Re: unnatural languages

On 1 Mar 2007 06:05:39 -0800, "Jens S. Larsen"
<jens_s_larsen@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1172757939.199854.8320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

Nathan Sanders:

[...]

I think you're unnecessarily hung up on the word "natural" as
something separate from the expression "natural language". "Natural
language" is a fixed, non-compositional expression that describes one
class of communication systems.

In that case, you're really trying to have your cake and eat it. If
"natural" in "natural language" doesn't mean anything, why make the
distinction between natural languages and other languages to begin
with?

He didn't say that 'natural' in 'natural language' doesn't
mean anything; on the contrary, he made it clear that the
term 'natural languages' denotes a proper subset of the set
denoted by the term 'languages'.

And if there is a distinction, why imply it has anything to do
with naturalness?

A compact space in topology isn't compact in any common,
everyday sense of the word, but the motivation for the
terminology is fairly clear once one understands the
concept. An infinite countable set cannot in fact be
enumerated -- counted -- by a human being, but the
motivation for the term is obvious to anyone who understands
the concept. This is what usually happens when an everyday
word is adopted as a technical term in some field. Why,
then, should anyone be surprised or disgruntled to find that
'natural' in the technical term 'natural language' hasn't
quite its everyday meaning, especially when the motivation
for the terminology is so obvious.

[...]

Is it really serious to do field-work? You have a language in your own
head to elicit from, you don't have to hassle informants who easily
misunderstand what you are trying to make them do.

Data from a single individual is not statistically significant. Data
from inside your own head is not independently verifiable and is
subject to corruption by your own beliefs and expectations.

Relying solely on insignificant, unverifiable, potentially biased data
is unsound scientific methodology, and thus, unwise practice in the
general case.

Ouch! This is really a severe case of resistence to self-insight. You
shouldn't play it out publicly in a place like this; have a good, deep
and long talk with a friend, or see a psychiatrist if need be.

Ah, thank you: you've just demonstrated that as far as
SCI.lang is concerned, you're as big a waste of time as
Heidi. Further response is clearly pointless.

[...]

Brian
.