Defining the core of language

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Belinda » Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:08 am

Londoner wrote:
But that is not what we learn when we use how to use a word. As I wrote earlier, if we learnt some precise meaning of the word 'hot' then we would only be able to use it is very specific situations, to refer to exact temperatures. That is just not how a word is used. If I say 'I am hot' it is not a claim that my body temperature is the same as a cup of coffee.
Indeed. And moreover, the tone and pitch of voice, my relationship to the receivers of the message, the surrounding environment,my body language, and the receiver's body language all amount to the absolutely unique event of "I am hot."

So how, do you ask, does a child learn language from a lot of unique events involving speech? Repetition of the lexical items does facilitate the learning, which is why parents and teachers know to talk to children (appropriately to the individual child) about what is happening, how people feel about stuff , how they themselves feel about stuff ,and so on. Among all of this it's the social situation that cannot be extricated from the utterances.

Please read a simple introductory book that explains the philosophy of language of the later Wittgenstein. It could also be a good idea to read about the child's language and learning.As ever, watch your sources.

User avatar
lpdev
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:17 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by lpdev » Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:16 pm

Londoner wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:46 am
They will have some inclination, because they hear a word used in a particular context, otherwise they would not use it. But the nuances of meaning can only be learnt by attempts to communicate. For example, you might have the idea that 'hot' can be used to describe people. But 'hot' when used about people says you find them sexy, as distinct from just good looking. That isn't something you can learn by listening to the sound, or observing the spelling. Nor can you learn it from particular instances; Mary might be called 'hot', but 'hot' does not mean Mary.
In order to understand that context in which the word is used, the child has to understand the preceding conversation, which means it has to have understood other words it already learned. But what about the first times when the child doesn't know any words yet and does not understand the conversation and therefore doesn't know the context the conversation conveyed? That's when the senses come in. The perception of the world itself also delivers a context, the visible fact that it is snowing, the feeling of cold when a snowflake touches the hand, the sound of the snow when you walk in it etc… Thanks to the senses there always is a context.

Btw, you say the child will already have some inclination, this means it already learned something. That inclination doesn't come from nowhere. That inclination means it already has excluded scenarios where it knows the usage is probably wrong.

You say that someone can only understand the nuances by attempting to communicate. But in your example you site cases where that person passively hears someone use the same word differently in different contexts. Now, he might might of course mistake the usage of “hot” as being good looking, but don't you think that he might catch on that there is a difference after a while by just listening? Of course he will learn to use the word correctly when he uses it wrongly and is corrected, what I argue is that correction definitely is not the only way we learn language, even in cases of nuances.

In the case of “hot” meaning sexy and not good looking, the misunderstanding can occur when the context is not fully known. Let's say we have the two following situations, one where people talk about someone good looking while not using the word “hot”, and one where people talk about someone hot (lets say one of the group find's the person hot) and used the word. In both cases part of the context is that someone talks about a different person that is good looking. This is the common part of the two contexts and why the mistake occurs, because the element that differentiates both scenes is overlooked: that one of the group is attracted to the good looking person.

Now, I'm sure I never said that you can understand anything just by listening to a sound or observe a spelling (There is an exception in the case when you have a composite word where you know the words it is made of. Here you may be able to deduce the meaning). I stressed the importance of the observation made at the same time as the word is used. Remember, we talk of cases where people learn words by not getting them explained to them. These words are those that can be described by language and therefore are defined using words exclusively. These words are the ones I would not include in a core of language, because they build upon other already defined words. I look for words that cannot be explained but have to be experienced. Try to explain to a man who is blind since birth what the color blue is.
Londoner wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:46 am
You cannot know that. We both know the word used to describe the colour of a tree is 'green', but I cannot know whether you are seeing it in the same way I do.
If you read that paragraph again more carefully, you'll see I didn't state that. I say that it might well be that our internal perception differs, but that it isn't relevant because it doesn't affect communication, assuming both people are able to see the same range of colors. We have no problem talking about colors, do we? This in fact shows that the actual personal perceptions is not the important factor for communication but identity is, meaning that an observation will lead to the usage of the same words by two persons when the observed objects or properties are the same. In reverse, that's how we define observations to be objective: when we perceive them in the same manner.
Londoner wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:46 am
It would not be enough to create a listing of multiple definitions of the word, because in any given case we would not know which definition applied. We would also need to create a dictionary of human activity because to find out what is meant when somebody says 'Mary is hot' we would have to somehow look up whether they wish to communicate their sexual desire for Mary or an observation that Mary is sick.

