Re: All languages are equally fit

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:55 am, LEE Sau Dan <dan...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Peter> For example, the ideogram 1 represents, in English, the
Peter> morphemes spelled <one> and <fir> (in "first") as well as
Peter> single tens, hundreds, etc. in decimal place-notation,
Peter> mutatis mutandis in other base notations, etc.

By the same token, the ideogram 日 represents, in Mandarin the morpheme
<ri4>, in Cantonese the morpheme [j@t2], in Toishanese the morpheme
[Nit2], in Hokkien the morpheme [lit3], in *Japanese* the morphemeS
/nichi/ and /hi/, and also some morphemes in Korean and Vietnamese.

Why are you showing that the same spelling represents different words
in different languages?

For instance, the spelling <smoking> means very different things in
English and French.

It is very clearly not an "ideogram"! It represents a word in English,
a word in French; two morphemes in English, one morpheme in French.

All these morphemes represent the same idea: the sun.

Not surprising, since the logogram was borrowed into all those
languages from the same source language.

>> The question is entirely irrelevant. The logic that I was
>> referring to is not "logic of languages" (whatever that means)
>> but the logic of the reasoning that is _described_ by your own
>> sentences.

Peter> I was not "reasoning." I was conversing.

I hate to discuss with people who don't reason, or who give irrational
"reasons".

Then perhaps you should become a hermit, or a Carmelite, or a Stylite.

>> Myths of what? For the umpteenth time I am not talking about the
>> nature of Chinese characters but how the word "ideogram" is
>> used!!

Peter> But you don't know how the word is used in English.

Both Tak and I know how this word is used in ORDINARY English. That's
why we, following general consensus, call Chinese character ideograms.

Many English speakers do indeed consider "ideogram" and "Chinese
character" as homonyms, meaning exactly the same thing. That's fine,
completely unobjectionable, _provided_ they realise that:

(1) This word "ideogram" has nothing whatever to do (except
etymologically) with the word "idea";

(2) It's not at all the same word as the word "ideogram" which means a
symbol that expresses an idea.

Unfortunately, some people get these two very different words mixed up.
But if they knew anything about Chinese and/or linguistics, they wouldn't.

You have chosen to participate in a _linguistics_ newsgroup for lo
these many years. You should therefore be expected to use technical
terminology appropriately.

Even the Unicode Consortium use "ideograph" to refer to the common set
of written symbols shared by CJKV.

Even the Unicode Consortium can be wrong (and often is -- look at the
mess they made of Greek and Coptic).

Peter> At best, you are projecting onto English how a similar word,
Peter> which you may have been taught to translate as "ideogram," is
Peter> used.

This is a stupid assumption. I can't speak for Tak, but I myself
understand the word "ideogram" without associating it with any Chinese
translations at all. We understand English words as English words. No
translations needed.

Unfortunately, you don't understand this particular word, and your
particular misunderstanding is easily explained in terms of
traditional Chinese teaching.

>> It is quite clear to me, Sau Dan and Joachim that you are not
>> following the discussion.

It seems that everyone except PTD is following this discussion and are
applying LOGIC to the discussion.

I also took part in this discussion for a while, but dropped out when it
became clear it was going absolutely nowhere. As you may or may not
remember, I agreed with PTD in all his main points. I still do. So
please don't claim that "everyone" is following this discussion and
thinks that you, LSD, are applying LOGIC. It's not true.

PTD is the only one who admits that
he doesn't reason with logic when jamming in this discussion.

Commenting on your own insults isn't a productive means of
communication.

Peter> Why did you completely ignore my demonstration that your
Peter> "logic" was faulty? (black cats and mammals)

Because you don't follow logic, which you have admitted.

Why did you, too, completely ignore my demonstration that Tak To's
"logic" was anything but logical?

Neither language nor conversation is "logical."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats The Hardest Language To Learn?
    ... Peter> It depends on what you mean by "complicated" and who the ... Peter> whole set of differences from English). ... I think it's easier for HKers to learn Japanese than others, ... and Japanese has many Chinese loan ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Whats The Hardest Language To Learn?
    ... Peter> It depends on what you mean by "complicated" and who the ... Peter> whole set of differences from English). ... I think it's easier for HKers to learn Japanese than others, ... and Japanese has many Chinese loan ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Has it been tried to represent tones with punctuation ...
    ... In Chinese one ideogram generally ... corresponds to one English word. ... English has more possible syllables than Chinese does. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: All languages are equally fit
    ... Peter> For example, the ideogram 1 represents, in English, the ... Peter> But you don't know how the word is used in English. ... translations at all. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Sentences without any subject
    ... comment on how difficult English is to a L2 learner. ... >> Only 2 irregularities out of six. ... Peter> How is "dritte" irregular? ... There is no Chinese equivalent. ...
    (sci.lang)