learning to spea^H^H^H^Hprogram fluently
Scott Safier
Brian Vogel wrote:
>
> Robert Cumming <robe...@bahnhof.se> opined:
>
> [Preface (even though this should be unnecessary), the following
> discussion is of *my* own experience and specific observations.]
>
> ->Is learning a programming language like learning a spoken/written
> ->language?
>
> Absolutely not, as a general rule.
I agree.
> The differences between
> a number of the dominant non-object-oriented languages is far more
> one of style than substance. I presume that you're not considering
> some antique language such as COBOL or a bit of computer esoterica
> such as lisp. (I could even argue that "object-oriented" is very
> largely a matter of style rather than substance, but the style
> elements are so roccoco that they're hard to ignore.)
Lisp is not esoterica, it is perfection.
C++ is esoterica.
Cobol is Y2K.
> I have my favorites, but this is strictly due to syntactic
> compactness, "transparency" of logic as expressed by the language,
> and long-term use.
Regardless of the language, there is a "deep structure" to computer
programs, perhaps represented as an algorithm. The mode to express this
"deep structure" is the computer language. Everyone knows quicksort,
but it looks very different in lisp than C++. But any programmer that
knows these languages can write quicksort pretty quickly.
Jaime Carbonell did some learning by analogy stuff on this. I can dig
up the references if you'd like.
[...]
> When it comes to computer languages, I've already got the
> logic plotted out in my head; the "flow" (including possible weak
> areas) is already there. Expressing it in a computer language is
> a matter of knowing the syntax, pretty much.
Only in a syntax dominated language. In lisp, you don't really worry
much about syntax (beyond balancing parens and getting the number of
arguments correct). Yet that same "flow" is there.
>The logic, though
> frequently complex and extensive, isn't in any "real language"
> sense, nuanced.
Human language is context-sensitive, or at least, greater than
context-free. Computer languages (normally) are not.
--
Scott
---
"Under the white clouds, the snow is falling.
You can't see the white clouds, or the snow.
Or the cold, or the white glow of the earth.
A solitary man glides downhill on his skis.
The snow is falling.
It falls until the man disappears back into the landscape.
My friend Serge, who's one of my oldest friends, has bought a painting.
It's a canvas about five foot by four.
It represents a man who moves across a space and disappears."
Marc in _ART_
---
http://www.telerama.com/~corwin (Netscape 4+ only)
Pink Triangle Pages
http://www.telerama.com/~corwin/pink.html
Brian Vogel
[Preface (even though this should be unnecessary), the following
discussion is of *my* own experience and specific observations.]
->Is learning a programming language like learning a spoken/written
->language?
Absolutely not, as a general rule. The differences between
a number of the dominant non-object-oriented languages is far more
one of style than substance. I presume that you're not considering
some antique language such as COBOL or a bit of computer esoterica
such as lisp. (I could even argue that "object-oriented" is very
largely a matter of style rather than substance, but the style
elements are so roccoco that they're hard to ignore.)
I have my favorites, but this is strictly due to syntactic
compactness, "transparency" of logic as expressed by the language,
and long-term use.
->I seem to be pretty good at one of these and pretty mediocre at the
->other, so I thought I might try to get better by taking tricks that
->have worked when I've learnt spoken languages and applying them to
->programming ones.
My experience, which is limited, with learning other natural
languages is that the difficulty is in being able to pick the
appropriate wording/phrasing to carry the subtlties of language
one over into language two. That's why I think that great translators
are great artists in their own right.
When it comes to computer languages, I've already got the
logic plotted out in my head; the "flow" (including possible weak
areas) is already there. Expressing it in a computer language is
a matter of knowing the syntax, pretty much. The logic, though
frequently complex and extensive, isn't in any "real language"
sense, nuanced.
What can become ugly is if you are accustomed to using
pointers and end up using a language where this construct is
not supported. It can certainly be implemented in other ways,
but they're much less "accessible" when you look at the code
built to imitate pointers. Pointers, however, are often quite
inaccessible to those who typically use languages that don't
support them or have never used them because they were never
taught how they work.
> I'm curious to know if anyone else does this...
I certainly never did.
ObMotss: You asked the question.
Brian
P.S.: The .sig quote was randomly selected but, in its way,
sums up [nyuk, nyuk] the differences between human
thought (and its servant, language) and computer
processing.
--
Computers can figure out all kinds of problems,
except the things in the world that just don't add up.
-- James Magary
Brian Vogel
->Brian Vogel offered:
->>
->> Robert Cumming <robe...@bahnhof.se> opined:
->>
->> ->Is learning a programming language like learning a spoken/written
->> ->language?
->>
->> Absolutely not, as a general rule.
->I agree.
Thank heavens I'm not alone, then!
->> I presume that you're not considering
->> some antique language such as COBOL or a bit of computer esoterica
->> such as lisp. (I could even argue that "object-oriented" is very
->> largely a matter of style rather than substance, but the style
->> elements are so roccoco that they're hard to ignore.)
->Lisp is not esoterica, it is perfection.
lisp *defines* esoterica, in *every* sense of the word. Throw
in arcane/arcana, too.
->C++ is esoterica.
No, it's a gawd-awful abomination. A scourge. . .
->Cobol is Y2K.
And, for those systems that are de-Y2K-bugged, will quite
likely be Y3K. (Not that this is a *good* thing.)
->Regardless of the language, there is a "deep structure" to computer
->programs, perhaps represented as an algorithm. The mode to express this
->"deep structure" is the computer language. Everyone knows quicksort,
->but it looks very different in lisp than C++. But any programmer that
->knows these languages can write quicksort pretty quickly.
I won't disagree with your basic premise, since I agree with
it. However, given my (admittedly *very* limited) experience with trying
to figure out how lisp worked, or how to *make* lisp work, I'd say that
it's not nearly as accessible even to those with fairly extensive
backgrounds in programming. It's the only language that I really never
"got" and decided I was no longer going to try.
->Jaime Carbonell did some learning by analogy stuff on this. I can dig
->up the references if you'd like.
Hell, I shouldn't be spending the time to type this in, let alone
add to my overwhelming reading list! Perhaps at some point in the
unspecified future.
->Only in a syntax dominated language. In lisp, you don't really worry
->much about syntax (beyond balancing parens and getting the number of
->arguments correct). Yet that same "flow" is there.
If I never see another "cons", "car", or "cdr" in my life it will
be too soon. I really did find lisp conventions about as opaque as
I could imagine. (I can even follow C++ more easily, which is saying
something.) [No, "Your an Idiot!"s, please.]
->>The logic, though frequently complex and extensive, isn't in any
->>"real language" sense, nuanced.
->Human language is context-sensitive, or at least, greater than
->context-free. Computer languages (normally) are not.
Yep. Although I'll still be the first to argue that true
"gut feel" for computers and how they work is an art that really
can't be taught, just nurtured when it's recognized.
Brian
--
To quote me the authority of *precedents* leaves me quite
unmoved. All human progress has been made by ignoring precedents.
If mankind had continued to be the slave of precedent we should
still be living in caves and subsisting on shellfish and wild berries.
-- Viscount Philip Snowden
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> Absolutely not, as a general rule. The differences between
> a number of the dominant non-object-oriented languages is far more
> one of style than substance. I presume that you're not considering
> some antique language such as COBOL or a bit of computer esoterica
> such as lisp.
Well, if you exclude all languages that differ, I guess you'll find
that the languages you're left with are very similar. :-)
Actually, I think that its far easier to express similar ideas in
natural languages than it is to so in computer languages. The
structure of the idea and mode of thought is generally quite similar
whether I'm thinking in English or Norwegian, although differences in
the lexicon sometimes makes it more easier to discuss certain things
in one of the languages. With programming languages, there's a much
greater variety of structure for expressing things.
I mostly write in Lisp. I often find it easier to express what I mean
in Lisp than a natural language. And when faced with a weaker
language (say, C or Java or Perl or Tcl or whatever), I sometimes find
it completely impossible to express myself in any sensible way. I
find that I stop thinking about what I mean, and instead concentrate
on expressing things so that the stupid compiler understands what I
mean. The thought process changes, and the ideas that I want to
express change.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
la...@ifi.uio.no * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Gromit
<vog...@falcon.jmu.edu> wrote:
> Scott Safier <corwin...@telerama.lm.com> opined:
[...]
> ->Regardless of the language, there is a "deep structure" to computer
> ->programs, perhaps represented as an algorithm. The mode to express this
> ->"deep structure" is the computer language. Everyone knows quicksort,
> ->but it looks very different in lisp than C++. But any programmer that
> ->knows these languages can write quicksort pretty quickly.
>
> I won't disagree with your basic premise, since I agree with
> it. However, given my (admittedly *very* limited) experience with trying
> to figure out how lisp worked, or how to *make* lisp work, I'd say that
> it's not nearly as accessible even to those with fairly extensive
> backgrounds in programming. It's the only language that I really never
> "got" and decided I was no longer going to try.
It's funny - some people take to lisp and find it one of the most
natural and expressive languages they've ever used. Others find
it impenetrable.
[...]
> ->Only in a syntax dominated language. In lisp, you don't really worry
> ->much about syntax (beyond balancing parens and getting the number of
> ->arguments correct). Yet that same "flow" is there.
>
> If I never see another "cons", "car", or "cdr" in my life it will
> be too soon. I really did find lisp conventions about as opaque as
> I could imagine. (I can even follow C++ more easily, which is saying
> something.) [No, "Your an Idiot!"s, please.]
Like I said, some people get it and some people don't. Do you build
data structures in your head and watch your program work over them?
Can you write self-modifying code that you can model in your head by
thinking about DNA? Do you evaluate how well you're done by listening
to what noises the model makes, or where it heats up or emits a different
color?
For me, lisp supported all these things.
And it releases you from the bloody edit-compile-link-test loop.
scott...@my-dejanews.com
Brian Vogel <vog...@falcon.jmu.edu> wrote:
> Scott Safier <corwin...@telerama.lm.com> opined:
>
> ->>
> ->> Robert Cumming <robe...@bahnhof.se> opined:
> ->>
> ->> ->Is learning a programming language like learning a spoken/written
> ->> ->language?
> ->>
> ->> Absolutely not, as a general rule.
>
> ->I agree.
>
> Thank heavens I'm not alone, then!
I needed to say this so that it didn't seem like I was disagreeing. You know
how motss is.
> ->> I presume that you're not considering
> ->> some antique language such as COBOL or a bit of computer esoterica
> ->> such as lisp. (I could even argue that "object-oriented" is very
> ->> largely a matter of style rather than substance, but the style
> ->> elements are so roccoco that they're hard to ignore.)
>
> ->Lisp is not esoterica, it is perfection.
>
> lisp *defines* esoterica, in *every* sense of the word. Throw
> in arcane/arcana, too.
Try prolog, or APL, or OPS5 or fourth...
> ->C++ is esoterica.
>
> No, it's a gawd-awful abomination. A scourge. . .
well, there is that...
> ->Regardless of the language, there is a "deep structure" to computer
> ->programs, perhaps represented as an algorithm. The mode to express this
> ->"deep structure" is the computer language. Everyone knows quicksort,
> ->but it looks very different in lisp than C++. But any programmer that
> ->knows these languages can write quicksort pretty quickly.
>
> I won't disagree with your basic premise, since I agree with
> it. However, given my (admittedly *very* limited) experience with trying
> to figure out how lisp worked, or how to *make* lisp work, I'd say that
> it's not nearly as accessible even to those with fairly extensive
> backgrounds in programming. It's the only language that I really never
> "got" and decided I was no longer going to try.
The point is that, like natural languages, computer languages are used to
communicate some deeper meaning. Human languages differ in syntax, but they
are all used to communicate some semantic meaning. Non-european languages
can have markedly different syntax, yet they are used to communicate the same
ideas as the European-rooted languages. Likewise, abstract algorithms and
heuristics can be represented by any number of computer languages, eventhough
they may look very different.
> ->Jaime Carbonell did some learning by analogy stuff on this. I can dig
> ->up the references if you'd like.
>
> Hell, I shouldn't be spending the time to type this in, let alone
> add to my overwhelming reading list! Perhaps at some point in the
> unspecified future.
heh. When a friend was getting her PhD in experimental economics, she loved
these books -- "Hey, someone else is doing the type of research that I'm
doing." Machine learning and economics, on the surface, may look very
different, but she found the different perspective useful.
There is always time for one more book if you give up something useless, like
eating or sleeping.
> ->Only in a syntax dominated language. In lisp, you don't really worry
> ->much about syntax (beyond balancing parens and getting the number of
> ->arguments correct). Yet that same "flow" is there.
>
> If I never see another "cons", "car", or "cdr" in my life it will
> be too soon. I really did find lisp conventions about as opaque as
> I could imagine. (I can even follow C++ more easily, which is saying
> something.) [No, "Your an Idiot!"s, please.]
Linked lists can be opague. Lisp has an extensive library to manage this data
structure. Nothing really hard about it at all, once you separate data from
control.
> ->>The logic, though frequently complex and extensive, isn't in any
> ->>"real language" sense, nuanced.
>
> ->Human language is context-sensitive, or at least, greater than
> ->context-free. Computer languages (normally) are not.
>
> Yep. Although I'll still be the first to argue that true
> "gut feel" for computers and how they work is an art that really
> can't be taught, just nurtured when it's recognized.
Math is hard. Can we go shopping instead?
Scott
http://www.telerama.com/~corwin (Netscape only)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
scott...@my-dejanews.com
g...@panix.com (Gromit) wrote:
> In article <79b3ao$ofs$1...@lark.jmu.edu>, Brian Vogel
> <vog...@falcon.jmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Scott Safier <corwin...@telerama.lm.com> opined:
> > If I never see another "cons", "car", or "cdr" in my life it will
> > be too soon. I really did find lisp conventions about as opaque as
> > I could imagine. (I can even follow C++ more easily, which is saying
> > something.) [No, "Your an Idiot!"s, please.]
>
> data structures in your head and watch your program work over them?
Well, yes I do.
> Can you write self-modifying code that you can model in your head by
> thinking about DNA?
Why would I want to think about DNA? And of course I can write self-modifying
code (in lisp). It's only data, afterall.
> Do you evaluate how well you're done by listening
> to what noises the model makes, or where it heats up or emits a different
> color?
I hate it when my computer makes noises that I don't expect. It normally
means the drive is dying, or something like that.
> For me, lisp supported all these things.
>
> And it releases you from the bloody edit-compile-link-test loop.
interpretted code is slow. Get an incremental compiler. (or a lisp machine)
scott...@my-dejanews.com
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <la...@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> The
> structure of the idea and mode of thought is generally quite similar
> whether I'm thinking in English or Norwegian, although differences in
> the lexicon sometimes makes it more easier to discuss certain things
> in one of the languages.
Try a language like Japanese or Hebrew.
Ellen Evans
<scott...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Non-european languages
>can have markedly different syntax, yet they are used to communicate the same
>ideas as the European-rooted languages.
How do you know?
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>In article <79cbvg$jco$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <scott...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>Non-european languages
>>can have markedly different syntax, yet they are used to communicate the sam
>>ideas as the European-rooted languages.
>
>How do you know?
Lots of work with linguists.
Peggy Fieland
Brian Vogel <vog...@falcon.jmu.edu> wrote:
>Scott Safier <corwin...@telerama.lm.com> opined:
>
>->C++ is esoterica.
>
> No, it's a gawd-awful abomination. A scourge. . .
>
Hey, you're talking about my paycheck there!
The first c++ port we did (now about six years back) was a port of
cfront into which we put debugging support. So here we were, our
project team, going to our first c++ training class. We'd never
written any c++. The class just consisted of our group and our
instructor. Poor guy, we kept asking him "That's nice, but how
is it *implemented*, and I kept adding "and what features does
your debugger have to support it, and how did you like them?".
Peggy
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: In article <jeevF6n...@netcom.com>, Ellen Evans wrote:
: >In article <79cbvg$jco$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
: > <scott...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
: >>Non-european languages
: >>can have markedly different syntax, yet they are used to communicate
: >How do you know?
:
: Lots of work with linguists.
'the same' is problematic here. Similar ideas is a nearly irrefutably
claim, though it's arguable that some ideas are nearly impossible to
translate.
That something *is* lost in translation of all but the most very
simple ideas is something I think few linguists would disagree with.
In fact, one of the parents of modern linguistics, de Saussure,
assures us that even an act of communication within a given language
is doomed to a certain amount of failure (that is that there is
an inevitable difference between what one intends to communicate
and what one actually does communicate); if you have to translate
an idea from one language, even more will be lost. Why? Because the
ideas are not really identical. Because there is a relationship
between language and culture and any number of other things. Because
even single words have different connotations, for all that they
are translated as equivalent because they have identical denotations.
Te quiero in Spanish is translated as "I love you," as is te amo.
The two have very different meanings, I assure you. Can the idea
behind both be communicated in English as well? Roughly, perhaps.
Identically, I doubt it. Te veo cansado is translated into English
as you look tired, but that loses something, since te veo cansado
is active, and inserts the subjectivity of the speaker far more
strongly. I forgot in Spanish is se me olvido', I lost it, se me
perdio'. The idea is actually not quite the same-- here, the
constructions are passive, implying a denial of responsibilty
that would seem to me to reflect a difference in attitude towards
forgetting and losing.
There are irreducible differences between languages. Ideas may be
similar, but they are not the same.
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>cor...@frogger.lm.com wrote:
>: In article <jeevF6n...@netcom.com>, Ellen Evans wrote:
>: >In article <79cbvg$jco$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>: > <scott...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: >>Non-european languages
>: >>can have markedly different syntax, yet they are used to communicate
>: >>the same ideas as the European-rooted languages.
>: >
>: >How do you know?
>:
>: Lots of work with linguists.
>
>'the same' is problematic here. Similar ideas is a nearly irrefutably
>claim, though it's arguable that some ideas are nearly impossible to
>translate.
>
>That something *is* lost in translation of all but the most very
>simple ideas is something I think few linguists would disagree with.
well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
[lots of stuff about translation deleted]
>There are irreducible differences between languages. Ideas may be
>similar, but they are not the same.
Errr, no. Humans (children) have an innate ability to learn language.
There is no pre-wired specific language that precludes a child from
learning the language it is exposed to -- a child born in Russia of
Russian parents and adopted at birth by American parents and raised in
the US will learn English with no problems.
You might be confusing a language's lexicon with some notion of ideas
and thought. A person may not be able to label cold, wet white stuff
from the sky as 'snow', but they still know it is cold, wet and comes
from the sky.
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: In article <79cmo3$4lt$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
: >'the same' is problematic here. Similar ideas is a nearly irrefutably
: >claim, though it's arguable that some ideas are nearly impossible to
: >translate.
: >
: >That something *is* lost in translation of all but the most very
: >simple ideas is something I think few linguists would disagree with.
:
: well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
: the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
And I'm saying that problems in translation reflect a difference
that lies on both these levels.
: >There are irreducible differences between languages. Ideas may be
: >similar, but they are not the same.
:
: Errr, no.
You can disagree, but you can't prove this 'er, no.'
Humans (children) have an innate ability to learn language.
: There is no pre-wired specific language that precludes a child from
: learning the language it is exposed to -- a child born in Russia of
: Russian parents and adopted at birth by American parents and raised in
: the US will learn English with no problems.
Um, how does this relate to anything I've said?
What I've said is that someone who speaks Russian as her native
language may actually have certain ideas that are rather difficult
for someone who speaks English as her native language to understand.
Not that the language of one's parents has some genetic effect
on anyone's cognitive or conceptual capabilites.
: You might be confusing a language's lexicon with some notion of ideas
: and thought. A person may not be able to label cold, wet white stuff
: from the sky as 'snow', but they still know it is cold, wet and comes
: from the sky.
Indeed it is. I fail to see how either of these comments relates
to anything I've said.
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>cor...@frogger.lm.com wrote:
>: In article <79cmo3$4lt$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
>
>: >'the same' is problematic here. Similar ideas is a nearly irrefutably
>: >claim, though it's arguable that some ideas are nearly impossible to
>: >translate.
>: >
>: >That something *is* lost in translation of all but the most very
>: >simple ideas is something I think few linguists would disagree with.
>:
>: well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
>: the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
>
>And I'm saying that problems in translation reflect a difference
>that lies on both these levels.
And I'd say you are wrong. For your statement to be true, there would
have to exist some statement that cannot be translated at all. There
would have to be some deep structure that could not be constructed in
a language. My understanding of deep structure is that it is language
independent, not language dependent. There can be no deep structure
that is represented in only one language.
>
>: >There are irreducible differences between languages. Ideas may be
>: >similar, but they are not the same.
>:
>: Errr, no.
>
>You can disagree, but you can't prove this 'er, no.'
>
Well, since I said more than that, I don't have to prove anything.
> Humans (children) have an innate ability to learn language.
>: There is no pre-wired specific language that precludes a child from
>: learning the language it is exposed to -- a child born in Russia of
>: Russian parents and adopted at birth by American parents and raised in
>: the US will learn English with no problems.
>
>Um, how does this relate to anything I've said?
>
One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
is divisive and ignores the similarities.
>What I've said is that someone who speaks Russian as her native
>language may actually have certain ideas that are rather difficult
>for someone who speaks English as her native language to understand.
There are certain lexical and idiomatic constructions that may be
difficult to translate. To argue that the thoughts are different is
absurd.
>
>Not that the language of one's parents has some genetic effect
>on anyone's cognitive or conceptual capabilites.
>
Did I use the word "genetic" anywhere? If anything, arguing that
language translation is difficult because of different thoughts and
thought processes implies that language creates brain differences. I
find this proposition absurd.
>: You might be confusing a language's lexicon with some notion of ideas
>: and thought. A person may not be able to label cold, wet white stuff
>: from the sky as 'snow', but they still know it is cold, wet and comes
>: from the sky.
>
>Indeed it is. I fail to see how either of these comments relates
>to anything I've said.
Indeed you are confusing a language lexicon with thought? And you
don't see how this relates to anything you said? That deserves a big
**WHOOSH**.
Ellen Evans
<cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
[]
>well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
>the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
But a)"deep structures" are theoretical (and often usefully so), not
provably "actual," b)"deep structure" as theorized is not about "meaning"
per se and c)getting from "deep structure" to "surface structure" is not
a transparent process.
[]
>Errr, no. Humans (children) have an innate ability to learn language.
>There is no pre-wired specific language that precludes a child from
>learning the language it is exposed to -- a child born in Russia of
>Russian parents and adopted at birth by American parents and raised in
>the US will learn English with no problems.
True, but not to the point. The child, no matter what his cultural
heritage, will be a native English speaker.
>You might be confusing a language's lexicon with some notion of ideas
>and thought. A person may not be able to label cold, wet white stuff
>from the sky as 'snow', but they still know it is cold, wet and comes
>from the sky.
What does knowing it is "cold, wet, and comes from the sky" entail?
Ellen Evans
<cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
[]
>One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
>that language makes us different.
"One's native language has an effect in how one cognizes the world" is
hardly the same as "black people are Other."
[]
>There are certain lexical and idiomatic constructions that may be
>difficult to translate. To argue that the thoughts are different is
>absurd.
No more absurd than it is to argue that the thoughts are the same. Unless
brain research develops to such a degree that it is possible to isolate a
"thought" which has a "specific meaning" (a construction that is, itself,
fraught with difficulties) by, say, measuring electrical activty, there is
no way to know, directly. There are interesting and useful theoretical
constructs that address these issues, but they are purely theoretical, and
not everyone agrees with them.
[]
>If anything, arguing that
>language translation is difficult because of different thoughts and
>thought processes implies that language creates brain differences. I
>find this proposition absurd.
Who said anything about "brain" differences? We're not anywhere close to
connecting "brain" structures to things like "meaning". We're barely able
to locate general processing areas, and even there, most of our knowledge
exists in language, and thus, given the nature of our discussion, is
problematized.
cor...@frogger.lm.com
> <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
>[]
>>well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
>>the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
>
>But a)"deep structures" are theoretical (and often usefully so), not
>provably "actual," b)"deep structure" as theorized is not about "meaning"
>per se and c)getting from "deep structure" to "surface structure" is not
>a transparent process.
My notion of 'deep structure' is from Schankian frames/schema point of
view. This means that it is wrong, or at least disagrees with the
commonly accepted term.
Yes, this is all theoretical. I don't know how you would show
'actual' with our current knowledge of how the brain works.
>[]
>>Errr, no. Humans (children) have an innate ability to learn language.
>>There is no pre-wired specific language that precludes a child from
>>learning the language it is exposed to -- a child born in Russia of
>>Russian parents and adopted at birth by American parents and raised in
>>the US will learn English with no problems.
>
>True, but not to the point. The child, no matter what his cultural
>heritage, will be a native English speaker.
>
Exactly. My point is that there is no cultural basis that affects the
process of learning (primary) language. It is generic, like all
cognitive processes. In other words, it is my belief that thought is
generic and does not differ based upon cultural considerations, such
as language.
>>You might be confusing a language's lexicon with some notion of ideas
>>and thought. A person may not be able to label cold, wet white stuff
>>from the sky as 'snow', but they still know it is cold, wet and comes
>>from the sky.
>
>What does knowing it is "cold, wet, and comes from the sky" entail?
The processing, in some neuro-cognitive way, of sensory input. In
this case, "cold" and "wet" are processed by our touch sense. "from
the sky" is probably a visual process, although it could also involve
other senses.
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>,
> <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
>[]
>>One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
>>that language makes us different.
>
>"One's native language has an effect in how one cognizes the world" is
>hardly the same as "black people are Other."
differ based upon language? I believe that there have been any number
of cultures that claim they are superior and have superior thought
processes. Isn't (or wasn't) this a common(fsvo) belief in Japan?
Certainly many states have fought wars over language and the belief
that their language or culture was superior to their enemies. I find
little basis for these beliefs that humans are so markedly
differently.
>[]
>>There are certain lexical and idiomatic constructions that may be
>>difficult to translate. To argue that the thoughts are different is
>>absurd.
>
>No more absurd than it is to argue that the thoughts are the same. Unless
>brain research develops to such a degree that it is possible to isolate a
>"thought" which has a "specific meaning" (a construction that is, itself,
>fraught with difficulties) by, say, measuring electrical activty, there is
>no way to know, directly. There are interesting and useful theoretical
>constructs that address these issues, but they are purely theoretical, and
>not everyone agrees with them.
>
yes, theories differ. But I don't think that these differing
theorists would argue that brain function differs between humans who
speak different languages. I don't know of anyone who argues that a
German's brain processes are different from a Russians brain processes
or an Americans. The processes of cognition (i.e. thought) are the
same in humans. Language and lexicons may differ, but so what?
Most of our knowledge does not exist as language. It exists as
chemicals. I may say "dog", but I also visualize a creature with four
legs and a wagging tail. That visual knowledge is not language. Do
you believe that a french person who says "chat" has a different
visualation of cat than an American? Is this different "thought"? I
don't think so.
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: In article <79crvd$eqe$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
: >cor...@frogger.lm.com wrote:
: >: well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
: >: the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
: >
: >And I'm saying that problems in translation reflect a difference
: >that lies on both these levels.
:
: And I'd say you are wrong. For your statement to be true, there would
: have to exist some statement that cannot be translated at all.
Why? Why wouldn't there being aspects of such a statement be sufficient?
All there needs to be is meaning that can't be translated for this
statement to be true. At any rate, these levels of structure are
highly hypothetical.
There
: would have to be some deep structure that could not be constructed in
: a language. My understanding of deep structure is that it is language
: independent, not language dependent. There can be no deep structure
: that is represented in only one language.
Well, then you're arguing from an axiom here, so we're bound to
disagree. Your definition of deep structure is that it is
independent from language. So arguing the point is, well, pointless.
My question would be, then, just what do you mean by deep structure
here, and how do you know it is independent from language?
: >: >There are irreducible differences between languages. Ideas may be
: >: >similar, but they are not the same.
: >:
: >: Errr, no.
: >
: >You can disagree, but you can't prove this 'er, no.'
: >
:
: Well, since I said more than that, I don't have to prove anything.
Okay. But I'll stand by what I say. There are irreducible differences.
I've seen them and felt them. I know some things cannot be translated
from one language to another. I know there are certain shades of meaning
that get lost. And I believe that there is a relationship between
surface and depth.
: > Humans (children) have an innate ability to learn language.
: >: There is no pre-wired specific language that precludes a child from
: >: learning the language it is exposed to -- a child born in Russia of
: >: Russian parents and adopted at birth by American parents and raised in
: >: the US will learn English with no problems.
: >
: >Um, how does this relate to anything I've said?
: >
:
: One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
: that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
: absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
: is divisive and ignores the similarities.
Acknowledging difference doesn't ignore similarities. And that is
rather a weak anology. I *know* that language makes us different.
You seem to be taking this to mean something on the order of 'alters
our bodies in some appreciable way.' Is that what you mean by deep
structure? To me, deep structure is still a question of meaning.
At any rate, a lot of what I've read recently about the development
of the brain and how it is organized indicates that indeed the brain
does continue to develop after we are born, and that it is still in
the process of developing while we learn our native language. But in
a way, that's still moot as far as I'm concerned. Even if all our
brains are functionally identitical, that doesn't mean that we use
them in the same way. We all use some ridiculously small percentage
of our brains. How can you be sure that which native language you
speak doesn't have some impact on which tiny percentage of your brain
you use?
: >What I've said is that someone who speaks Russian as her native
: >language may actually have certain ideas that are rather difficult
: >for someone who speaks English as her native language to understand.
: There are certain lexical and idiomatic constructions that may be
: difficult to translate. To argue that the thoughts are different is
: absurd.
No more absurd that it would be to argue that the thoughts are idenitical.
In another posting you use the example the a cat. You asked whether
a french person saying chat would be thinking of something different
than an english speaker saying cat. My answer is that you and I are
even thinking of different things when we say cat. Even within the
same language, every single one of us has a different cat pop into
our heads when we read or hear that word.
At any rate, that's still a poor example. I never contended that there
were no similarities among languages. The similarities are legion. That
doesn't mean that there cannot be differences. And acknowledging
difference is hardly divisive. Defining things *solely* in terms
of difference can be divisive. Refusing to acknowledge difference,
though, is foolish.
: >Not that the language of one's parents has some genetic effect
: >on anyone's cognitive or conceptual capabilites.
: >
:
: Did I use the word "genetic" anywhere?
No, you seemed to think that it was a valid argument against me
that someone born of Russian parents would have no trouble learning
English, which to me implied that you thought that I thought the
language had some effect on people that was genetically transferable.
If that's not the case, I really fail to understand why you brought
that point up.
: >: You might be confusing a language's lexicon with some notion of ideas
: >: and thought. A person may not be able to label cold, wet white stuff
: >: from the sky as 'snow', but they still know it is cold, wet and comes
: >: from the sky.
: >
: >Indeed it is. I fail to see how either of these comments relates
: >to anything I've said.
:
: Indeed you are confusing a language lexicon with thought? And you
: don't see how this relates to anything you said? That deserves a big
: **WHOOSH**.
No. Indeed they still know that it is cold, wet and comes from
the sky. I am not confusing lexicon with thought. I know very
well what I am saying when I claim that there is a relationship
between native language and thought. This is a frequent subject
for soc.motss, er, discussions, and Ellen and I have already taken
our predictible positions. Anyone else? Ayana, where are you?
It's so cute when Ellen and Ayana disagree online.
Anyhoo, the question is not do they know that it is cold and
wet and comes from the sky. The questions are manifold: do they
experience cold and wet in the same way we do? Do we all experience
snow identically? What affects how we experience snow? I think
that language affects how we experience reality, and how we
interpret it. I think that thought is actually much broader than
is language, but that we are forced to use this imperfect medium
to encapsulate our thoughts. I think we are lazy, in a lot of
ways, and so that soon language becomes a kind of substitute for
thought. It's there. It's convenient. It's easy. And so I think
that a lot of us quit doing hard thinking-- thinking we don't
have appropriate words for-- and settle for easy thinking instead.
And so I think that language affects how we think, because a good
many people have a great deal of difficulty thinking without or
outside of language.
Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping.
Gromit
> In article <glp-040299...@glp.dialup.access.net>,
> g...@panix.com (Gromit) wrote:
[....re: Lisp....]
> >
> > And it releases you from the bloody edit-compile-link-test loop.
>
> interpretted code is slow. Get an incremental compiler. (or a lisp machine)
Development vs production. Compile it when it works. When I was
using T we would compile it and build it into the base so that it
wouldn't be on the heap.
Gromit
[...]
> The point is that, like natural languages, computer languages are used to
> communicate some deeper meaning.
Define "deeper"? If you mean that they represent abstractions of
what the compliler will produce, then I'd agree.
Gromit
Chase Edmonds) wrote:
[....]
> Te quiero in Spanish is translated as "I love you," as is te amo.
> The two have very different meanings, I assure you. Can the idea
> behind both be communicated in English as well? Roughly, perhaps.
> Identically, I doubt it.
But when I ask my native-spanish-speaking friends they all say
that both mean exactly the same thing as "I love you" in English,
only that convention says when you use one and when you use the other -
depending on where you grew up and who you're speaking to. English
speakers are able to differentiate between "I love you" spoken by
a child to a parent and "I love you" spoken by one adult to another,
which is a common way that convention dictates the usages of "te quiero"
and "te amo".
"Te quiero" also means "I want you" but that technical ambiguity
only seems to be interesting to people who didn't grow up with
the language.
> Te veo cansado is translated into English
> as you look tired, but that loses something, since te veo cansado
> is active, and inserts the subjectivity of the speaker far more
> strongly. I forgot in Spanish is se me olvido', I lost it, se me
> perdio'. The idea is actually not quite the same-- here, the
> constructions are passive, implying a denial of responsibilty
> that would seem to me to reflect a difference in attitude towards
> forgetting and losing.
Again, the difference only seems interesting to people like us who
came to Spanish later. Like "me gusta" - "it pleases me". No
problem with translating that to "I like it". I'd agree with you
that some literal translations can lose or change meaning but the
simple, obvious ones don't seem to.
> There are irreducible differences between languages. Ideas may be
> similar, but they are not the same.
Haven't we been here before?
Gromit
[...]
> One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> is divisive and ignores the similarities.
American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
Gromit
> In article <slrn7bjqli...@frogger.lm.com>,
> <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
> []
> >well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
> >the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
>
> But a)"deep structures" are theoretical (and often usefully so), not
> provably "actual," b)"deep structure" as theorized is not about "meaning"
> per se and c)getting from "deep structure" to "surface structure" is not
> a transparent process.
What I remember from the LAST TIME we went through this was that
Big Arnold stepped in and pointed out that even though one language
may use more words than another to express a concept (I believe
we were using the example of the two spanish existential verbs,
"ser" and "estar" and the different forms of the past tense) that
different concepts were still expressed differently.
Scott Safier
Ellen Evans wrote:
>
> In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>,
> <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
> []
> >One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> >that language makes us different.
>
> "One's native language has an effect in how one cognizes the world" is
> hardly the same as "black people are Other."
I'm going to be bad and follow this post up twice because it really irks me.
Dan disagree with the word "same". If they are not the same, they are
different (even similar things have differences). If one's native
language causes different thoughts, then these differences must be
quantifiable. If they are quantifiable, then a person or group can
argue that one language/thought process is superior to others, along
some metric of measurement. If one's thoughts are superior, then isn't
it arguable that the group with this language are superior to other
people? To me, this wreaks of Nazism.
I really disagree, in the strongest terms possible, with Ellen's
statement above.
Lorna Brown
: [...]
: > One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
: > that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
: > absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
: > is divisive and ignores the similarities.
: American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
People take USamerican elocution classes here in Vancouver
to develop that winning drawl.
corry
Gromit
Chase Edmonds) wrote:
> cor...@frogger.lm.com wrote:
> : In article <79crvd$eqe$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
> : >cor...@frogger.lm.com wrote:
>
> : >: well yes, but I'm not talking about translation. I am talking about
> : >: the difference between deep structure and surface structure.
> : >
> : >And I'm saying that problems in translation reflect a difference
> : >that lies on both these levels.
> :
> : And I'd say you are wrong. For your statement to be true, there would
> : have to exist some statement that cannot be translated at all.
>
> Why? Why wouldn't there being aspects of such a statement be sufficient?
> All there needs to be is meaning that can't be translated for this
> statement to be true. At any rate, these levels of structure are
> highly hypothetical.
Your original statement was that different language structures for
expressing basic concepts ("I love you", "I lost it", "I like it")
require that, for example, the people making those statements in
Spanish are really expressing something different than the people
making the same statements in English, so that the translations
will be definitionally flawed. I think that's wrong - it's not
required and in fact contradicted by people who speak both languages
fluently. The deeper concepts of "love", "lost" and "like" may be
different but those could also vary between two speakers of the
same language.
[....]
> At any rate, a lot of what I've read recently about the development
> of the brain and how it is organized indicates that indeed the brain
> does continue to develop after we are born, and that it is still in
> the process of developing while we learn our native language.
Depends on if you believe that language is descriptive or
proscriptive.
> But in
> a way, that's still moot as far as I'm concerned. Even if all our
> brains are functionally identitical, that doesn't mean that we use
> them in the same way. We all use some ridiculously small percentage
> of our brains.
Is that still believed to be true? I thought it wasn't.
> How can you be sure that which native language you
> speak doesn't have some impact on which tiny percentage of your brain
> you use?
It most certainly affects the parts of your brain which handle
language. Other parts? How can you know?
[...]
> Anyhoo, the question is not do they know that it is cold and
> wet and comes from the sky. The questions are manifold: do they
> experience cold and wet in the same way we do? Do we all experience
> snow identically? What affects how we experience snow? I think
> that language affects how we experience reality, and how we
> interpret it. I think that thought is actually much broader than
> is language, but that we are forced to use this imperfect medium
> to encapsulate our thoughts.
We've been here before. As I remember, both Ayana and I
brought up our personally familiar ability to think about
things (specifically programming abstractions) in terms of
colors and sounds (and in my case, smells) and our difficulty
in finding words to describe those things.
Of course, language affects how we experience reality because
language is a way for us to be exposed to and learn new concepts,
and therefore how we filter and process experience. I think this
is where the Helen Keller aha! experience comes in. But using
the snow concept it falls apart - I don't have more than one
word for "snow" but I have experienced and can recognize the
different between icy snow and fluffy snow and wet snow.
> I think we are lazy, in a lot of
> ways, and so that soon language becomes a kind of substitute for
> thought. It's there. It's convenient. It's easy. And so I think
> that a lot of us quit doing hard thinking-- thinking we don't
> have appropriate words for-- and settle for easy thinking instead.
> And so I think that language affects how we think, because a good
> many people have a great deal of difficulty thinking without or
> outside of language.
>
> Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping.
Can someone who can't read and can't hear still recognize a
well-made, comfy garment?
Scott Safier
Computer language communicate the meaning of the algorithm into the
product of the compiler.
Scott Safier
Gromit wrote:
>
> In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>, cor...@frogger.lm.com
> () wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> > that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> > absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> > is divisive and ignores the similarities.
>
> American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
I love the non-english versions fo ABBA songs.
Gromit
> Ellen Evans wrote:
> >
> > In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>,
> > <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
> > []
> > >One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> > >that language makes us different.
> >
> > "One's native language has an effect in how one cognizes the world" is
> > hardly the same as "black people are Other."
>
> I'm going to be bad and follow this post up twice because it really irks me.
>
> Dan disagree with the word "same". If they are not the same, they are
> different (even similar things have differences). If one's native
> language causes different thoughts, then these differences must be
> quantifiable. If they are quantifiable, then a person or group can
> argue that one language/thought process is superior to others, along
> some metric of measurement. If one's thoughts are superior, then isn't
> it arguable that the group with this language are superior to other
> people? To me, this wreaks of Nazism.
Is homosexuality better or worse than heterosexuality? They're
certainly different.
Difference doesn't have to be objectively superior or inferior.
I think the weak spot in your argument is "along some metric
of measurement".
Gromit
> Gromit (g...@panix.com) wrote:
> : In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>, cor...@frogger.lm.com
> : () wrote:
>
> : [...]
>
> : > One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> : > that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> : > absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> : > is divisive and ignores the similarities.
>
> : American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
>
> People take USamerican elocution classes here in Vancouver
> to develop that winning drawl.
But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
Gromit
> Gromit wrote:
> >
> > In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>, cor...@frogger.lm.com
> > () wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> > > that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> > > absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> > > is divisive and ignores the similarities.
> >
> > American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
>
> I love the non-english versions fo ABBA songs.
There you go. ABBA isn't rock 'n roll.
Scott Safier
Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
> I know some things cannot be translated
> from one language to another.
Fine. Argue like a linguist then. Generate a sentence that is
*impossible* to translate. I assert no such sentence can be generated.
(and by translate, I don't mean word for word)
>I know there are certain shades of meaning
> that get lost.
Shades of meaning? You mean lexical varations that are context
dependent? Lexical variations are not thought.
Greg posted:
> What I remember from the LAST TIME we went through this was that
> Big Arnold stepped in and pointed out that even though one language
> may use more words than another to express a concept (I believe
> we were using the example of the two spanish existential verbs,
> "ser" and "estar" and the different forms of the past tense) that
> different concepts were still expressed differently.
Assuming Greg is remembering Arnold correctly, do you think you know
more than he about linguistic theory?
>And I believe that there is a relationship between
> surface and depth.
Quantify it.
> : One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> : that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> : absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> : is divisive and ignores the similarities.
>
> Acknowledging difference doesn't ignore similarities. And that is
> rather a weak anology. I *know* that language makes us different.
The Nazi's knew this too -- they used non-different differences to
assert their superiority. It is not a weak analogy.
> At any rate, a lot of what I've read recently about the development
> of the brain and how it is organized indicates that indeed the brain
> does continue to develop after we are born, and that it is still in
> the process of developing while we learn our native language.
You're just learning this. Wow! I learned this in High School biology.
>But in
> a way, that's still moot as far as I'm concerned. Even if all our
> brains are functionally identitical, that doesn't mean that we use
> them in the same way. We all use some ridiculously small percentage
> of our brains. How can you be sure that which native language you
> speak doesn't have some impact on which tiny percentage of your brain
> you use?
Nazi brains were superior too.
I'm waiting for anyone to post any quantifiable way that language alters thought.
> : >What I've said is that someone who speaks Russian as her native
> : >language may actually have certain ideas that are rather difficult
> : >for someone who speaks English as her native language to understand.
> : There are certain lexical and idiomatic constructions that may be
> : difficult to translate. To argue that the thoughts are different is
> : absurd.
>
> No more absurd that it would be to argue that the thoughts are idenitical.
Really? So, arguing that we are all members of the human species, with
certain cognitive functions we share is absurd. And you're probably
wondering why I'm using Nazi references, right?
> In another posting you use the example the a cat.
To demonstrate that all thought is not language based. Some is visual.
Some is tactile. Some is auditory. Some is muscular. Does language
change these thoughts too?
>You asked whether
> a french person saying chat would be thinking of something different
> than an english speaker saying cat.
In a visual-memory way.
> My answer is that you and I are
> even thinking of different things when we say cat. Even within the
> same language, every single one of us has a different cat pop into
> our heads when we read or hear that word.
This is just stupid -- a difference without a difference.
> At any rate, that's still a poor example. I never contended that there
> were no similarities among languages.
You said they weren't the same. If they are not the same, they are
different. Even similar things have differences.
>The similarities are legion. That
> doesn't mean that there cannot be differences. And acknowledging
> difference is hardly divisive. Defining things *solely* in terms
> of difference can be divisive. Refusing to acknowledge difference,
> though, is foolish.
The issue is thought -- cognitive processes that permit us to think. It
is foolish to believe that all (non brain injured) people are the same?
And I bet you don't understand the Nazi references.
> : >Not that the language of one's parents has some genetic effect
> : >on anyone's cognitive or conceptual capabilites.
> : >
> :
> : Did I use the word "genetic" anywhere?
>
> No, you seemed to think that it was a valid argument against me
> that someone born of Russian parents would have no trouble learning
> English, which to me implied that you thought that I thought the
> language had some effect on people that was genetically transferable.
This is almost as convoluted as arguments that all thought is linguistic
therefore we think differently.
> If that's not the case, I really fail to understand why you brought
> that point up.
To point out that the mechanisms behind language are generic and not
culturally based. The mechanisms for language are cognitive, and if
they are the same, how can anyone seriously assert that because
languages differ, cognitions differ. It is just stupid.
> : >: You might be confusing a language's lexicon with some notion of ideas
> : >: and thought. A person may not be able to label cold, wet white stuff
> : >: from the sky as 'snow', but they still know it is cold, wet and comes
> : >: from the sky.
> : >
> : >Indeed it is. I fail to see how either of these comments relates
> : >to anything I've said.
> :
> : Indeed you are confusing a language lexicon with thought? And you
> : don't see how this relates to anything you said? That deserves a big
> : **WHOOSH**.
>
> No. Indeed they still know that it is cold, wet and comes from
> the sky. I am not confusing lexicon with thought. I know very
> well what I am saying when I claim that there is a relationship
> between native language and thought. This is a frequent subject
> for soc.motss, er, discussions, and Ellen and I have already taken
> our predictible positions.
Linguists argue by generating sentences to prove their points. The
burden is now on you to generate a sentence that is impossible to
translate.
Cognitive scientists argue by citing studies.
Positions are irrelevant.
>Anyone else? Ayana, where are you?
Anyone who enters this fray now is braver than I would be.
> It's so cute when Ellen and Ayana disagree online.
Sometimes Ellen is wrong.
> Anyhoo, the question is not do they know that it is cold and
> wet and comes from the sky. The questions are manifold: do they
> experience cold and wet in the same way we do?
No. It is "do we all process cognitively the cold and the wet in the
same way?" The answer is yes.
>Do we all experience
> snow identically?
Totally unrelated to thought processes.
>What affects how we experience snow?
What affects how we cognitively process snow? Nerve endings and the
visual cortex.
