Queen Mum
-- extremely rare; communication across five generations is probably
nonexistent. The language of a century ago is very different from the
language of today, and by now we have audio recordings to prove it.
> In fact, your
> ambiguous statement kept us from discussing this issue.
> Thus your ambiguous statement demonstrates adequately
> that the ability to make ambiguous statements is NOT a
> desideratum for human language.
No, Herman's bizarrely tendentious misinterpretation, and your seizing
and harping on it, are all that have derailed the thread.
> > "New words," as I apparently continually need to stress, are by far
> > the least significant part of the enterprise.
>
> So then what are the significant parts of the enterprise? (Of
> course, this is a separate issue from whether the ability
> to make ambiguous statements is helpful to the usefulness,
> and growth of a natural language.)-
You tell me: What are the characteristics of language that are _not_
its vocabulary?
Bob Kolker
>
> Which rather counters the suggestion that such an epithet was
> transferred from one subculture halfway around the globe to another,
> rather than originating independently more than once.
Correct. Calling someone a mamma's boy (so to speak) is an insult almost
everywhere.
Bob Kolker
Jon Slaughter
Mother fucking is universal, is it not? In any case... I don't recall that
proof in any of my math classes.
phog...@abo.fi
Well, you know, there is this thing called immigration. Among Eastern
Europeans, at least Poles have been a substantial element among
immigrants to the United States for a long time, and left their mark
in the common American vernacular.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1176493617.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Kindly elucidate that apparent non sequitur? Has anyone mentioned a
proof of anything? And how would a math class be relevant to
sociolinguistics?
Peter T. Daniels
Kindly explain how Polish opprobria reached African American English
speakers?
And also, why the universal nature of this particular epithet does not
render your "theory" absurd?
Scot
> language is constantly
> in flux -- and not all that slowly, either. The differences between
> the speech of grandparent and grandchild (and, once again, I am NOT
> talking about vocabulary differences) are not all that subtle; there
> is no need for people as close together as four generations to be able
> to intercommunicate flawlessly (i.e., great-grandchildren are very
> rare, and ones that are fully competent in their language -- i.e.,
> adult great-grandchildren like Harry and Wills vis-a-vis the Queen Mum
> -- extremely rare; communication across five generations is probably
> nonexistent. The language of a century ago is very different from the
> language of today, and by now we have audio recordings to prove it.
First of all, your paragraph above is really nothing but a long
unsupported assertion. The support would be in those audio
recording which you don't supply.
> If no statement
> can have no more than one interpretation under any circumstances, even
> if circumstances change, then there is no possibility of the language
> changing to accommodate new circumstances
Well, here you are making another unsupported assertion
which is clearly a huge overstatement.
One possibility of a language changing to accommodate
new circumstances is through coining new words.
Another possibility is to use old words in a new way.
You might argue that using old words in new ways could
lead to what I called "semantic ambiguity". And I said
that semantic ambiguity was bad, didn't I? Well, I
guess I should really retract that assertion. Okay:
Forget about semantic ambiguity.
But I'm still unconvinced that syntactic ambiguity
is desirable for language usefulness and growth.
Peter wrote:
>> > "New words," as I apparently continually need to stress, are by far
>> > the least significant part of the enterprise.
Scot wrote:
>> So then what are the significant parts of the enterprise? (Of
>> course, this is a separate issue from whether the ability
>> to make ambiguous statements is helpful to the usefulness,
>> and growth of a natural language.)-
Peter wrote:
> You tell me: What are the characteristics of language that are _not_
> its vocabulary?
You behave more like a troll than an expert.
Clearly you know something but have only
demonstrated that you know enough to be a
moderately effective troll.
quasi
I haven't really been following this thread, and even had I been, I
probably shouldn't jump in here since I know next to nothing about the
theory of language. But, an idea occurred to me. Of course, the idea
is probably obvious and trivial (if true), or else silly (if false).
But still, it's an idea. so with that qualification, here's my two
cents:
Syntactic ambiguity has a major benefit -- it can substantially reduce
the size of a language. If every possible variation of meaning
required a unique syntax, even if that were feasible, it would
probably make the language so large as to be unwieldy. As long as the
syntactic ambiguities can normally be resolved at run time by the
context, I think the benefit in terms of compactness of the language
more than justifies a small risk of misunderstanding.
quasi
Paul J Kriha
> stumper wrote:
>
> > phog...@abo.fi wrote:
> >
> >> galathaea wrote:
> >>
> >>> perhaps the prototypical african-american vernacular english
> >>> can be studied in the term "muthafucka"
> >>> anglified to "motherfucker" in most written form
> >>
> >> I am sorry, Sir, but "motherfucker" is in my opinion influenced by
> >> Slavonic languages (notably Russian), where the expression "f**k your
> >> mother" (Russian: "yob tvoyu mat'") is a very widespread expletive.
>
> Does that mean (1) "I f**k your mother" or (2) "you f**k your mother"?
>
> > I suspect that expression is very popular in all languages.
You suspect wrong, it's not *popular* in *all* languages.
> Agree for (1); not sure about (2).
An equivalent phrase in another Slavic language, Czech,
virtually doesn't exist. To say something like "f**k your mother"
the Czechs usually use a Slovak phrase or some pig-East Slavic
language one. However, it's used quite infrequently.
pjk
> Tak
Strings
>> For those totally out of touch, IM style is a highly abbreviated form
>> of English that has evolved within the Instant Messaging (IM)
>> community.
i don't like IMs, because it's hard to sort out who can bother you and
who can't.
this abbreviation has been going on since the dawn of multitasking,
multiuser systems with Notes or bbs or conference.
the abbreviations like IMHO & TTBOMK are from the 90s or earlier. that
was long before the masses made it to the net.
msgs off
m.
galathaea
an important lesson to learn from the theory of communication is that
all symbols are powerful
this is what allows mathematics
to drive the modern magic of technology
manipulations with interpretations are testable
and predict the course of worldly events
of course the dual law is just as noble and important
all power is symbolic
Joachim Pense
>
> So once again, we see that your statement "provide for
> ambiguity" was itself, ambiguous . You still haven't
> demonstrated that the ability to make ambiguous statements
> is a desideratum for human language. In fact, your
> ambiguous statement kept us from discussing this issue.
> Thus your ambiguous statement demonstrates adequately
> that the ability to make ambiguous statements is NOT a
> desideratum for human language.
>
The fact that a feature has undesirable aspects sometimes does not
mean that it might be a desideratum anyway.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>
> Maybe because it strikes any linguist as so obvious. If no statement
> can have no more than one interpretation under any circumstances, even
> if circumstances change, then there is no possibility of the language
No possibility? If one possibility is eliminated, that leaves none?
> changing to accommodate new circumstances; and language is constantly
> in flux -- and not all that slowly, either. The differences between
> the speech of grandparent and grandchild (and, once again, I am NOT
> talking about vocabulary differences) are not all that subtle; there
> is no need for people as close together as four generations to be able
> to intercommunicate flawlessly (i.e., great-grandchildren are very
> rare, and ones that are fully competent in their language -- i.e.,
> adult great-grandchildren like Harry and Wills vis-a-vis the Queen Mum
> -- extremely rare; communication across five generations is probably
> nonexistent. The language of a century ago is very different from the
> language of today, and by now we have audio recordings to prove it.
So you're claiming that ambiguity and vagueness are the only elements
in a language that make language change possible?
Joachim
Artur Jachacy
And also, what does this have to do with Polish anyway? 'Matkojebca' is
quite rare, very recent, and very obviously a calque from English
'motherfucker'. There also no Polish equivalent of Russian 'yob tvoju
mat'' that I've heard.
A.
--
Gridneff: So the point is to get the message across,
without saying in so many words: You stupid fucking morons,
you're learning fucking elf languages!
Pan for Windows (beta) - <http://panbuilds.googlepages.com>
phog...@abo.fi
You know as well as I that even the most unilingual Pole you can find
is familiar with Russian swear-words and, if need arises, uses them
actively. The suggestion that the words are "Russian and not Polish"
doesn't change anything about that.
phog...@abo.fi
need to explain trivialities.
> And also, why the universal nature of this particular epithet does not
> render your "theory" absurd?
I am sorry, but this particular epithet is not entirely universal.
Before everybody learnt American English, we hadn't anything
comparable. Expletives and swear-words are actually very differently
constructed in different languages. For example, the expression "God
help" is actually a very strong swear-word in Finnish.
Scot
news:uoi023h397a1gcf2c...@4ax.com...
> Syntactic ambiguity has a major benefit -- it can substantially reduce
> the size of a language. If every possible variation of meaning
> required a unique syntax, even if that were feasible, it would
> probably make the language so large as to be unwieldy.
Not necessarily true! Here's a simple example that I have
been wanting to share. In the language of mathematics,
we use "infix" notation. example: 3 + 4 * 2
In infix the operation is written in between the operands.
With infix notation we need extra rules to specific which
operation to do first. Without the extra rules, the statement
could mean [1] (3+4) * 2 or [2] 3 + (4 * 2).
But with "postfix" notation (also called reverse polish
notation and used by HP calculators) the statements
can be expressed without any brackets as
[1 in postfix] 3 4 + 2 *
[2 in postfix] 3 4 2 * +
My point is, with a small change in the syntax of *this*
language it becomes smaller (no need for brackets)
and eliminates the need for extra rules regarding the
order of operations. (But I still don't particularly like
reverse polish notation.)
Now... as far as English or any other natural language,
I have no idea how to create a syntax that would eliminate
syntactic ambiguities. But I'm sure that any change
to the syntax of a language is not going to be warmly
received. And any attempts to change the spelling of
words or make the rules of pronunciation consistent
aren't going to be warmly received either. In other
words, English is a mess but we are stuck with it.
T.H. Ray
> <gala...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >one day we may very well
> >"$peek nu 4ms"
> > but if "we" are doing it
> > there is understanding involved
> >
> >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
>
> lead us there,
> by redefining "miscegenation" as some kind of racism,
> and coining
> words that don't exist and have no meaning, like
> "fablist." I think we
> should just throw out all definitions, all meanings,
> and all sense,
> and simply follow you.
>
I may have missed something here, but what exactly
do you mean? -- "miscegenation" most certainly IS
racist, as it implies that human beings are of more
than one "kind." A myth.
Tom
Artur Jachacy
No, not really. I can't think of any other than 'job twoju mać'. And what
would that need be?
> The suggestion that the words are "Russian and not Polish"
> doesn't change anything about that.
And of course none of the Polish obscenities spread, but the Russian one
did. Good job. Is 'chingas tu madre' influenced by Poles as well?
T.H. Ray
> Herman Rubin wrote:
> > In article
> <1176235949....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >On Apr 10, 9:40 am, Helmut Richter <h...@web.de>
> wrote:
> > >> [ignoring X-post to sci.math]
> >
> > >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> > Please. You're cross-posting to sci.lang, a
> newsgroup for linguistics.
> >
> > >> And at least one more newsgroup where it does
> not belong.
> >
> but at one metalevel back
>
> it is important to have metalinguistic methoodologies
> for agreeing upon any language game
>
> methods to agree upon correlations
> between utterance/symbol and experience/referrent
>
> if these are unclear to a student
> i think they do much more to damage understanding
> than simple immersion in the unknown
>
> but i am against monolanguage
>
> i don't like to think of mathematics as a single
> linguistic enterprise<<
You may not want to think of mathematics as a single
linguistic enterprise -- but it is. If this were not
so, mathematics would be useless for describing the
apparent unity of nature. And for that matter, the
suspected unity of mathematics itself.
Tom
>
> graph theory is a language apart from group theory
> and their expression in other more fundamentally
> ly expressive
> languages
> like set theory or category theory
> are another enterprise entirely
>
> this is not to discourage those enterprises either
>
> interrelationships are approaches to understanding
>
> however
> if we can agree on the referrent game
> ( which we do to a large degree when we communicate
> in a language )
> then we can learn any formalism
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
>
> of course
> i'm also very adamant about the understanding
> that the symbol is not the referrent
>
> that fundamentally
> everything we say is a lie
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
T.H. Ray
>
> You tell me: What are the characteristics of language
> that are _not_
> its vocabulary?
>
Rules and syntax.
Tom
T.H. Ray
I find that a rational POV. A simple example from
mathematics is in describing what points and lines
can do. It makes a difference to know whether one is
speaking of Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry. The
context is the rule.
Tom
Helmut Richter
> Now... as far as English or any other natural language,
> I have no idea how to create a syntax that would eliminate
> syntactic ambiguities.
One source of syntactic ambiguities in English is the lack of case.
For instance, the sentence
You like your brother more than your father.
could eiher mean
You like your brother more than [you like] your father.
or
You like your brother more than your father [likes him].
In German, the difference would be there also in the short form:
Du liebst deinen Bruder mehr als deinen Vater.
vs.
Du liebst deinen Bruder mehr als dein Vater.
Cases are so rudimentary in German that this example works only for
masculine singular but it shows one possibility of resolving syntactic
ambiguity by grammar. English sometimes uses word order for the purpose,
e.g.
The dog bites the man.
which could be literally translated to German
Der Hund beißt den Mann.
or
Den Hund beißt der Mann.
has only the first meaning because English word order is more restrictive
than German word order.
--
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
> On Apr 14, 5:09 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 9:27 pm, phogl...@abo.fi wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 10:46 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 13, 12:05 pm, phogl...@abo.fi wrote:
>
> > > > > galathaea wrote:
>
> > > > > > perhaps the prototypical african-american vernacular english
> > > > > > can be studied in the term "muthafucka"
> > > > > > anglified to "motherfucker" in most written form
>
> > > > > I am sorry, Sir, but "motherfucker" is in my opinion influenced by
> > > > > Slavonic languages (notably Russian), where the expression "f**k your
> > > > > mother" (Russian: "yob tvoyu mat'") is a very widespread expletive.
>
> > > > How did it get from the streets of Moscow to the streets of American
> > > > black ghettos?
>
> > > Well, you know, there is this thing called immigration. Among Eastern
> > > Europeans, at least Poles have been a substantial element among
> > > immigrants to the United States for a long time, and left their mark
> > > in the common American vernacular.
>
> > Kindly explain how Polish opprobria reached African American English
> > speakers?
>
> I see you are back in the classical Usenet idiot mode. I don't think I
> need to explain trivialities.
If you think basic sociolinguistics is trivial, maybe it's time for
you to do some more auto-didacting.
Labov's dissertation has just been republished in a handsome typeset
edition from Cambridge with his commentary 40 years on.
Read it.
> > And also, why the universal nature of this particular epithet does not
> > render your "theory" absurd?
>
> I am sorry, but this particular epithet is not entirely universal.
> Before everybody learnt American English, we hadn't anything
> comparable. Expletives and swear-words are actually very differently
> constructed in different languages. For example, the expression "God
> help" is actually a very strong swear-word in Finnish.-
So you've now changed your claim to that the Russian subculture got
the expression from America?
You could at least _try_ to be consistent from one day to the very
next.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:14:30 GMT, "Scot" <b...@me.net> wrote:
>
> >"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
An excellent observation. It's sort of equivalent to what linguists
call the "poverty of stimulus" observation -- within a matter of
months (usually well before they're 4 years old), an infant gains all
but complete mastery of their native language(s) on the basis of
nothing more than the random utterances they happen to hear in their
immediate environment.
Chomsky tried to deal with this curiosity by applying the mathematical
notion of transformation. (Unfortunately he went rather overboard
rather quickly, giving the impression that human language is some sort
of formal system!)
Peter T. Daniels
??
Necessary but not sufficient??
Peter T. Daniels
> "quasi" <q...@null.set> wrote in message
> Now... as far as English or any other natural language,
> I have no idea how to create a syntax that would eliminate
> syntactic ambiguities.
I should hope not. It would cease to be a human language.
> But I'm sure that any change
> to the syntax of a language is not going to be warmly
> received.
Don't be ridiculous. First of all, language changes do not occur on
the level of people's consciousness (except, of course, for the
occasional introduction of vocabulary, which, I repeat yet again, is
utterly uninteresting from the linguistic point of view).
Second, language is constantly changing. Did you realize that Jane
Austen could not have written "Elisabeth had been being wooed by Mr
Darcy for months before she succumbed to his charms"? That string of
three auxiliaries was simply not part of the English language 200
years ago.
> And any attempts to change the spelling of
> words or make the rules of pronunciation consistent
> aren't going to be warmly received either. In other
> words, English is a mess but we are stuck with it.
What the bloody hell does the spelling of words have to do with
anything at all, and the claim that "English is a mess" is almost
total nonsense.
Would English spelling be "better" if <divine> and <divinity> were
spelled with the same vowel-symbol in the second syllable? If you
needed to <sine> your <signature> rather than <sign> it?
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:1176505812.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > language is constantly
> > in flux -- and not all that slowly, either. The differences between
> > the speech of grandparent and grandchild (and, once again, I am NOT
> > talking about vocabulary differences) are not all that subtle; there
> > is no need for people as close together as four generations to be able
> > to intercommunicate flawlessly (i.e., great-grandchildren are very
> > rare, and ones that are fully competent in their language -- i.e.,
> > adult great-grandchildren like Harry and Wills vis-a-vis the Queen Mum
> > -- extremely rare; communication across five generations is probably
> > nonexistent. The language of a century ago is very different from the
> > language of today, and by now we have audio recordings to prove it.
>
> First of all, your paragraph above is really nothing but a long
> unsupported assertion. The support would be in those audio
> recording which you don't supply.
You REALLY should cease posting from ignorance. Not only are there
ample audio recordings from the past century, but the written record
of English goes back continuously for more than 1000 years, and the
language can easily be seen to be in constant flux. There are dozens
of books on the history of English; you might read one of them. David
Crystal's *Stories of English* is addressed to the layperson.
Moreover, even for languages with no written history at all, a
considerable amount can be learned of its past by comparing related
languages, and by techniques known as "internal reconstruction." These
have been used for languages of Native America for, also, well over
100 years.
This is neither a classroom nor a textbook.
You could enroll in a class in elementary linguistics; would you then
challenge everything your professor said, or would you read the
relevant materials?
Scot
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.07...@lxhri01.lrz.lrz-muenchen.de...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Scot wrote:
>
>> Now... as far as English or any other natural language,
>> I have no idea how to create a syntax that would eliminate
>> syntactic ambiguities.
>
> One source of syntactic ambiguities in English is the lack of case.
> For instance, the sentence
>
> You like your brother more than your father.
>
> could eiher mean
>
> You like your brother more than [you like] your father.
>
> or
>
> You like your brother more than your father [likes him].
>
> In German, the difference would be there also in the short form:
>
> Du liebst deinen Bruder mehr als deinen Vater.
>
> vs.
>
> Du liebst deinen Bruder mehr als dein Vater.
>
> Cases are so rudimentary in German that this example works only for
> masculine singular but it shows one possibility of resolving syntactic
> ambiguity by grammar.
