Re: unnatural languages

In article <YE68kkJnro9FFwkd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Herring <richard.herring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <et46vo$1cfq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
In article <NeoZCgPtfT9FFwX$@baesystems.com>,
Richard Herring <richard.herring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <et2dtb$n0i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
In article <oMxwWCEMCT8FFw6e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Herring <richard.herring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <esproe$1r8a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
In article <1173354137.155781.136980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jens S. Larsen <jens_s_larsen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Herman Rubin skribis:

Jens S. Larsen <jens_s_larsen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
phoglund@xxxxxx:

...............

Are you really suggesting that (a) Latin, English and Swahili fit your
definition of "structured" languages, and (b) their adoption in those
places represents "start[ing] over", totally abandoning whatever was
spoken before?

No.

However, I can
see a reason why one needs to learn structure early, and the
earlier the better. Even good students who have learned
details have substantial difficulty in learning the concepts
in mathematics,

As a statistician, you may be qualified to make that observation...

and I suspect in language as well;

... but that's merely an uninformed opinion. Ne sutor ultra crepidam...

Not totally uninformed, having studied more than one
"foreign" language.

I missed this before... "Study" has a variety of meanings. How many
"foreign" languages can you *speak*?

None easily. Even at my age, I suspect a few months at
most of "immersion" would do well. It is mostly rusty
vocabulary.

In my generation, and also later,
students have been known to remark that they really
learned their English grammar by taking a grammar-
oriented foreign language course.

It's a truism, but so what? One doesn't need training in grammar to
speak one's native language grammatically. Learning _about_ language and
acquisition of a language are entirely different things.

Few American college students speak reasonably grammatical
English, and their writing is not much better.

Yes and no. Learning about the structure of a language,
or any other subject, can make it FAR easier to learn
that subject, and more so, to understand it.

Equivocation on "understand". Knowing that a particular verb ending
represents the pluperfect subjunctive is not the same thing as
extracting what it means. One doesn't understand speech in a foreign
language by consciously "looking up" each word in a mental primer.

One does not learn any concept by memorization. Do not
confuse learning the grammar with memorizing the rules.

Learning
the structure of French, or Hebrew, makes it possible
not to just translate, but to internalize what is learned.

That's not what "internalize" means, and learning *about* the structure
of a language doesn't help one to be fluent in it..

It certainly helps in reading.

there is
a strong opinion that children learn grammar (in the extended
sense of structure) early.

Acquire, not "learn".

A large proportion of those who
learned to read by the whole word method never mastered the
phonic use of the alphabet.

Learning to read is an activity quite distinct from language
acquisition.

Is it? How about language acquisition by the deaf?

Unclear. What is a language? There is a language
of mathematics, which is entirely written;

Not a language in the sense that linguists use the word. How many times
do I have to repeat this?

If everyone used the term "language" in the sense you
are using it, world communication will decline.

when it
is needed to communicate it orally, that communication
is a transliteration into some other language. But
the written language, except for terms for which the
terminology requires abbreviations, is immediately
comprehensible to mathematicians everywhere. It can
be taught to children, but apparently not to those
who are now teaching the children; they no longer
have the ability to handle a precise language.

The written language is quite important.

Where it exists. Many languages are not written at all.

Are they going to survive? Only be heroic methods.

Why not, and how do you know?

In some languages,
the spoken language is far less clear than the written.

Which languages, and clear to whom? I bet the native speakers of those
languages don't think they lack clarity.

Most of the world's people have no idea of clarity.

Most of the world's people have a very precise idea of everything that
matters to them. For example, many languages have far more precise ways
of describing kinship, status and other relationships than we can easily
manage in English. Most of the world's people have a very precise grasp
of basic arithmetic, and know exactly who owes whom and how much, both
in financial and moral terms.

I think you will find "basic arithmetic" not to be well
understood. When it comes to government, how many have
a clear idea of what even they would consider a good form?

People speaking different idiolects who think it is
the same language do not communicate that well.

So?

What is "democracy"?

Read Orwell.

In statistics, it is even worse,

What _is_ the phonic use of the alphabet in statistics?

There are three levels of language involved in statistics.

The immediate level is probability, which has its own
concepts, very poorly understood by those learning by
memorization and computation.

Not a language in the sense that linguists use the word.

Again, maybe the linguists should broaden their scope.
Some scientists have, and this group is sci.lang.

If they cannot use that language, they will be unable
to understand the concepts.

If they cannot use that *notation system*, they will be unable to
understand the concepts. That doesn't make it a language.

Understanding the "notation system" is NOT enough.
It is a language, rigid in grammar, but with a small
but extendible vocabulary.

The previous level is
that of the basic parts of algebra, set algebra, and
some analysis.

Not a language in the sense that linguists use the word.

Likewise.

See above.

And behind this is the language of
variables and basic mathematical communication, in
this highly structured language.

Not a language in the sense that linguists use the word.

Likewise.

See above.

As the language is essentially written only, and
pronounced differently by those using different
languages using their phonic patters, it does not
have a phonic use of the alphabet. Except for
explanatory material, its use of symbols is
independent of "natural" languages.

So "the phonic use of the alphabet in statistics" is an absurdity.

Yes, because the language is essentially written only.
However, someone who has ONLY learned the whole word
method, and has not learned the specific word "statistics",
will be unable to read the word, or have any idea what it
might mean.

Big deal. Those who can read it "phonically" will be able to make an
appropriate sequence of noises, and still have no idea what it might
mean. It's hardly an etymologically transparent word.

I'm still mystified about how any of that relates to what you originally
wrote:

A large proportion of those who learned to read by the whole word
method never mastered the phonic use of the alphabet. In statistics,
it is even worse, and this applies at all levels, including the PhD.

Those who have only learned words as arbitrary sequences
of characters, not subject to any phonic rules, will not
be able to use the alphabet even for easy words. One of
my former colleagues saw the word "rug" italicized as a
word the seventh graders could not be expected to know.
They just learn by rote a collection of words as strings
of letters, with no restrictions.

In statistics, they learn formulas, and apply them with
know idea of the limitations of the formulas, or the
desirability of using that formula in that situation.

If someone has some data, and just adds, subtracts,
multiplies, and divides almost at will, do you think
the result will be meaningful?

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • 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.lang)
  • 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.lang)
  • 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.archaeology)
Loading