>I think
> that language affects how we experience reality,
How does language effect touch? Taste? If we don't have a lexical
entry for "sweet", cannot we not taste sweet things?
>and how we
> interpret it.
Totally different issue. The processes for how we interpret it, though,
are the same.
>I think that thought is actually much broader than
> is language, but that we are forced to use this imperfect medium
> to encapsulate our thoughts.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
>I think we are lazy, in a lot of
> ways, and so that soon language becomes a kind of substitute for
> thought.
feh. utter bullshit.
>It's there. It's convenient. It's easy. And so I think
> that a lot of us quit doing hard thinking-- thinking we don't
> have appropriate words for-- and settle for easy thinking instead.
> And so I think that language affects how we think, because a good
> many people have a great deal of difficulty thinking without or
> outside of language.
>
> Thinking is hard.
obviously.
>Let's go shopping.
Kmart blue-light special anyone?
Michael Pettersen
: I forgot in Spanish is se me olvido', I lost it, se me
: perdio'. The idea is actually not quite the same-- here, the
: constructions are passive, implying a denial of responsibilty
: that would seem to me to reflect a difference in attitude towards
: forgetting and losing.
Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis that native Spanish speakers
are more likely than native English speakers to deny responsibility in
cases of losing and forgetting?
--
Mike Pettersen
Gromit
mspe...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Pettersen) wrote:
No. As has been pointed out numerous times to me by my spanish-speaking
friends, the difference in how you say it doesn't mean you're saying
something different.
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
: > I know some things cannot be translated
: > from one language to another.
:
: Fine. Argue like a linguist then. Generate a sentence that is
: *impossible* to translate. I assert no such sentence can be generated.
: (and by translate, I don't mean word for word)
We're working under different definitions.
What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
it is possible to translate?
: >I know there are certain shades of meaning
: > that get lost.
:
: Shades of meaning? You mean lexical varations that are context
: dependent? Lexical variations are not thought.
You are working under a definition thought= a physical process.
I'm not. To me, a difference in shades of meanings can reflect
a difference in thought.
: Greg posted:
: > What I remember from the LAST TIME we went through this was that
: > Big Arnold stepped in and pointed out that even though one language
: > may use more words than another to express a concept (I believe
: > we were using the example of the two spanish existential verbs,
: > "ser" and "estar" and the different forms of the past tense) that
: > different concepts were still expressed differently.
:
: Assuming Greg is remembering Arnold correctly, do you think you know
: more than he about linguistic theory?
Not at all. I do think I know more than you about linguistic theory.
I also think that theory is just that-- theory. An dI don't think that
what is posted above is a valid counterpoint to anything I've said.
Have I used the eskimo snow argument? The ser and estar?
You want something quantifiable? Sorry, don't have it. You're
the one who asserted that these processes were the same, and now
the burden of proof is on me to disprove you? Feh. Show me they're
the same, if you want to get all quantifiable on me.
: >And I believe that there is a relationship between
: > surface and depth.
:
: Quantify it.
Why?
: > : One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
: > : that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
: > : absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
: > : is divisive and ignores the similarities.
: >
: > Acknowledging difference doesn't ignore similarities. And that is
: > rather a weak anology. I *know* that language makes us different.
:
: The Nazi's knew this too -- they used non-different differences to
: assert their superiority. It is not a weak analogy.
Bullshit. The Nazi analogy is a load. I'm not asserting the
superiority of anything. I'm not proposing valences. I think
you're going way overboard on the Nazi thing, and I'm personally
deeply insulted.
: > At any rate, a lot of what I've read recently about the development
: > of the brain and how it is organized indicates that indeed the brain
: > does continue to develop after we are born, and that it is still in
: > the process of developing while we learn our native language.
:
: You're just learning this. Wow! I learned this in High School biology.
Gold Star! Yet you never got in to the centuries long debate
about the relationship between language and thought anywhere
in you esteemed education?
: >But in
: > a way, that's still moot as far as I'm concerned. Even if all our
: > brains are functionally identitical, that doesn't mean that we use
: > them in the same way. We all use some ridiculously small percentage
: > of our brains. How can you be sure that which native language you
: > speak doesn't have some impact on which tiny percentage of your brain
: > you use?
:
: Nazi brains were superior too.
And I've mentioned superiority where, exactly? You and I are different.
Am I claiming to be superior? Are you saying we shouldn't entertain
any notion that allows for the possibilty that some other person might
misconstrue what we say to mean that one thing is superior to another?
Whatever.
: I'm waiting for anyone to post any quantifiable way that language
: alters thought.
Since we're dealing with a theoretical question, you'll be waiting
a good long time.
I'll wait for quantifiable evidence that thought is identical
in the meanwhile, if it's all the same to you.
: > : >What I've said is that someone who speaks Russian as her native
: > : >language may actually have certain ideas that are rather difficult
: > : >for someone who speaks English as her native language to understand.
: > : There are certain lexical and idiomatic constructions that may be
: > : difficult to translate. To argue that the thoughts are different is
: > : absurd.
: >
: > No more absurd that it would be to argue that the thoughts are idenitical.
:
: Really? So, arguing that we are all members of the human species, with
: certain cognitive functions we share is absurd. And you're probably
: wondering why I'm using Nazi references, right?
No, to say we share certain cognitve functions is not absurd. To say
that our cognition is identical is.
: > In another posting you use the example the a cat.
:
: To demonstrate that all thought is not language based. Some is visual.
: Some is tactile. Some is auditory. Some is muscular. Does language
: change these thoughts too?
It might change how we organize them. Language is, after all,
a system for the organization of reality.
: > My answer is that you and I are
: > even thinking of different things when we say cat. Even within the
: > same language, every single one of us has a different cat pop into
: > our heads when we read or hear that word.
:
: This is just stupid -- a difference without a difference.
Why? Why are these differences insignificant?
: >The similarities are legion. That
: > doesn't mean that there cannot be differences. And acknowledging
: > difference is hardly divisive. Defining things *solely* in terms
: > of difference can be divisive. Refusing to acknowledge difference,
: > though, is foolish.
:
: The issue is thought -- cognitive processes that permit us to think. It
: is foolish to believe that all (non brain injured) people are the same?
: And I bet you don't understand the Nazi references.
No, I don't. I think it is foolish to believe that any two people, to
say nothing of all people, are the same in any way, with the possible
exception of genetically identical twins, and even then there are
differences in experience from the moment of birth.
This makes me a Nazi how?
: > No. Indeed they still know that it is cold, wet and comes from
: > the sky. I am not confusing lexicon with thought. I know very
: > well what I am saying when I claim that there is a relationship
: > between native language and thought. This is a frequent subject
: > for soc.motss, er, discussions, and Ellen and I have already taken
: > our predictible positions.
:
: Linguists argue by generating sentences to prove their points. The
: burden is now on you to generate a sentence that is impossible to
: translate.
I'm not a linguist.
Besides which, I think every sentence is impossible to translate.
You can start with Walter Benjamin on translation if you want
to see where I'm coming from. Better yet, you can try learning
a language well enough to read literature in the original, then
read a translation, find everything that you think you have a
problem with in the translation, then realize that on top of that,
you still don't quite understand the original like a native does,
and so that even more is lost than you realized.
: > Anyhoo, the question is not do they know that it is cold and
: > wet and comes from the sky. The questions are manifold: do they
: > experience cold and wet in the same way we do?
:
: No. It is "do we all process cognitively the cold and the wet in the
: same way?" The answer is yes.
Neural processing != thought.
: >Do we all experience
: > snow identically?
:
: Totally unrelated to thought processes.
How so? You are working out of a very strange, to me, definition
of thought process.
: >What affects how we experience snow?
:
: What affects how we cognitively process snow? Nerve endings and the
: visual cortex.
That's all? I don't think so.
: >I think
: > that language affects how we experience reality,
:
: How does language effect touch? Taste? If we don't have a lexical
: entry for "sweet", cannot we not taste sweet things?
Of course we can. Where ever have I said we couldn't?
: >and how we
: > interpret it.
:
: Totally different issue. The processes for how we interpret it, though,
: are the same.
And interpretation isn't thought?
: >I think that thought is actually much broader than
: > is language, but that we are forced to use this imperfect medium
: > to encapsulate our thoughts.
:
: A picture is worth a thousand words.
Arguing with cliches.
: >I think we are lazy, in a lot of
: > ways, and so that soon language becomes a kind of substitute for
: > thought.
:
: feh. utter bullshit.
Only because we're working out of completely different
definitions of thought, which would have been apparent
to you had you taken a moment to think.
Gromit
Chase Edmonds) wrote:
[...]
> What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
> it is possible to translate?
Then you don't think that there is a sentence that is possible
to understand, even in your native language. I say this because
the translation of "Yo veo el perro" to "I see the dog" is pretty
unambiguous unless you're worried about the speaker's definition
of "to see" and "dog" - in which case the language used has
nothing to do with it.
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: In article <79dgch$naq$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>, ded...@emory.edu (Daniel
: Chase Edmonds) wrote:
:
: [...]
:
: > What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
: > it is possible to translate?
:
: to understand, even in your native language.
Understand != translate.
I say this because
: the translation of "Yo veo el perro" to "I see the dog" is pretty
: unambiguous unless you're worried about the speaker's definition
: of "to see" and "dog" - in which case the language used has
: nothing to do with it.
We're dealing with several different issues here.
Firstly, I do think that each of us has slightly differing
definitions of almost every word we use. I think that
language is an inexact tool because there is a great deal
of variation between individuals. I think there are differences--
largely trivial differences, but differences nonetheless--
between what you think of when you say dog and what I think
of. Maybe one of us is afraid of dogs. Maybe one of us
had a dog who recently died. Maybe one of us thinks small dogs
aren't *really* dogs. Dog brings with it a whole set of
connotations-- many of which we may be unaware of-- that
makes the word trigger different things for each of us.
That's part of why language is imperfect, and any act
of communication is always a failure (though it can also
be a success, of course). And that is at the core of
why I think all translation is impossible, in the sense
that it is imperfect.
However, there is a little more to it than that. I think
that Gertrude Stein, for instance, is untranslatable.
Take her first poem from _Tender Buttons_, for instance:
A CARAFE, THAT IS A BLIND GLASS.
A kind in glass and a cousin, a spectacle and nothing
strange a single hurt color and an arrangement in a system to
pointing. All this and not ordinary, not unordered in not
resembling. The difference is spreading.
Hers is a poetry of sound and grammar, of interacting phonemes
and morphemes. The meaning is not located on the literal level.
Her poem resists a normal interpretation, and resists translation.
Almost everything that poem is about would be lost if it were
translated into a different language, because meaning resides
in more than just dictionary definitions.
Scott Safier
Gromit wrote:
>
> In article <36BA22E1...@telerama.lm.com>, cor...@telerama.lm.com wrote:
>
> > Ellen Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>,
> > > <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
> > > []
> > > >One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> > > >that language makes us different.
> > >
> > > "One's native language has an effect in how one cognizes the world" is
> > > hardly the same as "black people are Other."
> >
> > I'm going to be bad and follow this post up twice because it really irks me.
> >
> > Dan disagree with the word "same". If they are not the same, they are
> > different (even similar things have differences). If one's native
> > language causes different thoughts, then these differences must be
> > quantifiable. If they are quantifiable, then a person or group can
> > argue that one language/thought process is superior to others, along
> > some metric of measurement. If one's thoughts are superior, then isn't
> > it arguable that the group with this language are superior to other
> > people? To me, this wreaks of Nazism.
>
> Is homosexuality better or worse than heterosexuality? They're
> certainly different.
>
> Difference doesn't have to be objectively superior or inferior.
Exactly -- "objective".
> I think the weak spot in your argument is "along some metric
> of measurement".
No, I think it is its strength. Were the Nazi (yes, I know, real tough
example) objective in their ratings of superior and inferior? No. I
did not say that the argument used for superiority was rational or
objective, I said it could be made.
But let's look at some quantification of thought process -- SAT scores.
Women score lower than men on SATs. Blacks score lower than whites.
White men score lower than asian men. Meausres of intelligence, like
the SAT and IQ, have been used to justify discrimination in the past
(e.g. blacks are stupid, so they shouldn't go to white colleges).
However, people that understand these tests know some things about them:
1) they contain cultural biases
2) they contain sex-based biases
3) it is unclear what exactly they "measure"
In any objective way for any meaningful metric, there is no difference
between thought processes based upon primary language. Any such
perceived difference is subjective and arbitrary.
For me, any argument that there is a difference is analogous to
arguments that race differences or religious differences are important.
Ellen related language to culture; it is also related to nationality.
Germans in WWII argued that they were culturally superior because of
their nationality. This argument is obviously touching a nerve with me.
Scott Safier
Gromit wrote:
>
> In article <79d8p7$aap$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, ded...@emory.edu (Daniel
> Depends on if you believe that language is descriptive or
> proscriptive.
descriptive.
> > But in
> > a way, that's still moot as far as I'm concerned. Even if all our
> > brains are functionally identitical, that doesn't mean that we use
> > them in the same way. We all use some ridiculously small percentage
> > of our brains.
>
> Is that still believed to be true? I thought it wasn't.
In my cog psych classes, we were told it is a popular myth without basis
in fact. At least, cognitively speaking.
Leith Chu
> Women score lower than men on SATs. Blacks score lower than whites.
> White men score lower than asian men. Meausres of intelligence, like
Ya know, it really says something about the intelligence of the mostly
white men who developed SAT tests that they could rig it in their favour
WRT women and blacks, but they couldn't figure out how to make Asians
score lower than themselves.
Leith
Scott Safier
Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
>
> Scott Safier (corwin...@telerama.lm.com) wrote:
> : Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
> : > I know some things cannot be translated
> : > from one language to another.
> :
> : Fine. Argue like a linguist then. Generate a sentence that is
> : *impossible* to translate. I assert no such sentence can be generated.
> : (and by translate, I don't mean word for word)
>
> We're working under different definitions.
Not lingusitic? Not cognitive? What then?
> What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
> it is possible to translate?
You'd be wrong and put the UN out of business.
> : >I know there are certain shades of meaning
> : > that get lost.
> :
> : Shades of meaning? You mean lexical varations that are context
> : dependent? Lexical variations are not thought.
>
> You are working under a definition thought= a physical process.
A cognitive process involving memory and sensory input.
> I'm not. To me, a difference in shades of meanings can reflect
> a difference in thought.
feh. a distinction without a difference.
> : Greg posted:
> : > What I remember from the LAST TIME we went through this was that
> : > Big Arnold stepped in and pointed out that even though one language
> : > may use more words than another to express a concept (I believe
> : > we were using the example of the two spanish existential verbs,
> : > "ser" and "estar" and the different forms of the past tense) that
> : > different concepts were still expressed differently.
> :
> : Assuming Greg is remembering Arnold correctly, do you think you know
> : more than he about linguistic theory?
>
> Not at all. I do think I know more than you about linguistic theory.
you dropped a "not"?
> You want something quantifiable? Sorry, don't have it. You're
> the one who asserted that these processes were the same, and now
> the burden of proof is on me to disprove you? Feh. Show me they're
> the same, if you want to get all quantifiable on me.
You are the one stating there are differences, but you know of none. I
think that is enough to demonstrate you have nothing to back up your
position other than some subjective belief about how language causes differences.
> : >And I believe that there is a relationship between
> : > surface and depth.
> :
> : Quantify it.
>
> Why?
You can't.
> : > : One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> : > : that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> : > : absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> : > : is divisive and ignores the similarities.
> : >
> : > Acknowledging difference doesn't ignore similarities. And that is
> : > rather a weak anology. I *know* that language makes us different.
> :
> : The Nazi's knew this too -- they used non-different differences to
> : assert their superiority. It is not a weak analogy.
>
> Bullshit. The Nazi analogy is a load. I'm not asserting the
> superiority of anything. I'm not proposing valences. I think
> you're going way overboard on the Nazi thing, and I'm personally
> deeply insulted.
I'm insulted by your arbitrary assertion that there are differences.
I've explained the Nazi references, and I know it is loaded. It is also
a historic fact that the Nazi's believe their culture, language and
nationality made them superior people. These are distinctions without a
difference, just like yours. These are the arguments that have been
used to justify discrimination against blacks, jews and anyone else
perceived as different. Your whole premise is insulting.
> : > At any rate, a lot of what I've read recently about the development
> : > of the brain and how it is organized indicates that indeed the brain
> : > does continue to develop after we are born, and that it is still in
> : > the process of developing while we learn our native language.
> :
> : You're just learning this. Wow! I learned this in High School biology.
>
> Gold Star! Yet you never got in to the centuries long debate
> about the relationship between language and thought anywhere
> in you esteemed education?
Yes, obviously *I* have. What's your excuse?
> : I'm waiting for anyone to post any quantifiable way that language
> : alters thought.
>
> Since we're dealing with a theoretical question, you'll be waiting
> a good long time.
Theories are testable. Tests normally use quantifiable data.
> I'll wait for quantifiable evidence that thought is identical
> in the meanwhile, if it's all the same to you.
So, you want me to prove they are NOT different. How do you prove a
negative? I've asked you to generate a sentence that cannot be
translated. You've argued that translation is problematic because
language causes differences in thought. If there is this difference,
then you should be able to generate a sentence that can occur in one
language, but not in another.
Your argument is bullshit.
> No, to say we share certain cognitve functions is not absurd. To say
> that our cognition is identical is.
differentiate between "cognition" and "cognitive function".
> : > In another posting you use the example the a cat.
> :
> : To demonstrate that all thought is not language based. Some is visual.
> : Some is tactile. Some is auditory. Some is muscular. Does language
> : change these thoughts too?
>
> It might change how we organize them. Language is, after all,
> a system for the organization of reality.
No, that's memory.
> : > My answer is that you and I are
> : > even thinking of different things when we say cat. Even within the
> : > same language, every single one of us has a different cat pop into
> : > our heads when we read or hear that word.
> :
> : This is just stupid -- a difference without a difference.
>
> Why? Why are these differences insignificant?
They are experiential (is this a word?), not based in language or cognition.
>I think it is foolish to believe that any two people, to
> say nothing of all people, are the same in any way, with the possible
> exception of genetically identical twins, and even then there are
> differences in experience from the moment of birth.
OH! Experience! I thought it was language that made us different!
Isn't that what you have been saying? Language is a root of different cognitions?
> : Linguists argue by generating sentences to prove their points. The
> : burden is now on you to generate a sentence that is impossible to
> : translate.
>
> I'm not a linguist.
Obviously. I might also guess you aren't a cognitive scientist.
Ignorance is not an excuse for finding differences where none exist.
> Besides which, I think every sentence is impossible to translate.
Then you are a fool. Or Churchill. (England and America are two
countries separated by a common language)
> You can start with Walter Benjamin on translation if you want
> to see where I'm coming from. Better yet, you can try learning
> a language well enough to read literature in the original,
Learning a second language is known to be different than learning a
primary language. The cognitive processes are different.
> : > Anyhoo, the question is not do they know that it is cold and
> : > wet and comes from the sky. The questions are manifold: do they
> : > experience cold and wet in the same way we do?
> :
> : No. It is "do we all process cognitively the cold and the wet in the
> : same way?" The answer is yes.
>
> Neural processing != thought.
Really? I think with my brain. What do you think with?
> : >Do we all experience
> : > snow identically?
> :
> : Totally unrelated to thought processes.
>
> How so? You are working out of a very strange, to me, definition
> of thought process.
Experience is different than language.
> : >What affects how we experience snow?
> :
> : What affects how we cognitively process snow? Nerve endings and the
> : visual cortex.
>
> That's all? I don't think so.
OK. Deaden all your nerves and blindfold yourself. Let someone begin
to hand you objects. Process these in a cognitive way.
> : >I think
> : > that language affects how we experience reality,
> :
> : How does language effect touch? Taste? If we don't have a lexical
> : entry for "sweet", cannot we not taste sweet things?
>
> Of course we can. Where ever have I said we couldn't?
But language organizes our thoughts, or so you have said. How can we
have a thought without the language to represent it?
> : >I think that thought is actually much broader than
> : > is language, but that we are forced to use this imperfect medium
> : > to encapsulate our thoughts.
> :
> : A picture is worth a thousand words.
>
> Arguing with cliches.
Pictures are language? OK, use language to describe "orange" (the
color). I can do it with a picture.
> : >I think we are lazy, in a lot of
> : > ways, and so that soon language becomes a kind of substitute for
> : > thought.
> :
> : feh. utter bullshit.
>
> Only because we're working out of completely different
> definitions of thought, which would have been apparent
> to you had you taken a moment to think.
Had you taken a moment to think, you might realizes that these so-called
differences are not differences at all. Of course, you've already
stated that you have no evidence for your beliefs other than someone
else's writings.
Scott Safier
Gromit wrote:
>
> In article <36BA3233...@telerama.lm.com>, cor...@telerama.lm.com wrote:
>
> > Gromit wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>, cor...@frogger.lm.com
> > > () wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> > > > that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> > > > absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> > > > is divisive and ignores the similarities.
> > >
> > > American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
> >
> > I love the non-english versions fo ABBA songs.
>
> There you go. ABBA isn't rock 'n roll.
Leith -- hurt this man. Tie him up and do unspeakable things to him --
he has blasphemed against the goddesses Agnentha and Frida, and the gods
Benny and Bjorn! Get him!
Gromit
[...]
> For me, any argument that there is a difference is analogous to
> arguments that race differences or religious differences are important.
> Ellen related language to culture; it is also related to nationality.
> Germans in WWII argued that they were culturally superior because of
> their nationality. This argument is obviously touching a nerve with me.
But stating that there is a difference doesn't require that one
thing is better or worse than the other. Only different.
Gromit
> In article <glp-040299...@glp.dialup.access.net>,
> Gromit <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> []
> >What I remember from the LAST TIME we went through this was that
> >Big Arnold stepped in and pointed out that even though one language
> >may use more words than another to express a concept (I believe
> >we were using the example of the two spanish existential verbs,
> >"ser" and "estar" and the different forms of the past tense) that
> >different concepts were still expressed differently.
>
> You want to try that again?
Spanish has two forms of past tense, roughly "this happened over
a period of time" and "this happened at a precise point of time".
Arnold pointed out that English makes the same distinctions, only
it takes extra words to do it.
Gromit
> Gromit wrote:
> >
> > In article <36BA3233...@telerama.lm.com>, cor...@telerama.lm.com
wrote:
> >
> > > Gromit wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>, cor...@frogger.lm.com
> > > > () wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > One of the implications of what you have said, if I understand it, is
> > > > > that language makes us different. I find this statement just as
> > > > > absurd as 'skin color makes us different'. To me, it is a belief that
> > > > > is divisive and ignores the similarities.
> > > >
> > > > American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
> > >
> > > I love the non-english versions fo ABBA songs.
> >
> > There you go. ABBA isn't rock 'n roll.
>
> Leith -- hurt this man. Tie him up and do unspeakable things to him --
> he has blasphemed against the goddesses Agnentha and Frida, and the gods
> Benny and Bjorn! Get him!
I didn't say that they weren't wonderful. They just aren't
rock 'n roll.
Leith Chu
> Gromit wrote:
> > cor...@telerama.lm.com wrote:
> > > Gromit wrote:
> > > > American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
> > > I love the non-english versions fo ABBA songs.
> > There you go. ABBA isn't rock 'n roll.
> Leith -- hurt this man. Tie him up and do unspeakable things to him
I suppose I could make him listen to Schoenberg
non-stop for a couple of days.
> he has blasphemed against the goddesses Agnentha and Frida, and the
> gods Benny and Bjorn! Get him!
No, he hasn't.
ABBA *isn't* rock'n'roll.
It's *better*.
Leith
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
: > What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
: > it is possible to translate?
:
: You'd be wrong and put the UN out of business.
I'd be wrong? You have a hell of a lot of hubris.
Look, I fully acknowledge that I'm working in a realm
of ideas where no one can really be certain. I have a
notion of translation. I have a lot of practice with
translation. I know how imperfect it is. Look at the
posting I made in response to Greg on the subject.
: > You are working under a definition thought= a physical process.
:
: A cognitive process involving memory and sensory input.
What exactly do you mean by 'cognitive process.' You've already
assumed language and thought are divorced. It's axiomatic for
you. It's a given. You're allowing your assumptions that value
of truth. That's a logical fallacy. Argument over. You're
entirely unwilling, a priori, to even entertain any notion
of language affecting thought.
: > I'm not. To me, a difference in shades of meanings can reflect
: > a difference in thought.
:
: feh. a distinction without a difference.
Because you say so?
: > : Assuming Greg is remembering Arnold correctly, do you think you know
: > : more than he about linguistic theory?
: >
: > Not at all. I do think I know more than you about linguistic theory.
:
: you dropped a "not"?
Not at all. Linguistic theory is one of my areas of speciality.
I'm not a linguist, but I am intimately familiar with twentieth
century structualism, formalism and semiotics (well, my formalism
is a little rusty), all of which are based in the works of two
of the great linguists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries,
de Saussure and Peirce. I know a fair bit about Wittgenstein and
Chomsky too.
So, how many graduate seminars on linguistics have you taken?
: > You want something quantifiable? Sorry, don't have it. You're
: > the one who asserted that these processes were the same, and now
: > the burden of proof is on me to disprove you? Feh. Show me they're
: > the same, if you want to get all quantifiable on me.
:
: You are the one stating there are differences, but you know of none. I
: think that is enough to demonstrate you have nothing to back up your
: position other than some subjective belief about how language causes
: differences.
And you have nothing to back up your position other than some subjective
belief that thought is independent from language. La di da. That's
all the farther this is going to get, except that I actually respect
your position, while you're being boorish, insulting, and presuming
that I am ignorant about something I've studied for years and teach
university level courses on.
: > : >And I believe that there is a relationship between
: > : > surface and depth.
: > :
: > : Quantify it.
: >
: > Why?
:
: You can't.
No. Not everything is quantifiable.
: > Bullshit. The Nazi analogy is a load. I'm not asserting the
: > superiority of anything. I'm not proposing valences. I think
: > you're going way overboard on the Nazi thing, and I'm personally
: > deeply insulted.
:
: I'm insulted by your arbitrary assertion that there are differences.
It's not arbitrary. The absence of hard, scientific proof does not
make a belief arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, so is your belief.
Mine is based on observable differences among cultures. I attribute
cultural difference to some extent to linguistic difference. I have
read literature from a wide, wide range of cultures and in a great
many languages. I have studied the religious and philosophical texts
(often, sadly, in translation, so I know I'm missing many of the
intricacies) of cultures from all across the world. It's on the basis
of these studies, of these readings that I posit that I believe
there may well be a connection between language and culture.
When I speak of thought, I speak of how we receive, organize and
interpret reality. I think all of these are aspects of the thought
process. I speak largely of the process of categorization, which is
the primary means by which I believe human beings organize reality.
I think that language provides a pre-made way for us to categorize,
and thus often saves us the trouble of really thinking about
what it is that we are doing. I think there are certain things
that people will fail to notice unless they are trained to. I think
that different languages train us to notice different things. I don't
think it's impossible for an English speaker to notice things
that a Spanish speaker does. But I do think that there are tendencies
in our perception that are linguistically conditioned. And in our
receptiuon and organzation and interpretation. And I think all
of these things for a part of the cognitive process. So I don't
think that the actual sensory input is affected by language, but
I do think that it can affect how we perceive that input-- what
we notice and what we do not-- and I think that it part of thought.
: I've explained the Nazi references, and I know it is loaded. It is also
: a historic fact that the Nazi's believe their culture, language and
: nationality made them superior people. These are distinctions without a
: difference, just like yours. These are the arguments that have been
: used to justify discrimination against blacks, jews and anyone else
: perceived as different. Your whole premise is insulting.
No, it's not. You're being absurd, and that's the bottom line here.
Making distinctions-- even trivial ones, and I don't believe these
ones are trivial-- is not de facto Bad, even if it can be used in
bad ways. There are differences between jews and christians. And
between men and women. And between Germans and Ethiopians. Saying
that may be a condition of possibility for Nazism, but that doesn't
make it any less true.
You've really gone off the deep end with this one.
: > Gold Star! Yet you never got in to the centuries long debate
: > about the relationship between language and thought anywhere
: > in you esteemed education?
:
: Yes, obviously *I* have. What's your excuse?
Obviously you have? Then why do you seem so ignorant of the
fact that in several fields of academic study today it is
axiomatic that there is a relationship between language and
perception, categorization, memory, interpretation-- all
aspects of the cognitive process?
: > Since we're dealing with a theoretical question, you'll be waiting
: > a good long time.
:
: Theories are testable. Tests normally use quantifiable data.
Not all theories are testable in any meaningful way.
: > I'll wait for quantifiable evidence that thought is identical
: > in the meanwhile, if it's all the same to you.
:
: So, you want me to prove they are NOT different. How do you prove a
: negative? I've asked you to generate a sentence that cannot be
: translated. You've argued that translation is problematic because
: language causes differences in thought. If there is this difference,
: then you should be able to generate a sentence that can occur in one
: language, but not in another.
Gertrude Stein.
And again, I would argue that there is no such thing as a perfect
translation, that the very act of translation is impossible, and
I know a great great many translators who would agree with me.
: Your argument is bullshit.
Whatever.
: > No, to say we share certain cognitve functions is not absurd. To say
: > that our cognition is identical is.
:
: differentiate between "cognition" and "cognitive function".
I don't think there is much of a difference. That doesn't change
the truth of what I've written above one whit.
: > It might change how we organize them. Language is, after all,
: > a system for the organization of reality.
:
: No, that's memory.
No, that's largely language. Which has a major role in memory,
I might add.
: >I think it is foolish to believe that any two people, to
: > say nothing of all people, are the same in any way, with the possible
: > exception of genetically identical twins, and even then there are
: > differences in experience from the moment of birth.
:
: OH! Experience! I thought it was language that made us different!
: Isn't that what you have been saying? Language is a root of different
: cognitions?
I think language is one of the things that makes us different. I don't
recall saying it was the only thing. Most identical twins presumedly
share the same language, so that's not the best place to look for
difference in them, now is it?
: > : Linguists argue by generating sentences to prove their points. The
: > : burden is now on you to generate a sentence that is impossible to
: > : translate.
: >
: > I'm not a linguist.
:
: Obviously. I might also guess you aren't a cognitive scientist.
:
: Ignorance is not an excuse for finding differences where none exist.
I'm not a linguist. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I'm quite
familiar with linguistic theory-- not so familiar as arnold,
but hardly ignorant.
So tell me, what's the difference between sign, signifier and
signified and what do they have to do with my argument?
Answer that question, and you'll show you have a tiny understanding
of linguistics. Right now, given your arrogantly dismissive attitude
towards my argument, I'll presume you have none.
: Learning a second language is known to be different than learning a
: primary language. The cognitive processes are different.
Quite true. That doesn't mean learning a second language is
not instructive when it comes to understanding how languages
are different from one another.
I've studied five languages other
than English and can read in three of them.
: > Neural processing != thought.
:
: Really? I think with my brain. What do you think with?
And that contradicts what I wrote above how exactly?
: But language organizes our thoughts, or so you have said. How can we
: have a thought without the language to represent it?
I can have something that isn't organized. There are means
of organization other than language. There are two quick
answers that pop into my head.
: Pictures are language? OK, use language to describe "orange" (the
: color). I can do it with a picture.
Orange.
So, what do I win?
Gromit
Chase Edmonds) wrote:
> Scott Safier (corwin...@telerama.lm.com) wrote:
> : Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
>
> : > What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
> : > it is possible to translate?
> :
> : You'd be wrong and put the UN out of business.
>
> I'd be wrong? You have a hell of a lot of hubris.
>
> Look, I fully acknowledge that I'm working in a realm
> of ideas where no one can really be certain. I have a
> notion of translation. I have a lot of practice with
> translation. I know how imperfect it is. Look at the
> posting I made in response to Greg on the subject.
Danny, you started with saying that even simple translations
are flawed, and now you've moved to Gertrude Stein. Pick one
or the other and let't talk about that, OK?
Jess Anderson
Gromit:
>But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
Opera *written* to be sung in English is not crap if the
composer is any good. There isn't a lot of such repertory. I
suppose you're referring, though, primarily to translations
into English.
--
[] Ayn Rand was right; pork rinds do go great with RC Cola!
[] -- (Unknown)
[] ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu Copyright 1999 Jess Anderson []
[] http://www.jesscc.com/ O- All rights reserved []
Arne Adolfsen
David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>Gromit (g...@panix.com) wrote:
>: But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
>Purcell didn't seem to have too many problems with it.
>And some of his texts were really bad poetry, but make great opera.
Some? We have the semi-opera _Dido and Aeneas_ and what other
opera? Titles and dates of first performances would be appreciated.
Do you have any idea what you're teaching/talking about?
--
"Or is it that [Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick] does not read well, and took up
theory and concocted those deliberately outrageous essay-titles to
disguise her deficiency?" -- Lee Siegel, _The New Republic_, 11/9/98
Ken Rudolph
>
> In article <wPuu2.204$Vw....@news14.ispnews.com>,
> David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>
> >Gromit (g...@panix.com) wrote:
> >: But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
>
> >Purcell didn't seem to have too many problems with it.
>
> >And some of his texts were really bad poetry, but make great opera.
>
> Some? We have the semi-opera _Dido and Aeneas_ and what other
> opera? Titles and dates of first performances would be appreciated.
>
> Do you have any idea what you're teaching/talking about?
I fell asleep. Did anybody have February 4th in the Arne contest?
--Ken Rudolph
Tim Wilson
> I mostly write in Lisp. I often find it easier to express what I mean
> in Lisp than a natural language. And when faced with a weaker
> language (say, C or Java or Perl or Tcl or whatever), I sometimes find
> it completely impossible to express myself in any sensible way. I
> find that I stop thinking about what I mean, and instead concentrate
> on expressing things so that the stupid compiler understands what I
> mean. The thought process changes, and the ideas that I want to
> express change.
I think this point doesn't hold up in several regards, including the
core intellectual idea of what langauge is stronger than another, the
contexts and knowledge one brings to a problem, and the task domain of
each particular problem. I can't buy it at all as a blanket statement
of truth.
I don't understand this rank ordering, except in the context of a
task at hand, to be implemented using the tools one is familiar with.
First of all, I don't think it's accurate. For example, Tcl is a
language with almost pure substitution evaluation (right?), so, by a
certain metric it's as "strong" or "stronger" than Lisp; similarly
with Mathematica. By the same metric, both are stronger than C or
Java or Perl with their myriad special forms and inconsistent
syntactic structure. From a different perspective, though, there's a
strong argument to be made that C and Lisp both work near the
machine-language level, as compared to, say, Fortran or Cobol.
Secondly, it almost completely ignores context context context,
including that always important context, the personal history and
knowledge of the programmer. If you're really good at writing
signal-processing code in C, building lots of arrays with malloc,
++-ing your way down data, etc., then shifting gears to a new
language, whether the language in question has other desirable-from-
some-other-perspective features, is a real pain. It may become
necessary at some point, but the cost of transition isn't negligible.
Third (which is really the second with a different emphasis), you may
find it easier to make the transition from the structure of your task
to the implementation of the code when you use Lisp, but look at the
kinds of tasks you're involved in implementing code for. For other
task domains, other tools might be just as usable, or even moreso.
Now, don't misunderstand me: I like a nice interpreted language,
say Lisp, or more frequently these days Mathematica, to work out some
of the details of a problem and to have a check for getting the same
answers as I do when I write a version in C (or, with small
likelihood, Java) to be compiled. But, in a situation that's quite
parallel to the Lisp vs. C one, as cool and as sleek and as powerful
as something like Mathematica is, shitloads of signal-processing
engineers have opted to use clunky, inelegant, Matlab.
I think it would be a horrible mistake for me to suggest to students
(at least, undergraduate students) that they learn and use Mathematica
on a regular basis with the expectation that they'll be able to market
such a skill when they get on the job market. I think that, like
Lisp, it might be a really useful language for teaching them about the
structure of computation but with details of mathematics thrown in,
but in hoping to get them gainfully employed (and gainfully producing
software, in whatever task domain, that works), I think I'd point them
towards C and Matlab. And the Bourne shell.
As far as writing code for the compiler, isn't that thinking the wrong
way. Code in a higher-level language oughta help you solve the
problem, and help other people help you solve the problem. But, then,
I have a really hard time reading most system code in C. Do you
really have to worry about how the compiler is going to deal with
things? Yuck! I spend more time worrying about why I fell off the
end of my array and got a segmentation fault; i.e., bookkeeping is not
my strong point!
As to C++: Ugh. But it, and Java, do have nice (from a malloc/free
user's perspective) memory management tools.
--
Tim Wilson http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/ mailto:tawi...@memphis.edu
Robert S. Coren
>
>People take USamerican elocution classes here in Vancouver
>to develop that winning drawl.
You misspelled "whining". HTH.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"I am FAGGOT, Lord of the flames! Feel my wrath!" -- Kaz Underworld
Mike McManus
>
> In article <79cmo3$4lt$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, ded...@emory.edu
> (Daniel Chase Edmonds) wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > Te quiero in Spanish is translated as "I love you," as is te amo.
> > The two have very different meanings, I assure you. Can the idea
> > behind both be communicated in English as well? Roughly, perhaps.
> > Identically, I doubt it.
>
> "Te quiero" also means "I want you" but that technical ambiguity
> only seems to be interesting to people who didn't grow up with
> the language.
So that chihuahua could be saying "I want Taco Bell" or "I love Taco
Bell" -- or both! ;-)
Interestingly enough, a cow-orker put up a picture of that chihuahua
with a word-bubble reading "Yo quiero [name of the product we're
working on]!" on our bulletin board. I found it amusing that our
software manager had to ask me what it meant -- I guess she doesn't
watch a whole lot of television, and was concerned that it might be
something inappropriate. (She's since left the project.)
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Mike McManus _/ home: mmcm...@frontiernet.net _/
_/ Rochester, NY _/ work: mcm...@kodak.com _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Ellen Evans
<cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
>In article <jeevF6n...@netcom.com>, Ellen Evans wrote:
[]
>>But a)"deep structures" are theoretical (and often usefully so), not
>>provably "actual," b)"deep structure" as theorized is not about "meaning"
>>per se and c)getting from "deep structure" to "surface structure" is not
>>a transparent process.
>
>My notion of 'deep structure' is from Schankian frames/schema point of
>view. This means that it is wrong, or at least disagrees with the
>commonly accepted term.
>
>Yes, this is all theoretical. I don't know how you would show
>'actual' with our current knowledge of how the brain works.
And even were we to have an infinitely more complex understanding of
brain function, there is still the, what, philosophical issue of
pinpointing what constitutes "meaning".
[]
>Exactly. My point is that there is no cultural basis that affects the
>process of learning (primary) language.
But even the idea of "primary" language - assuming that by this you mean
more than the mere capacity for particular types of structural ideation -
requires an axiomatic leap of faith. Now this leap may be useful, it may
produce all sorts of interesting stuff, but that doesn't give it the
status of the "merely true."
>It is generic, like all
>cognitive processes. In other words, it is my belief that thought is
>generic and does not differ based upon cultural considerations, such
>as language.
Belief is exactly the right word.
[]
>>What does knowing it is "cold, wet, and comes from the sky" entail?
>
>The processing, in some neuro-cognitive way, of sensory input. In
>this case, "cold" and "wet" are processed by our touch sense. "from
>the sky" is probably a visual process, although it could also involve
>other senses.
Mere sensory imput is not exactly the same as cognition. Look at what we
do know about, say, visual processing.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Ellen Evans
Gromit <g...@panix.com> wrote:
[]
>What I remember from the LAST TIME we went through this was that
>Big Arnold stepped in and pointed out that even though one language
>may use more words than another to express a concept (I believe
>we were using the example of the two spanish existential verbs,
>"ser" and "estar" and the different forms of the past tense) that
>different concepts were still expressed differently.
You want to try that again?
--
Ellen Evans
<cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
[]
>It isn't? Why should the cognitive processes that generate thought
>differ based upon language?
Already you have set up a model of thought - there are "cognitive
processes" that "generate" something called "thought." This is, in fact,
a slightly different model than one you were using earlier, in which
thought, per se, (cold, wet, etc.) existed before any "processing"
occured. The point I am trying to make is not that such a model is
"wrong," but that the model that one uses has an impact of the way one
understands the issues in the first place, an impact that structures the
way one can even ask the questions. Hence my original question - how
would you know?
>I believe that there have been any number
>of cultures that claim they are superior and have superior thought
>processes.
Asserting difference does not necessarily equal asserting ranking. Is
blue a different color than red? Yes. Is blue a *better* color than
red? Better for what? In what context? Why do you want to rank *colors*?
[]
>yes, theories differ. But I don't think that these differing
>theorists would argue that brain function differs between humans who
>speak different languages. I don't know of anyone who argues that a
>German's brain processes are different from a Russians brain processes
>or an Americans. The processes of cognition (i.e. thought) are the
>same in humans.
Again, you're assuming that processing issues *define* thought - it may
be productive to use such a model, but such a model is by no means
inherently more real or true.
>Language and lexicons may differ, but so what?
By admitting that you find issues like language and lexicons superfluous
to the idea of "thought" you've begged the question. Again, what may be
productive is by no means necessarily True.
[]
>Most of our knowledge does not exist as language. It exists as
>chemicals. I may say "dog", but I also visualize a creature with four
>legs and a wagging tail.
There are lots of kinds of animals with four legs and a wagging tail.
Some of them physically resemble each other, some of them don't, much,
but you *know* which ones are dogs and which ones aren't. It's not
merely a matter of sensory input.
>That visual knowledge is not language.
Ah, but the "knowledge" part of it is highly conditioned by the
classifications that language gives you access to.
Ellen Evans
Scott Safier <cor...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>I'm going to be bad and follow this post up twice because it really irks me.
>
>Dan disagree with the word "same". If they are not the same, they are
>different (even similar things have differences).
Okay. But there is no logical link between acknowleding difference and
arriving at Nazism.
Which, the latter having been invoked, the thread is undoubtedly over.
Ellen Evans
Daniel Chase Edmonds <ded...@emory.edu> wrote:
>It's so cute when Ellen and Ayana disagree online.
You should see it in person.
[]
>Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping.
I wouldn't mind a new modem.
Jeffrey William McKeough
Michael Pettersen <mspe...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>Daniel Chase Edmonds (ded...@emory.edu) wrote:
>: I forgot in Spanish is se me olvido', I lost it, se me
>: perdio'. The idea is actually not quite the same-- here, the
>: constructions are passive, implying a denial of responsibilty
>: that would seem to me to reflect a difference in attitude towards
>: forgetting and losing.
>
>Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis that native Spanish speakers
>are more likely than native English speakers to deny responsibility in
>cases of losing and forgetting?
I saw some, but I didn't trust it because I think mistakes were made.
--
Jeffrey William McKeough san...@shore.net
"I'd rather go ice fishing." -Sim Aberson
Jeffrey William McKeough
<cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
>yes, theories differ. But I don't think that these differing
>theorists would argue that brain function differs between humans who
>speak different languages. I don't know of anyone who argues that a
>German's brain processes are different from a Russians brain processes
>or an Americans.
Oh, please Scott. Reality is entirely determined by language. You've
never seen a German shave a tree to make a q-tip?
Jeffrey William McKeough
>wet and comes from the sky. The questions are manifold: do they
>snow identically? What affects how we experience snow? I think
>that language affects how we experience reality, and how we
>interpret it.
So true! I once saw a bunch of English speakers chop off a Japanese
guy's foot and his leg disappeared.
David W. Fenton
: In article <36ba3...@199.60.227.1>, lbr...@eciad.bc.ca (Lorna Brown) wrote:
: > Gromit (g...@panix.com) wrote:
: > : In article <slrn7bjv7b...@frogger.lm.com>, cor...@frogger.lm.com
: > : American english is the best language for rock 'n roll.
: > People take USamerican elocution classes here in Vancouver
: > to develop that winning drawl.
Purcell didn't seem to have too many problems with it.
And some of his texts were really bad poetry, but make great opera.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton
: In article <79dgch$naq$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>, ded...@emory.edu (Daniel
: Chase Edmonds) wrote:
:
: [...]
:
: > it is possible to translate?
:
: to understand, even in your native language. I say this because
: the translation of "Yo veo el perro" to "I see the dog" is pretty
: unambiguous unless you're worried about the speaker's definition
: of "to see" and "dog" - in which case the language used has
: nothing to do with it.
Any utterance in any particular language is embedded in a web of
relationships and resonances with other words and concepts in that
language. Though you may find literal translations word for word, or
you may find structures that are used in equivalent circumstances for
equivalent purposes, the web of interconnections is never precisely
the same in two different languages.
And much of that web of relationships is cultural, and not linguistic (e.g.,
the web of relationships is different for England and the US, even though
both are using the same base language).
Does that mean that essential meanings cannot be translated? Absolutely
not.
But it does mean that some of the flavor is always lost.
The degree to which one places relative importance on the essential
meaning or on the "flavor" will, I think, indicate where one comes
down on the question of whether translation is possible.
Translation is possible
100% translation is not.
Brian Vogel
->In article <79b3ao$ofs$1...@lark.jmu.edu>,
->Brian Vogel <vog...@falcon.jmu.edu> wrote:
->>Scott Safier <corwin...@telerama.lm.com> opined:
->>
->>->Brian Vogel offered:
->>->C++ is esoterica.
->>
->> No, it's a gawd-awful abomination. A scourge. . .
->>
->Hey, you're talking about my paycheck there!
Hey! If you've never talked about your paycheck in this
manner then I want to know where you acquired your perpetually
sunny attitude and which neurosurgeon is responsible! :-)
->Poor guy, we kept asking him "That's nice, but how
->is it *implemented*,
They (for any commercial vendor "they") will almost
*never* tell you that. There are really people who believe that
things can be "black box" and "implementation doesn't matter".
<SNORT!>
-> and I kept adding "and what features does
-> your debugger have to support it, and how did you like them?".
I must be the only ex-programmer in the world who absolutely
despised symbolic debuggers. I always found them far more trouble
than they were worth, particularly for complex debugging tasks.
I know, I know: <In Unison> "You're daft!"
Brian
--
It is not even a contest: The wish not to be disturbed
takes precedence over the desire to do something generally
recognized as disturbing.
-- Judith Martin, AKA Miss Manners
Ellen Evans
>a period of time" and "this happened at a precise point of time".
>Arnold pointed out that English makes the same distinctions, only
>it takes extra words to do it.
And it's not the sort of distinction people routinely make. In fact,
they'd have to think about it to do it.
Ayana Craven
>No. Indeed they still know that it is cold, wet and comes from
>the sky. I am not confusing lexicon with thought. I know very
>well what I am saying when I claim that there is a relationship
>between native language and thought. This is a frequent subject
>for soc.motss, er, discussions, and Ellen and I have already taken
>our predictible positions. Anyone else? Ayana, where are you?
Working. Which, although it's quite hateful at the moment, still
seems more likely to come to a satisfactory resolution than the
current argument. Besides, so far someone has made all the points I
would have made. Carry on.
>It's so cute when Ellen and Ayana disagree online.
Obviously we need to turn up the temperature of the debate somewhat,
eh ?
>Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping.
Bring me back a new job, will you ? The old one is wearing quite
thin.
Ayana
--
"Just don't talk to the cranky people"
-- Ellen Evans
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Danny, you started with saying that even simple translations
: are flawed, and now you've moved to Gertrude Stein. Pick one
: or the other and let't talk about that, OK?
I explained that we were dealing with two different sets
of issues there. I explained, I thought, what I thought
the problem with simple translation was. If you have a
question about that, why not deal with the text of the
posting I made regarding it? I even mentioned that there
were separate issues involved. If you want to pretend
I'm equating the two even though I've been explicit
about not doing so, I guess there's not a whole hell of
a lot I can do about it.
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Daniel Chase Edmonds <ded...@emory.edu> wrote:
: >It's so cute when Ellen and Ayana disagree online.
:
: Obviously we need to turn up the temperature of the debate somewhat,
: eh ?
Oh yeah. I've been accused of being a Nazi and had people completely
ignore distinctions I've made and then flame me for not making them.
I need more heat...
: >Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping.
:
: Bring me back a new job, will you ? The old one is wearing quite
: thin.
Well, just give me a discipline, I'll find you a job.
Relocating to Atlanta isn't a problem, right?
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Translation is possible
:
: 100% translation is not.
Exactly.
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Daniel Chase Edmonds <ded...@emory.edu> wrote:
: >
: >wet and comes from the sky. The questions are manifold: do they
: >experience cold and wet in the same way we do? Do we all experience
: >snow identically? What affects how we experience snow? I think
: >that language affects how we experience reality, and how we
: >interpret it.
:
: So true! I once saw a bunch of English speakers chop off a Japanese
: guy's foot and his leg disappeared.
That relates to what I said about as much as the vomit my
cat Iphi left on the towel in my bathroom this morning.
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: Oh, please Scott. Reality is entirely determined by language. You've
: never seen a German shave a tree to make a q-tip?
Yeah, that's an argument someone is making. Um, who was making
that argument again?
Daniel Chase Edmonds
: In article <79d8p7$aap$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
:
I really hope to some day.
: >Thinking is hard. Let's go shopping.
:
: I wouldn't mind a new modem.
Well, just as soon as Delta gives me a weekend get-away
to San Francisco, we'll go shopping for one.
So I do have a place to stay if I come out that way, right?
Kenneth Ashton Callicott
buggy than I was expecting.
In article <6nuu2.255$wD5....@news.shore.net>,
Jeffrey William McKeough <san...@shore.net> wrote:
>In article <79dfp5$c...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>Michael Pettersen <mspe...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>>Daniel Chase Edmonds (ded...@emory.edu) wrote:
>>: I forgot in Spanish is se me olvido', I lost it, se me
^
Hey! Don't they teach you the proper use of semi-colons (or
quotation marks)?
>>: perdio'. The idea is actually not quite the same-- here, the
>>: constructions are passive, implying a denial of responsibilty
>>: that would seem to me to reflect a difference in attitude towards
>>: forgetting and losing.
>>
>>Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis that native Spanish speakers
>>are more likely than native English speakers to deny responsibility in
>>cases of losing and forgetting?
>
>I saw some, but I didn't trust it because I think mistakes were made.
I was trying to remember the references, but it's just gone. And--
strangely--the folder that contained those papers is lost somewhere
in the disorder of my desk.
I blame the English.
Ken, grooving to the new mix by The Baroness: "Electronic Manor".
(so much work reposting this for so very, very little)
--
Ken Callicott Hopkins Marine Station kac...@leland.stanford.edu
"It's just like Erasure, but with a deeper voice."
--Wes, on Cher's new song "Believe"
Michael Palmer
Chase Edmonds) wrote:
>... Te veo cansado is translated into English
>as you look tired, but that loses something, since te veo cansado
>is active, and inserts the subjectivity of the speaker far more
>strongly.
I would contend that you have this reversed: "you look tired [to me]"
is more subjective than "I see that you are tired".
> I forgot in Spanish is se me olvido', I lost it, se me
>perdio'. The idea is actually not quite the same-- here, the
>constructions are passive, implying a denial of responsibilty
>that would seem to me to reflect a difference in attitude towards
>forgetting and losing.
While contemporary English use of the passive may imply denial of
responsibility, in Latin, from which Spanish derives, the passive is
often used to *emphasize* responsibility. Also, while "se me olvido"
may be passive in form, it derives from the Latin "obliviscor", a
deponent verb (viz., one with passive forms but an active meaning),
and while the Latin "perdo", the root of "se me perdio", is active in
Classical Latin, it is increasingly found in Late Latin in the
passive.
---
Michael Palmer
Famous Bovines International
Claremont, California
mpa...@netcom.com
Jess Anderson
David W. Fenton:
>Gromit:
>>But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
>Purcell didn't seem to have too many problems with it.
>And some of his texts were really bad poetry, but make great
>opera.
"Our plot has took, the Queen's forsook" is such a good line.
"Dildo and Anus" is pretty short, but Purcell's ballad-opera
"The Beggar's Opera", on text by John Gay, has three acts. Then
there's Handel's "Semele", on text by Congreve. But both
Purcell and Handel in English are nevertheless works in
thoroughly Italianate operatic styles.
Passing over obscuranta like Michael William Balfe, Julius
Benedict, and Vincent Wallace from the earlier 19th century,
one comes to Frederick Delius, Ralph Vaughn Williams, and
Gustav Holst, none of whose operas I've ever heard.
Closer to our own time, English and American composers have
created a fairly rich repertory of operas in English. One would
not call Britten's "Peter Grimes", "Turn of the Screw", "Billy
Budd" or "Noye's Fludde" crap. Similarly Gershwin's "Porgy and
Bess", Barber's "Vanessa", Menotti's "The Medium", "The Consul"
or "The Saint of Bleeker Street", Thompson's "Four Saints in
Three Acts" or "The Mother of Us All".
I have high hopes for John Harbison's "The Great Gatsby", which
will premiere at the Met in September, which (fingers crossed)
I may be able to witness with my own eyes and hear with my own
ears.
--
[] Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees,
[] then names the streets after them.
[] -- Bill Vaughan
[] ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu Copyright 1999 Jess Anderson []
[] http://www.jesscc.com/ O- All rights reserved []
Michael Palmer
Adolfsen) wrote:
>In article <wPuu2.204$Vw....@news14.ispnews.com>,
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>
>>Gromit (g...@panix.com) wrote:
>>: But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
>
>>Purcell didn't seem to have too many problems with it.
>
>>And some of his texts were really bad poetry, but make great opera.
>
>Some? We have the semi-opera _Dido and Aeneas_
Wrong opera, wrong composer: Semi-ramide is by Rossini.
Michael Palmer
(Jeffrey William McKeough) wrote:
>Oh, please Scott. Reality is entirely determined by language. You've
>never seen a German shave a tree to make a q-tip?
^^^^^
Toothpick, Jeffrey: we clean our ears with pencils.
Tim Wilson
>
> In article <glp-040299...@glp.dialup.access.net>,
> Gromit <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> []
> >Spanish has two forms of past tense, roughly "this happened over
> >a period of time" and "this happened at a precise point of time".
> >Arnold pointed out that English makes the same distinctions, only
> >it takes extra words to do it.
>
> And it's not the sort of distinction people routinely make. In fact,
> they'd have to think about it to do it.
People, most people, or some people? You? Me?
--
Memphis Motss Con Proposal:
http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/motss.con/proposal.html
Tim Wilson
>
> Not at all. Linguistic theory is one of my areas of speciality.
> I'm not a linguist, but I am intimately familiar with twentieth
> century structualism, formalism and semiotics (well, my formalism
> is a little rusty), all of which are based in the works of two
> of the great linguists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries,
> de Saussure and Peirce. I know a fair bit about Wittgenstein and
> Chomsky too.
>
> So, how many graduate seminars on linguistics have you taken?
Do you speak Spanish?
Scott Safier
Ellen Evans wrote:
>
> In article <slrn7bk44f...@frogger.lm.com>,
> <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
> >Exactly. My point is that there is no cultural basis that affects the
> >process of learning (primary) language.
>
> But even the idea of "primary" language - assuming that by this you mean
> more than the mere capacity for particular types of structural ideation -
No. Primary language is the language(s) you learn during infancy --
when the brain structures to develop language are most active.
> >It is generic, like all
> >cognitive processes. In other words, it is my belief that thought is
> >generic and does not differ based upon cultural considerations, such
> >as language.
>
> Belief is exactly the right word.
Well, you agreed that there was no innate mechaninsm requiring the
learning of *a*particular* primary language -- a russian child of
russian parents will learn the language he/she is exposed to. If this
is true, then classifications of people based upon primary language is
just as arbitrary as classifications of people based upon skin color,
hair color, religion or another arbitrary trait. Yes, it is my belief
that there is no difference. Would you care to argue that these
arbitrary classifications do cause people to "think different"?
> []
> >>What does knowing it is "cold, wet, and comes from the sky" entail?
> >
> >The processing, in some neuro-cognitive way, of sensory input. In
> >this case, "cold" and "wet" are processed by our touch sense. "from
> >the sky" is probably a visual process, although it could also involve
> >other senses.
>
> Mere sensory imput is not exactly the same as cognition. Look at what we
> do know about, say, visual processing.
It is a massively parallel process center in our eyes (sensors) and
specific parts of the brain (e.g. visual cortex). The processings is
filtered through short-term memory and accessing long-term memory so
that we can comprehend what we are seeing.
--
Scott
---
"Under the white clouds, the snow is falling.
You can't see the white clouds, or the snow.
Or the cold, or the white glow of the earth.
A solitary man glides downhill on his skis.
The snow is falling.
It falls until the man disappears back into the landscape.
My friend Serge, who's one of my oldest friends, has bought a painting.
It's a canvas about five foot by four.
It represents a man who moves across a space and disappears."
Marc in _ART_
---
http://www.telerama.com/~corwin (Netscape 4+ only)
Pink Triangle Pages
http://www.telerama.com/~corwin/pink.html
Scott Safier
Ellen Evans wrote:
>
> In article <glp-040299...@glp.dialup.access.net>,
> Gromit <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> []
> >Spanish has two forms of past tense, roughly "this happened over
> >a period of time" and "this happened at a precise point of time".
> >Arnold pointed out that English makes the same distinctions, only
> >it takes extra words to do it.
>
> And it's not the sort of distinction people routinely make. In fact,
> they'd have to think about it to do it.
And do these thought processes differ based upon arbitrary classification?
There are brain studies that show (statistically significant)
differences between men and women. Many feminists fear and argue
against this research because they feel that these differences will be
used to foster anti-woman prejudice -- e.g. they think different than
men. How do you feel about this research?
Michael Palmer
ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:
>
>David W. Fenton:
>>Gromit:
>
>>>But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
>
>>Purcell didn't seem to have too many problems with it.
>
>>And some of his texts were really bad poetry, but make great
>>opera.
>
>"Our plot has took, the Queen's forsook" is such a good line.
The librettist was none other than the great Nahum Tate (son of Mr.
Faithful Teate), Dublin-educated, poet laureate from 1692, and
co-author, with Nicholas Brady, of the well-known doggerel version of
the Psalms. His "edition" of Shakespeare's _King Lear_[1], which cut
the Fool out entirely, and allowed Cordelia to marry Edgar--held the
London stage for many years.
>"Dildo and Anus" is pretty short, but Purcell's ballad-opera
>"The Beggar's Opera", on text by John Gay, has three acts.
John Gay must have been quite precocious, since he was only 10 years
old when Purcell died in 1695. Purcell must also have been quite
prescient, since the music to _The Beggar's Opera_ includes a
"borrowing" from Handel's _Rinaldo_, which was not performed until
1711. (The composer--or rather, arranger, since most of the tunes are
traditional--of _The Beggar's Opera_ is of course Johann Christoph
Pepusch [1667-1752], Mus.D.)
[1] Eugene Field, on an actor: "He played King Lear as though someone
had led the ace".
ObMotss: Die Dreigroschenoper.
Scott Safier
Ellen Evans wrote:
>
> In article <slrn7bk55l...@frogger.lm.com>,
> <cor...@frogger.lm.com> wrote:
> []
> >It isn't? Why should the cognitive processes that generate thought
> >differ based upon language?
>
> Already you have set up a model of thought - there are "cognitive
> processes" that "generate" something called "thought." This is, in fact,
> a slightly different model than one you were using earlier,
Earlier I was using a Chomsky-like argument for describing a universal
grammar. This is more of a cog psych argument.
> in which
> thought, per se, (cold, wet, etc.) existed before any "processing"
> occured. The point I am trying to make is not that such a model is
> "wrong," but that the model that one uses has an impact of the way one
> understands the issues in the first place, an impact that structures the
> way one can even ask the questions. Hence my original question - how
> would you know?
for "one" or for a class of people defined by their primary language.
Individuals differ. The class created around "primary language" is
arbitrary and no such differences exist.
> >I believe that there have been any number
> >of cultures that claim they are superior and have superior thought
> >processes.
>
> Asserting difference does not necessarily equal asserting ranking. >Is
> blue a different color than red? Yes. Is blue a *better* color than
> red? Better for what? In what context? Why do you want to rank *colors*?
Red has a longer wavelengh and can be seen at greater distances, hence
its use as a warning light on towers.
As I have answered already, I said such differences *can* be argued to
be better along some metric. I said nothing about the objectiveness of
the metric. In fact, I find the metrics for the differences being
created here to be just as arbitrary and just as subject as the
differences between blue and red.
> Again, you're assuming that processing issues *define* thought - it may
> be productive to use such a model, but such a model is by no means
> inherently more real or true.
Well, I guess usenet might be an example that people don't think in any
orderly way... :-)
> By admitting that you find issues like language and lexicons superfluous
> to the idea of "thought" you've begged the question. Again, what may be
> productive is by no means necessarily True.
> []
> >Most of our knowledge does not exist as language. It exists as
> >chemicals. I may say "dog", but I also visualize a creature with four
> >legs and a wagging tail.
>
> There are lots of kinds of animals with four legs and a wagging tail.
> Some of them physically resemble each other, some of them don't, much,
> but you *know* which ones are dogs and which ones aren't. It's not
> merely a matter of sensory input.
So I would not recognized Dan's visualization of a dog as a dog? I
would call it a table?
> >That visual knowledge is not language.
>
> Ah, but the "knowledge" part of it is highly conditioned by the
> classifications that language gives you access to.
When you see a dog, you need someone to label it for you before you can
access it in memory and say, "oh yes, I've seen dogs before." No. You
access your memories of dogs through the visual stimulation, not the label.
Scott Safier
Gromit wrote:
>
> In article <36BA556...@telerama.lm.com>, cor...@telerama.lm.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > For me, any argument that there is a difference is analogous to
> > arguments that race differences or religious differences are important.
> > Ellen related language to culture; it is also related to nationality.
> > Germans in WWII argued that they were culturally superior because of
> > their nationality. This argument is obviously touching a nerve with me.
>
> But stating that there is a difference doesn't require that one
> thing is better or worse than the other. Only different.
And you have never heard a bigot say, "They think different than we do?"
to justify their prejudices. I have.
Scott Safier
Ellen Evans wrote:
>
> In article <36BA22E1...@telerama.lm.com>,
> Scott Safier <cor...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
> >I'm going to be bad and follow this post up twice because it really irks me.
> >
> >Dan disagree with the word "same". If they are not the same, they are
> >different (even similar things have differences).
>
> Okay. But there is no logical link between acknowleding difference and
> arriving at Nazism.
The Nazis did not use arbitrary, trivial differences between
classifications of people to divide them from the 'pure aryans'?
> Which, the latter having been invoked, the thread is undoubtedly over.
Nazis may be a loaded example, but Nazis were people to. They used
pseudo-scientific differences to justify their attrocities. Sure,
nobody here is proposing such attrocities, they are only trying to
legitimize the trivial "differences" between people arbitrary classified
by their primary language using pseudo-scientific reasoning.
Scott Safier
"David W. Fenton" wrote:
>
> Gromit (g...@panix.com) wrote:
> : In article <79dgch$naq$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>, ded...@emory.edu (Daniel
> : Chase Edmonds) wrote:
> :
> : [...]
> :
> : > What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
> : > it is possible to translate?
> :
> : Then you don't think that there is a sentence that is possible
> : to understand, even in your native language. I say this because
> : the translation of "Yo veo el perro" to "I see the dog" is pretty
> : unambiguous unless you're worried about the speaker's definition
> : of "to see" and "dog" - in which case the language used has
> : nothing to do with it.
>
> Any utterance in any particular language is embedded in a web of
> relationships and resonances with other words and concepts in that
> language. Though you may find literal translations word for word, or
> you may find structures that are used in equivalent circumstances for
> equivalent purposes, the web of interconnections is never precisely
> the same in two different languages.
Bullshit. So, in some languages "dogs" are not interconnected with
"animals", they are interconnected with what? "tables"?
> And much of that web of relationships is cultural, and not linguistic (e.g.,
> the web of relationships is different for England and the US, even though
> both are using the same base language).
Human experiences cause individual differences. Individuals with
similar experiences may have similar beliefs. As you say, experience is
different than language.
> Does that mean that essential meanings cannot be translated? Absolutely
> not.
>
> But it does mean that some of the flavor is always lost.
Flavor. Now there is a quantifiable term if I ever heard on -- not.
Gromit
> Gromit:
>
> >But english is crap for opera. Go figure.
>
> Opera *written* to be sung in English is not crap if the
> composer is any good. There isn't a lot of such repertory. I
> suppose you're referring, though, primarily to translations
> into English.
What do you think is a good, written-for-English opera?
Gromit
> In article <glp-040299...@glp.dialup.access.net>,
> Gromit <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> []
> >Spanish has two forms of past tense, roughly "this happened over
> >a period of time" and "this happened at a precise point of time".
> >Arnold pointed out that English makes the same distinctions, only
> >it takes extra words to do it.
>
> And it's not the sort of distinction people routinely make. In fact,
> they'd have to think about it to do it.
I was in Hawaii last night.
I was in Hawaii for a year.
Yesterday I went to the mall.
I loved him.
I made love to him.
It's a distinction that's made all the time.
I don't think English or Spanish speakers think about it very
much - we just know.
Gromit
Chase Edmonds) wrote:
Again:
It is possible to translate 100% of non-fiction, fact-based
text, unless you say that the personal meanings that the speaker
has for certain words aren't carried in those words. That's an
argument against language, not translation.
Just because the linguistic structure of simple phrases may be
different ("I lost it"/"it lost me", etc.) doesn't mean that the
meanings are different.
Translating poetry and fiction with lots of stylistic and cultural
references and bindings is going to be very difficult, but it's also
true that not every native speaker of the original language of the
text is going to get those references either. So it's a more complicated
issue.
Gromit
> Gromit wrote:
> >
> > In article <36BA556...@telerama.lm.com>, cor...@telerama.lm.com wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > For me, any argument that there is a difference is analogous to
> > > arguments that race differences or religious differences are important.
> > > Ellen related language to culture; it is also related to nationality.
> > > Germans in WWII argued that they were culturally superior because of
> > > their nationality. This argument is obviously touching a nerve with me.
> >
> > But stating that there is a difference doesn't require that one
> > thing is better or worse than the other. Only different.
>
> And you have never heard a bigot say, "They think different than we do?"
> to justify their prejudices. I have.
I've heard that people are stabbed with kitchen knives.
So you're going to abolish difference? Or just forbid
differences being talked about?
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>Leith Chu:
>>Scott Safier wrote:
>>>Gromit wrote:
>
>>>>There you go. ABBA isn't rock 'n roll.
>
>>>Leith -- hurt this man. Tie him up and do unspeakable things to him
>
>>I suppose I could make him listen to Schoenberg
>>non-stop for a couple of days.
>
>At least that would be music.
>
>>>he has blasphemed against the goddesses Agnentha and Frida, and the
>>>gods Benny and Bjorn! Get him!
>
>>No, he hasn't.
>>ABBA *isn't* rock'n'roll.
>
>Check!
>
>>It's *better*.
>
>Much as I admire you, young man, that is *quite* wrong!
Oh, you're just trying to get Leith to tie you up and do unmentionable
things to you.
:-)
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>Scott Safier wrote:
>> Women score lower than men on SATs. Blacks score lower than whites.
>> White men score lower than asian men. Meausres of intelligence, like
>
>Ya know, it really says something about the intelligence of the mostly
>white men who developed SAT tests that they could rig it in their favour
>WRT women and blacks, but they couldn't figure out how to make Asians
>score lower than themselves.
>
I bow to your superiority
Clayton Colwell
: So that chihuahua could be saying "I want Taco Bell" or "I love Taco
: Bell" -- or both! ;-)
: Interestingly enough, a cow-orker put up a picture of that chihuahua
: with a word-bubble reading "Yo quiero [name of the product we're
: working on]!" on our bulletin board. I found it amusing that our
: software manager had to ask me what it meant -- I guess she doesn't
: watch a whole lot of television, and was concerned that it might be
: something inappropriate. (She's since left the project.)
Inappropriate? I guess that would depend on what the
chihuahua was doing with the product.
<reminded of a movie scene between Gene Wilder and a sheep>
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf) ********** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>Scott Safier (corwin...@telerama.lm.com) wrote:
>: Daniel Chase Edmonds wrote:
>
>: > What if I were to pose that I don't think there's a sentence that
>: > it is possible to translate?
>:
>
>I'd be wrong? You have a hell of a lot of hubris.
>
Yes, I do, especially given psuedo-scientific arguments without
a rational basis.
>Look, I fully acknowledge that I'm working in a realm
>of ideas where no one can really be certain. I have a
>notion of translation. I have a lot of practice with
>translation. I know how imperfect it is. Look at the
>posting I made in response to Greg on the subject.
So, when a Xtian argues that the *know* homosexuality is immoral and
why can't I just agree with them, I should. I won't.
>
>: > You are working under a definition thought= a physical process.
>:
>: A cognitive process involving memory and sensory input.
>
>What exactly do you mean by 'cognitive process.' You've already
Where have I said they are divorced. I have said that arbitrary
classifications of people based upon their primary language are no
basis for assertions of different thought processes. These are very
different.
>assumed language and thought are divorced. It's axiomatic for
>you. It's a given. You're allowing your assumptions that value
>of truth. That's a logical fallacy. Argument over. You're
>entirely unwilling, a priori, to even entertain any notion
>of language affecting thought.
You really are dense, aren't you?
>
>: > : Assuming Greg is remembering Arnold correctly, do you think you know
>: > : more than he about linguistic theory?
>: >
>: > Not at all. I do think I know more than you about linguistic theory.
>:
>: you dropped a "not"?
>
>Not at all. Linguistic theory is one of my areas of speciality.
>I'm not a linguist, but I am intimately familiar with twentieth
>century structualism, formalism and semiotics (well, my formalism
>is a little rusty), all of which are based in the works of two
>of the great linguists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries,
>de Saussure and Peirce. I know a fair bit about Wittgenstein and
>Chomsky too.
Oh yes. Linguistics hasn't changed in the last 90 years. I guess you
also believe that cranial shape affects intelligence. Or that
eugenics is proper public policy for people born with birth defects.
These were popular theories then too.
>
>So, how many graduate seminars on linguistics have you taken?
>
10 years experience in computational linguistics including automated
machine translation.
Of course, such things weren't around at the turn of the century, so
you probably don't know about them.
>When I speak of thought, I speak of how we receive, organize and
>interpret reality. I think all of these are aspects of the thought
>process. I speak largely of the process of categorization, which is
>the primary means by which I believe human beings organize reality.
Long-term memory is linguistic? That ignores all senses, with the
exception of hearing words. I guess other sounds, like whistles or
music, can't be thoughts since they aren't purely linguistic.
>I think that language provides a pre-made way for us to categorize,
So, animals that lack the ability to speak can't think? They can't
problem solve because they lack linguistic mechanisms? I hope you
don't mind that I'm laughing at how silly this is.
>: > Gold Star! Yet you never got in to the centuries long debate
>: > about the relationship between language and thought anywhere
>: > in you esteemed education?
>:
>: Yes, obviously *I* have. What's your excuse?
>
>Obviously you have? Then why do you seem so ignorant of the
>fact that in several fields of academic study today it is
>axiomatic that there is a relationship between language and
>perception, categorization, memory, interpretation-- all
>aspects of the cognitive process?
>
Please show me where I have said there is NO relationship. Your
argument that primary language causes different cognitive processes
places all the burden on linguistic phenomenon. This is foolish.
>: > Since we're dealing with a theoretical question, you'll be waiting
>: > a good long time.
>:
>: Theories are testable. Tests normally use quantifiable data.
>
>Not all theories are testable in any meaningful way.
Then they aren't good theories, are they?
>
>: > I'll wait for quantifiable evidence that thought is identical
>: > in the meanwhile, if it's all the same to you.
>:
>: So, you want me to prove they are NOT different. How do you prove a
>: negative? I've asked you to generate a sentence that cannot be
>: translated. You've argued that translation is problematic because
>: language causes differences in thought. If there is this difference,
>: then you should be able to generate a sentence that can occur in one
>: language, but not in another.
>
>Gertrude Stein.
Yes, I responded to this but the newsreader ate it. I'm not going to
regenerate the whole post, but I will summarize.
Poetry is defined as an artistic form that uses high language and
rhythm to illicit a concept. While word-for-word translation of
poetry doesn't work, it is stupid to assert that a similar rhythmic
artform that uses high language cannot be constructed for a concept in
another language that parallels the original poem. While the
emotional invocations by be lexically different, the concepts can be
translated.
(grrrr -- I hate this line editor -- "invocations by be" -->
"invocations may be")
>: > It might change how we organize them. Language is, after all,
>: > a system for the organization of reality.
>:
>: No, that's memory.
>
>No, that's largely language. Which has a major role in memory,
>I might add.
>
So, a deaf-mute (from birth) can't organize information because they
have no spoken-or-heard language? This is just plain wrong.
>: > : Linguists argue by generating sentences to prove their points. The
>: > : burden is now on you to generate a sentence that is impossible to
>: > : translate.
>: >
>: > I'm not a linguist.
>:
>: Obviously. I might also guess you aren't a cognitive scientist.
>:
>: Ignorance is not an excuse for finding differences where none exist.
>
>I'm not a linguist. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I'm quite
>familiar with linguistic theory-- not so familiar as arnold,
>but hardly ignorant.
>
I beg to differ.
>So tell me, what's the difference between sign, signifier and
>signified and what do they have to do with my argument?
>
>Answer that question, and you'll show you have a tiny understanding
>of linguistics. Right now, given your arrogantly dismissive attitude
>towards my argument, I'll presume you have none.
>
I'm dismissive of your argument because it deserves to be dismissed.
>: Learning a second language is known to be different than learning a
>: primary language. The cognitive processes are different.
>
>Quite true. That doesn't mean learning a second language is
>not instructive when it comes to understanding how languages
>are different from one another.
Your argument has been that classes of people, based upon their
primary language, think different. What does this have to do with
second languages learned later in life? Nothing.
>I've studied five languages other
>than English and can read in three of them.
*GOLD STAR*
>: Pictures are language? OK, use language to describe "orange" (the
>: color). I can do it with a picture.
>
>Orange.
>
>So, what do I win?
A circle to go with your circular argument.
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>In article <79d8p7$aap$1...@curly.cc.emory.edu>,
>Daniel Chase Edmonds <ded...@emory.edu> wrote:
>>No. Indeed they still know that it is cold, wet and comes from
>>the sky. I am not confusing lexicon with thought. I know very
>>well what I am saying when I claim that there is a relationship
>>between native language and thought. This is a frequent subject
>>for soc.motss, er, discussions, and Ellen and I have already taken
>>our predictible positions. Anyone else? Ayana, where are you?
>
>Working. Which, although it's quite hateful at the moment, still
>seems more likely to come to a satisfactory resolution than the
>current argument. Besides, so far someone has made all the points I
>would have made. Carry on.
>
The monolith knows all.
>>It's so cute when Ellen and Ayana disagree online.
>
>Obviously we need to turn up the temperature of the debate somewhat,
>eh ?
Oh gahd -- and I thought Sim ice fishing was the scariest thing I
could imagine...
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>Ayana Craven (ay...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Daniel Chase Edmonds <ded...@emory.edu> wrote:
>: >It's so cute when Ellen and Ayana disagree online.
>:
>: Obviously we need to turn up the temperature of the debate somewhat,
>: eh ?
>
>ignore distinctions I've made and then flame me for not making them.
>
You've been accused of using a superficial argument that wreaks of
Nazism. You have been accused of constructing arbitrary
classifications based upon a learned phenomenon -- primary language --
and arguing that this causes some form of different cognitive
processes. You have used the word "trivial" to describe (some of)
these differences, and argued that they are extremely important in how
we think.
HTH
>I need more heat...
Don't look at me. I can't think of anyway to make it any hotter for
you.
cor...@frogger.lm.com
>Arne Adolfsen wrote:
>>
>> In article <wPuu2.204$Vw....@news14.ispnews.com>,
>> David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Gromit (g...@panix.com) wrote:
>>
>> >Purcell didn't seem to have too many problems with it.
>>
>> >And some of his texts were really bad poetry, but make great opera.
>>
>> opera? Titles and dates of first performances would be appreciated.
>>
>> Do you have any idea what you're teaching/talking about?
>
>I fell asleep. Did anybody have February 4th in the Arne contest?
February 4 is my mother's birthday. She was 77 yesterday.