Sorry... I know nothing about German syntax and
case. But let me ask you about the example I
first introduced. "He saw the farmer with binoculars."
Either [1] "He used the binoculars and saw a farmer."
or [2] " He saw a farmer who was carrying binoculars."
Is this type of a syntactic ambiguity possible in German?
And if matters are cleared up for masculine singular
how about "She saw the wife with binoculars". ?
English sometimes uses word order for the purpose,
> e.g.
>
> The dog bites the man.
>
> which could be literally translated to German
>
> Der Hund beißt den Mann.
>
> or
>
> Den Hund beißt der Mann.
>
> has only the first meaning because English word order is more restrictive
> than German word order.
Way back in university, my computational linguistics professor said that
syntactic ambiguities are impossible in German. But by web searching
I found an example.
http://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/reversible/node7.html
The German phrase (translated to English) was:
"withdraw the army from Croatia".
It is ambiguous because the speaker could mean
[1] "withdraw our German army from Croatia"
or
[2] "withdraw the Croatian army from our Germany".
T.H. Ray
I agree. In turn, an example of a sufficient, but
not necessary condition for language change would be
Ashby's Law (principle of requisite variety) as
applied to the range of signalling possibilities.
Which suggests language as a self-organized phenomenon.
Tom
Helmut Richter
> Sorry... I know nothing about German syntax and
> case. But let me ask you about the example I
> first introduced. "He saw the farmer with binoculars."
> Either [1] "He used the binoculars and saw a farmer."
> or [2] " He saw a farmer who was carrying binoculars."
> Is this type of a syntactic ambiguity possible in German?
Yes, at least from a formal point of view, the sentence is ambiguous.
In most contexts, one would use "mit dem Fernglas" (with the binoculars)
or "mit seinem Fernglas" (with his binoculars) when the farmer is seen
using the binoculars, and "mit einem Fernglas" (with binoculars) when they
are the farmer's.
In other languages, there may be different prepositions for "with"
(together with) and "with" (using). It is funny that the two are the same
in German (mit), English (with), and French (avec), although the three
words are not cognates.
It will be safe to guess that there are syntactic ambiguities in every
language, and that each ambiguity in some language does not exist in some
other language.
> http://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/reversible/node7.html
I do not find that example convincing. German "die Armee aus Kroatien
zurückziehen" is not more ambiguous than English "withdraw the army from
Croatia", which you could also forcefully misunderstand as "withdraw the
army [that has come] from Croatia" -- an understanding which is
syntactically possible bus which does not suggest itself. Both the English
and the German word for "withdraw" strongly request a supplement "from ..."
so that any "from" in the same sentence will be interpreted as belonging
to "withdraw".
--
Helmut Richter
Scot
This is neither a classroom nor a textbook and
you are not a professor. This is a forum for
discussion. I *am* reading the relevant materials
(i.e.. your posts) and I have found your assertions
unconvincing.
Joachim Pense
You seem to claim explicity in your second sentence above ("If not
statement ... accommodate new circumstances;") that a&v is neccessary
for a language to be able to change. I don't buy this.
Joachim
Scot
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.07...@lxhri01.lrz.lrz-muenchen.de...
>
>> Sorry... I know nothing about German syntax and
>> case. But let me ask you about the example I
>> first introduced. "He saw the farmer with binoculars."
>> Either [1] "He used the binoculars and saw a farmer."
>> or [2] " He saw a farmer who was carrying binoculars."
>> Is this type of a syntactic ambiguity possible in German?
>
> Yes, at least from a formal point of view, the sentence is ambiguous.
> In most contexts, one would use "mit dem Fernglas" (with the binoculars)
> or "mit seinem Fernglas" (with his binoculars) when the farmer is seen
> using the binoculars, and "mit einem Fernglas" (with binoculars) when they
> are the farmer's.
>
> In other languages, there may be different prepositions for "with"
> (together with) and "with" (using). It is funny that the two are the same
> in German (mit), English (with), and French (avec), although the three
> words are not cognates.
The problem isn't caused by the word "with" per se.
"He saw the farmer using binoculars"
is still ambiguous.
[1] He, using the binoculars, saw the farmer.
[2] He saw the farmer while the farmer was using binoculars.
In your other post you pointed out that English has
a strict word order : subject verb object.
The ambiguity comes up because it isn't clear
whether the "using" (or the "with") should apply
to the subject of the verb or the object of the verb.
[N.B. In the following, I am not seriously proposing
"correcting" anything... I'm only pursuing this as a
mental exercise.]
To "correct" the problem a person could make
use of a suffix or prefix to indicate "case".
(Helmut said that German uses case but I
still don't actually know what the German case
is. Possibly different from the type of "case"
that I'm introducing.)
My "case" would indicate whether the subject
is doing the using or the object is doing the using.
Rather than make up a new suffix or prefix I'll
just use [sub]using to indicate that the subject
of the verb is the one doing the using and
[obj]using to indicate that the object of the verb
is doing the using.
Thus, the sentences would be
He saw the farmer [sub]using the binoculars
and
He saw the farmer [obj]using the binoculars.
There would be no ambiguity. (Again, please
notice that I'm not actually proposing such
a thing, but only pursuing this as a mental
exercise. Further mental exercises might
involve (1) how to develop the necessary
prefixes or suffixes, (2) how many worms there
are in the can that I have opened and
(3) how to convince people to use the "new
form". But for now, I have taken my mental
exercise as far as I want.)
So that takes care of MY example. But it wouldn't
help at all with Helmut's example:
"He likes his brother more than his father."
The problem here is we don't know exactly what
is being compared. But another case, such as
"He likes cheddar more than mozzarella."
fits the exact same form but is not ambiguous.
But let's get back to reality: English syntax
can produce ambiguous sentences but it can
also produce sentences that are not ambiguous.
You just need to be careful to produce the message
that you want (even if you purpose is to be
ambiguous.).
Jens S. Larsen
> I'm still unconvinced that syntactic ambiguity
> is desirable for language usefulness and growth.
Actually, Scot, language is what it is, whether we like it or not --
so you can't have desiderata for language, only for theories about
language.
Jens S. Larsen
phog...@abo.fi
Well, then we must disagree about that. I would say that the average
immigrant from Galicia in the nineteenth century certainly spoke a
variety which was heavily influenced by East Slavic, and probably
included lots of East Slavic swear-words too.
> > The suggestion that the words are "Russian and not Polish"
> > doesn't change anything about that.
>
> And of course none of the Polish obscenities spread, but the Russian one
> did. Good job. Is 'chingas tu madre' influenced by Poles as well?
>
No, I don't think so. Of course it can have entered American English
from Spanish, too. But my main point was, the suggestion of a certain
person in this thread that "motherfucker" would have particularly
"Ebonic" origin or that it would have originated in Black Vernacular
English can be contested.
phog...@abo.fi
Regarding your recent assertions concerning both Esperanto and Irish,
I think you are the last person in this world to teach anybody basic
sociolinguistics.
>
> > > And also, why the universal nature of this particular epithet does not
> > > render your "theory" absurd?
>
> > I am sorry, but this particular epithet is not entirely universal.
> > Before everybody learnt American English, we hadn't anything
> > comparable. Expletives and swear-words are actually very differently
> > constructed in different languages. For example, the expression "God
> > help" is actually a very strong swear-word in Finnish.-
>
> So you've now changed your claim to that the Russian subculture got
> the expression from America?
Fuck off.
Scot
news:1176577533.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I think I can want something even though I fully admit that
I'm never going to get it.
(1) I think it would be desirable to have consistent rules of
pronunciation. ex. "have" should rhyme with "save".
(2) I think it would be desirable to have a consistent method
of forming the past tense: ex. I can say "walked" but I'm
not allowed to say "runned".
(3) I think it would be desirable to have a consistent way
to form comparisons:
ex: big, bigger, biggest
is fine but for some reason
fun, funner, funnest
"needs" to be stated as fun, more fun, most fun.
So I find these to be desirable but I know that the English
language is what it is. But in terms of "can't have
desiderata for language": Is there something in the
definition of "desiderata" that entails that the desired
things must be achievable? If so, then "desiderata"
is simply the wrong word.
Aatu Koskensilta
> _You_ came here. I didn't drop into sci.math claiming I knew how to
> square the circle or trisect the angle, or whatever folks try to do to
> you these days.
Those are old hat. Current efforts are concentrated on finding the
subtle flaw in Cantor's proof of the uncountability of reals. Oh, and
demonstrating that, contrary to what generations of mathematicians have
been brainwashed into believing, 0.9999... does not equal 1. Finding an
inconsistency in set theory is also a favourite pastime.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Lee Rudolph
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> _You_ came here. I didn't drop into sci.math claiming I knew how to
>> square the circle or trisect the angle, or whatever folks try to do to
>> you these days.
>
>Those are old hat. Current efforts are concentrated on finding the
>subtle flaw in Cantor's proof of the uncountability of reals. Oh, and
>demonstrating that, contrary to what generations of mathematicians have
>been brainwashed into believing, 0.9999... does not equal 1. Finding an
>inconsistency in set theory is also a favourite pastime.
I suppose we could try for a grand synthesis by beginning a
multicrossposted discussion of Langendoen and Postal's "The
Vastness of Natural Language". Peter, you may start.
Lee Rudolph
Brian M. Scott
in <news:U4aUh.926$IG1.514@trndny07> in
sci.lang,alt.philosophy,sci.math:
> "Jens S. Larsen" <jens_s...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:1176577533.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Scot:
>>> I'm still unconvinced that syntactic ambiguity
>>> is desirable for language usefulness and growth.
>> Actually, Scot, language is what it is, whether we like
>> it or not -- so you can't have desiderata for language,
>> only for theories about language.
> I think I can want something even though I fully admit that
> I'm never going to get it.
More to the point, you should also recognize that by and
large your desiderata are matters of taste and prejudice
that have nothing to do with the way that languages actually
develop. The opinion that you offer above, for instance, is
a prejudice that has little if anything to do with the facts
of language usefulness and growth.
> (1) I think it would be desirable to have consistent rules of
> pronunciation. ex. "have" should rhyme with "save".
This is about orthography, not language.
> (2) I think it would be desirable to have a consistent method
> of forming the past tense: ex. I can say "walked" but I'm
> not allowed to say "runned".
> (3) I think it would be desirable to have a consistent way
> to form comparisons:
> ex: big, bigger, biggest
> is fine but for some reason
> fun, funner, funnest
> "needs" to be stated as fun, more fun, most fun.
Real languages are never entirely regular. If it weren't
irregular verbs and comparison, it would be something else.
Old irregularities are often levelled out -- English plural
formation is much more regular than it once was -- and new
ones arise. You can want human language to be something
other than it is, I suppose, but it seems fairly pointless.
[...]
Brian
galathaea
the neurolinguistic research on short term memory
has focussed on image stabilisation in the presence of noise
and has found neuroarchitectonic correlation
to cortextual processing - particularly in the temporal region
this is associated to research on attention deficit disorder
and linguistical research on working space and related model
ontologies
there appear to be a countable separation of conceptual frames
one may hold in consideration at any instances
in many animals this is only a few sensual abstractions
already with 2 you get all the logical connectives
but with an increase of complexity
multiplace relationships become difficult to reason about
to assist the stablisation
of collections of correlated concepts
in some new dynamological relationship
we use naming and linguagenesis
new names
new languages
for new stablisations
some people are afraid of names
especially if they are new
and all are reminded of dukkha