This is in Wittgenstein, but also J.L.Austin; the observation that words are not just descriptive, they are acts.
Well, if they say that words are acts they misuse language. The act of uttering a word is an act. The act of writing a word down is an act. A word itself is not an act, it is a concept for a specific sound and/or a symbol/a list of letters. Of course words can be something else than descriptive, like a command that engenders an act in somebody else. But it is the word as a piece of information that leads the other person to act, the word itself is not an act. Are you sure the two authors actually said that? It really makes no sense.

And, well, again, I did not say that the listing of definitions is enough to describe what a word stands for. I added the necessity of adding the context in which the word is used that way. If you look in a good dictionary you'll find exactly that. The word (for words with multiple meanings) followed by multiple definitions sometimes followed by an explanation where and when it is used that way. Usually the context in which it is used is clear from the description alone.
Londoner wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:46 am
And yet the stolen goods described as 'hot' are not hot in the same way that coffee is hot. So are we saying sensible temperature is not the basic meaning of 'hot'? (And if 'Mary is hot' I'm saying she is "something you want to hold onto"!)

As I wrote before, the idea is that all these uses have 'family resemblances', i.e. each of the ways we use a word like 'hot' will have some resemblance to another way we use that word, but there is not necessarily any single common feature. As in 'you have your father's nose, your father has his mother's eyes, his mother shares her sister's character' and so on, so we can trace a relationship between the way we use a word without there being any one 'basic feature' that everyone has.
I explained how that family resemblance came to be and why we can use word like that. A clear definition does not hinder that usage, it might even facilitate it by expressly listing the properties that can then be used to describe something else.

The usage of words like in these examples are called “simile” and “metaphor” btw. Had to look it up because I forgot the terms.

Belinda
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Belinda » Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:55 pm

Ipdev wrote:
But it is the word as a piece of information that leads the other person to act, the word itself is not an act.
A word which the transmitter intends to lead another to act is a signal. E.g. "Danger Fallen Tree". Not all words are signals, and not all signals are words. Signals may also be pictures or physical events e.g. white smoke that signals that the new pope is elected. Signals are always intentional so they may be called acts. Don't confuse signals with signs. Signals are always intentional on the part of the transmitter.

A word may be transmitted which the receiver takes to be a signal, but which was not so intended. The misunderstanding happens to people who are deluded.

Londoner
Posts: 790
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Londoner » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am

lpdev wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:16 pm

In order to understand that context in which the word is used, the child has to understand the preceding conversation, which means it has to have understood other words it already learned. But what about the first times when the child doesn't know any words yet and does not understand the conversation and therefore doesn't know the context the conversation conveyed? That's when the senses come in. The perception of the world itself also delivers a context, the visible fact that it is snowing, the feeling of cold when a snowflake touches the hand, the sound of the snow when you walk in it etc… Thanks to the senses there always is a context.
Why can't the social situation provide the context? If every time something happens it is accompanied by the same words then the word will be associated with the event. For example if they hear 'walk' before every occasion they go out, they will associate the word and the activity. But they need not know exactly what 'walk' means. As we know, a dog can make such associations, but I do not think a dog can distinguish 'walk' from 'run', 'go out, 'get some exercise', 'go shopping'. Nor do I think the dog associates 'walk' with any specific perception.
You say that someone can only understand the nuances by attempting to communicate. But in your example you site cases where that person passively hears someone use the same word differently in different contexts. Now, he might might of course mistake the usage of “hot” as being good looking, but don't you think that he might catch on that there is a difference after a while by just listening? Of course he will learn to use the word correctly when he uses it wrongly and is corrected, what I argue is that correction definitely is not the only way we learn language, even in cases of nuances.
The correctness consists simply of using that word in the same way as everybody else, so that we are understood in the way we want to be, There is no 'correct definition' for a word like 'hot', only the way it is used, which is what a dictionary records.
I stressed the importance of the observation made at the same time as the word is used. Remember, we talk of cases where people learn words by not getting them explained to them. These words are those that can be described by language and therefore are defined using words exclusively. These words are the ones I would not include in a core of language, because they build upon other already defined words. I look for words that cannot be explained but have to be experienced.


