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

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> stygging@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps Styggnorant John could read something on the topic.

Oh, I didn't get it at first. You see, my pronunciation of y in
Stygging is significantly different from "i" in ignorant, so the
wordplay didn't make much sense, but now I see it. Styggnorant -
St-ignorant. Good one! I wish I could say that about the rest of your
post.

> Duality of patterning happens to infuse all areas of cognitive behavior;
> it was first noticed in language, toward the end of the 19th century, by
> Baudouin de Courtenay.
>
> Styggnorant John doesn't seem to realize that Hockett's and Martinet's
> phrases are two names for the same thing, one in English, one in French,
> that were coined about the same time (late 1950s).
>
> If "wow" and "dude" are supposed to be belittling, well, they are; they
> eloquently display his ignorance. Unless Styggnorant John can come up
> with some levels of language -- and cognition -- to which duality of
> patterning is "completely irrelevant," he really ought to quit typing.

So you listed the names of a couple of chaps, added some dates and an
evaluation of my level of knowledge.

Did it ever occur to you that other people might have hoped for
something about the actual subject?

Your posts have this unfortunate tendency to list dates and names of
people who in the past have written articles or books, which you guess
may have had something interesting to say. So far I haven't seen much
evidence that you read any of it. I here use the word "read" in the
sense "read and understand".

Not only is there a lack of evidence that you understood it. There is
also some, but admittedly not devastating, evidence that you did not
understand it. Any thinking person who has read and understood a text
agrees with some parts and disagrees with some parts. Any thinking
person, who recommends a text to someone else, will point out what the
pitfalls are and which points one should take with a grain of salt.

You never seem to disagree with your authorities. That suggests that
you did not understand them.

John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
    ... > are the most crucial properties of human language is of course ... > Perhaps Peter has something relevant to add. ... Duality of patterning happens to infuse all areas of cognitive behavior; ... Styggnorant John doesn't seem to realize that Hockett's and Martinet's ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
    ... >>> are the most crucial properties of human language is of course ... >>> Perhaps Peter has something relevant to add. ... >> Styggnorant John doesn't seem to realize that Hockett's and Martinet's ... > You never seem to disagree with your authorities. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
    ... >>>are the most crucial properties of human language is of course ... >>>Perhaps Peter has something relevant to add. ... >> Perhaps Styggnorant John could read something on the topic. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast