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

stygging@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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.

How do you pronounce it?

> > 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".

If you'd like to enroll in a class I teach, and pay me for it, I'll
devote the time to spelling everything out instead of showing you where
to learn something for yourself.

> 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.

Ok, read Hockett's or Martinet's presentation and tell me what you
disagree with. They simply present some familiar facts and a new way of
looking at them.

Something I myself did within my own area of specialization. But I take
it you don't have access to a library with linguistics books in it?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

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. ... >> Perhaps Styggnorant John could read something on the topic. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: _Verum Et Factum Convertuntur_ (or: Surprised By Syntax)
    ... >> 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 ... Not only is there a lack of evidence that you understood it. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast