Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)

Colin Fine wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Colin Fine wrote:
> >
> >>>If I write
> >>>
> >>>â?*a,b,c â?? G (a âS· b) âS· c = a âS· (b âS· c)
> >>>â??e â?? G: â?*a â?? G (a âS· e) = (e âS· a) = a
> >>>â?*a â?? G: â??z â?? G (a âS· z) = (z âS· a) = e
> >>>
> >>>This is a translation, but not into a language. It has no phonology or
> >>>morphology. It has syntax, but the elements of that syntax are utterly
> >>>different from those of a language. And it has semantics only in the
> >>>transferred sense I spoke of earlier.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I realised after I posted this that my argument is partly wrong: the
> >>lack of phonology and morphology do not demonstrate that it is not a
> >>language (consider sign languages).
> >>The crucial point remains, however, that it does not have syntax or
> >>semantics in the way a natural language does.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps the most crucial property of human language is (Hockett)
> > "duality of patterning" or (Martinet) "double articulation." Meaningless
> > units are organized into meaningful units (the -emic principle, not to
> > be confused with the anthropologists' terms "emic" and "etic" that seem
> > to get it backward).
>
> This is a new one on me. Would you expand, please?

I think it is simply another way of saying: "wow! we can change one
phoneme for another and get a completely new word!" (double
articulation) and "dude! we can move big chunks of phonemes around in
phrases and get new meanings!" (duality of patterning). Whether those
are the most crucial properties of human language is of course
debatable, but at some levels they are definitely important. (It
wouldn't be surprising to learn that they were completely irrelevant at
some other levels.)

Perhaps Peter has something relevant to add.

John

.

Relevant Pages