Re: THE QUIZ...


Colin Fine wrote:

> >>You are of course free to use 'language' in this very broad sense. As
> >>with anybody who uses a word in a non-standard way, you risk being
> >>massively understood.
>
> I meant 'misunderstood', of course.

But "massively understood" was a nice one. So while you are consciously
declining my understanding of language, some deeper level of your mind
is apparently welcoming it :-)

> I am sure you do think so. I don't think you have convinced anybody on
> this list.

But perhaps your subconscious, see the above slip.

> Grammar is what it is, irrespective of the theoretical approach or model.
> Nobody doubts that one can make analogies between language and things
> which are not (conventionally) language, such as animal cries,
> pheromones, music, and indeed genomes. And there may be parts of those
> analogies that throw light on one or other of the domains being
> compared. But you are making a much stronger claim: that there is some
> (non-trivial) supraordinate property shared by all these things. I am
> yet to be convinced.

My view is that actual grammar, as processed by the mind, is always
more complex than grammar in the textbooks. The only way we can
cope with that is by inventing several complementary grammars. There
is the practical grammar we learn in school, which is based on the
work of ancient scholars, and very fine, as long as we don't go into
scholastic hair splitting. There is the interesting generative grammar
by Chomsky, however, not a practical one; I remember having done
some of the Chomskyan homework for Uschi who studied linguistics
while I was a free wheeler, and upset by Chomsky for his denial of
language in animals - I did not study linguistics and Chomsky but I
did fill in the Chomskyan diagrams for Uschi who studied that sort
of linguistics. And there is the grammar by Pater Rupert Ruhstaller,
a grammar of budding circles, my favorite grammar so far. Ruhstaller
discerns among functors and arguments. Functors are in the center
of a circle, while the arguments are placed on the circumference,
and can become the center of a new circle. I explained his diagrams
at some length in the spring or early summer of 2004, as I recall
(in the thread Did the Trojan war really happen the way Homer said
it did?). Back in 1975 I explained sentences by complementary
equations and intersections of word fields. Actual language is
always more than any grammar, and we can only cope with that
by inventing several grammars that cover this or that aspect of
language. Classical grammar doesn't care very much about the
sequence of words. Ancient languages, as for example Latin,
allow almost any order of words. But not with Ruhstaller's grammar,
where there is a natural order of functors and arguments, and the
actual order in a spoken sentence is significant for the meaning:
if a word should come according to the natural order but you have
to wait a long time till it really comes, there is a lot of tension
building up, and then collapsing, so the word that comes too late
is a holder of meaning. Most gloriously this idea is explained by
Ruhstaller's diagram of the first lines of Virgil's Aeneid, which
condeses the epic into a few lines, and within them the words
of the highest tension are again a comprimation of the comprimation
- look up my messages on Ruhstaller's grammar if you are interested
in these questions. We had frequent discussions in sci.lang on the
word order, and I never heard anything the like. Classical grammar
can't say much on this issue, but Ruhstaller's grammar can. A pity
he died; today, with the help of computers, he could draw wonderful
diagrams ...

I don't wish to convince you, I am just appealing to your subconscious
that may appreciate my points ...

> Why? I don't see any logical basis for that conclusion.
> Consider cellular automata such as the Game of Life. Unless you are
> going to count 'the total number of living neighbours in a time-step' as
> a kind of communication, there isn't any. If you are, you have broadened
> the meaning of 'communication' beyond all usefulness, in my view.

I can't consider Conway's Game of Life and his cellular automata
as living beings. Not at all.

> It is possible that you have uncovered or will uncover some great
> overarching set of regularities, though I doubt it. It is even possible
> (though I doubt it even more) that such systems will be found to
> underpin linguistics, and have an effect on it. However, that will no
> more sweep away linguistics as it is currently understood than
> increasing understanding of particle physics sweeps away chemistry or
> biology.

I won't uncover a set of overarching regularities, or an overarching
set of regularities, or anything the like. This work is done by
linguists,
mathematicians, and so on. My point is just to show them that they
can win if they open their mind toward a multi-dimensional
understanding
of grammar as the only way to cope with the actual grammar as
processed by the mind.

> I am aware you are interested in these. I have observed and marvelled at
> your word-games. Writing probably did not come from painting and
> sculpting, hieroglyphs have died out and there are no millions of
> pictograms (indeed not very many pictograms in use anywhere).

Did you ever walk across a main train station? then you should know
that there are thousands of pictograms in a small area. A teacher at
the art school of Zurich made a here famous book entirely of pictograms
from cardboard boxes ...

> Because (assuming they are there) they are there? Because they will be
> trying to communicate with us? Because they may have a way of
> representing language, which the Magdalenian's didn't?

Language is language, whether "spoken" by a cell, a bacterium, an
animal, a human, a Magdalenian, a member of the Early Concrete Age,
or an alien.

> People have been carefully evaluating the symbols in the bible for three
> thousand years. Strangely, they don't all seem to agree.
>
> Colin

The scientists living and working today outnumber all the scientists
that lived and worked in former times together. We have amassed so
much knowledge that we can go for new interpretations, and that's what
I am doing.

Regards Franz Gnaedinger www.seshat.ch

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Symbol Grounding Problem (attn: Vend)
    ... It was not referring to "meaning" ... natural language is, it would become inconsistent rather quickly. ... They fit into a Chomsky hierarchy ... And you meant the "complexity" arrises because some of the grammar ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Symbol Grounding Problem (attn: Vend)
    ... challenged me about pure mathematics not existing. ... natural language is, it would become inconsistent rather quickly. ... I am not here as an acolyte of Chomsky. ... But there is grammar in language and demonstrably so. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Symbol Grounding Problem (attn: Vend)
    ... challenged me about pure mathematics not existing. ... natural language is, it would become inconsistent rather quickly. ... Chomsky claims that reversing the words would be a grammatically ... takes that as evidence for an innate universal grammar. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)
    ... >> language in everyday use that heh, ... > distinction between pidgin and creole must be based on grammar. ... "I'd gone out to the store" is proper English to say what I did ... They can learn to say words, but not communicate. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)
    ... >> between pidgin and creole must be based on grammar. ... > grammar based on a language from group A and they would place the ... > being based on the grammar of the languagethey already speak, ... > how the different varieties of English come about: ...
    (sci.anthropology)
Quantcast