I think the only way we 'experience' words is when we use them to talk to one another.
Try to explain to a man who is blind since birth what the color blue is.
A person blind from birth can learn the circumstances when we use the word 'blue'. If you asked them; 'What is the colour of the sky?' they would answer 'Blue'. That they are not getting any visual sensation makes no difference; I am not blind and I can talk of 'chair' or 'dragon' or 'electron' without needing to be looking at any of those things or even having any distinct mental image of them. A word is not a sensation.
If you read that paragraph again more carefully, you'll see I didn't state that. I say that it might well be that our internal perception differs, but that it isn't relevant because it doesn't affect communication, assuming both people are able to see the same range of colors. We have no problem talking about colors, do we? This in fact shows that the actual personal perceptions is not the important factor for communication but identity is, meaning that an observation will lead to the usage of the same words by two persons when the observed objects or properties are the same. In reverse, that's how we define observations to be objective: when we perceive them in the same manner
.

Indeed, that is what I am saying; the words are not labels for our personal perceptions. (I'm not sure about the final sentence).

Me: This is in Wittgenstein, but also J.L.Austin; the observation that words are not just descriptive, they are acts.

Well, if they say that words are acts they misuse language. The act of uttering a word is an act. The act of writing a word down is an act. A word itself is not an act, it is a concept for a specific sound and/or a symbol/a list of letters. Of course words can be something else than descriptive, like a command that engenders an act in somebody else. But it is the word as a piece of information that leads the other person to act, the word itself is not an act. Are you sure the two authors actually said that? It really makes no sense.
I agree if we just said a word to ourselves it would not be an act - but then it would not be a word either. If I am just talking to myself, then any sound (or no sound at all) would do. But words are used to communicate, which is an act.

As Belinda has suggested, it would be a lot easier if you read some stuff on this. If you are interested in this subject, surely it makes sense to look at what philosophers have written?
I explained how that family resemblance came to be and why we can use word like that. A clear definition does not hinder that usage, it might even facilitate it by expressly listing the properties that can then be used to describe something else.


And what would a clear definition look like? We are back with the problem that if the definition consisted of words, that list of properties, then we would also need clear definitions of all the words used in that list, and the words in those definitions would need definitions, ad infinitum.

Earlier you implied the meaning of a word was related not to words but to a 'perception'. That is the jump we would have to make, from the word to something that is not a word. For example, we might say the only word with a clear meaning was 'That!', accompanied by the act of pointing to an object. (This is discussed in Russell).

I absolutely agree that the idea that words are somehow attached to objects, or are labels for internal feelings, seems the common sense one, but we have been unable to come up with a coherent account of how they do this. As all my name dropping might suggest, it isn't for a want of trying!

Belinda
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Belinda » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:36 pm

Dogs do learn to associate trigger words with percepts*** and some of us would argue, with concepts. So 'walkies' triggers the perception of pleasant anticipation. Not only are words triggers for dogs' reactions but also other signs such as getting the lead off the hook, the dog on the sofa hearing the dog food being lifted off the kitchen shelf, or taking the hoover into the room where the dog is on her sofa.

Dogs cannot understand symbols such as the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Nazi swaztika, nor can they understand the generality of signals, but they do very well understand signs which include a great many words. This is why if you confuse a dog by not keeping your word signs simple and concise you cannot then undo the damage by explaining to the dog that you are sorry but you did not mean what you said.

Signs are events that predict that something is or will be the case.

PS *** percepts are not concepts. It's probably true that no animal human or otherwise can conceive of an idea without first experiencing percepts which basically make up the attributes of any given concept.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by -1- » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:19 am

Belinda wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:36 pm
PS *** percepts are not concepts. It's probably true that no animal human or otherwise can conceive of an idea without first experiencing percepts which basically make up the attributes of any given concept.
I feel this ties in with "you can't describe differences without starting with similarities." Describing a difference starts with listing percepts, or familiar attributes, to identify the subjects, and you go from there, by showing that some percepts are attributes of one subject, but not of the other (hence the difference).

Viva la differance.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by -1- » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:25 am

Londoner wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am
I absolutely agree that the idea that words are somehow attached to objects, or are labels for internal feelings, seems the common sense one, but we have been unable to come up with a coherent account of how they do this. As all my name dropping might suggest, it isn't for a want of trying!
This develops two ways: societal integration of the individual in language skills, and an inherent, in-born propensity by the individual to be equipped to use such attempts at integration.

The tougher one to accept is the "inherent / inborn" aptitude. It is a randomly developed brain function, which proved to be highly aiding survival; this is what the evolutionists will claim, or else it is a god-given and god-inspired creation of and by god, to imbue humans (and debatably animals) with this feature of brain function.

Belinda
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Belinda » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:13 pm

-1- wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:19 am
Belinda wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:36 pm
PS *** percepts are not concepts. It's probably true that no animal human or otherwise can conceive of an idea without first experiencing percepts which basically make up the attributes of any given concept.
I feel this ties in with "you can't describe differences without starting with similarities." Describing a difference starts with listing percepts, or familiar attributes, to identify the subjects, and you go from there, by showing that some percepts are attributes of one subject, but not of the other (hence the difference).

Viva la differance.
But one aspect of the concrete which is indispensable to learning and language is the social aspect . Learning and language cannot be acquired in a social vacuum. You may object and say that an adult may learn a foreign tongue and a foreign culture alone in a room with a book, or that a scientist may learn novel terminology and novel theory alone in a room with a book. These situations depend upon human ability to abstract ideas from concrete experiences.And concrete experiences(regarding which you and I agree) include social interactions.

It would be nice if someone who is good at diagrams would illustrate what I wrote.

When young children learn concepts through the medium of language they begin sometimes by quite eccentric ideas of what a word stands for. So 'doggie' might be any animal with fur, or moving about in a field , or smaller than the child's self, and so on. Then the concept becomes more and more refined as the child engages in language behaviour with others and especially if the child reads books, and if he comes from a home where the family members really talk to each other. So, yes, your point about frequency of repetition makes sense.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by -1- » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:53 am

Belinda wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:13 pm


But one aspect of the concrete which is indispensable to learning and language is the social aspect . Learning and language cannot be acquired in a social vacuum. You may object and say that an adult may learn a foreign tongue and a foreign culture alone in a room with a book, or that a scientist may learn novel terminology and novel theory alone in a room with a book. These situations depend upon human ability to abstract ideas from concrete experiences.And concrete experiences(regarding which you and I agree) include social interactions.

It would be nice if someone who is good at diagrams would illustrate what I wrote.

When young children learn concepts through the medium of language they begin sometimes by quite eccentric ideas of what a word stands for. So 'doggie' might be any animal with fur, or moving about in a field , or smaller than the child's self, and so on. Then the concept becomes more and more refined as the child engages in language behaviour with others and especially if the child reads books, and if he comes from a home where the family members really talk to each other. So, yes, your point about frequency of repetition makes sense.
I don't know whose post you were replying to, Belinda. Not mine. I never made a point of frequency of repetition. I am not the kind of thinker who would make an objection to societal aspect of language by pointing out that an adult can learn a foreign language without person contact. And I wonder how you can prove a child's thought development of refining concepts. You remember this when you were a child?

Finally, I absolutely object to your claim of "Learning and language cannot be acquired in a social vacuum". I agree that language learning or acquiring necessarily involves a society; after all, symbolic languages are not connectable to reality by their phoneme structures. But LEARNING can be done (not language learning, but other learning) without language and without being in a social environment. I say this because there has been no indication otherwise. Yours is a theory, which has not been tested, so it's like a belief in god: the chances of a god existing and the chances of man learning things without language are equal for both "yes" and "no". Only an empirical test could prove this, but there is no empirical evidence, pro or con.

Belinda
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Belinda » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:01 am

-1-
Similarities or repetitions are what happens when the child is exposed to many language situations.

I don't quite understand what you are objecting to. Certainly the child can learn behaviours that other than language behaviours. Is that okay?

I do actually remember some of how I acquired language, from about the age of three. And it was as I described.My own children acquired language as I described, and they also learned a little Spanish in the same way. We moved around a lot, and the children were quick to pick up the local dialects wherever we landed, without any formal teaching.

In my experience the more children are exposed to language, including written language, the more they will learn concepts, and be able to communicate with all sorts of people.
Last edited by Belinda on Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:06 am

I think the bane of epistemology is the universal. We cannot empirically derive a universal from its counterparts as there will always be variation in its references, while the universal itself refers to an ideal form; this is much like how computers cannot compute the end of pi, but we can imagine and talk about a perfect circle in ideal. Thus the ideal is the alien, that which gives us the words such as 'the' and 'of' and so on, while Universals are more down-to-earth in that they refer to a true Being that is ever-different from Becoming, which thereof, being is static and unchanging and ideal/alien. We have learned to use these alien ideas to speak in language and apply them to all sorts of becoming, but if we were to concretion them, they would have both an alien and a familiar complementary distinction.

For instance, in English the word for 'the' when translated into Hebrew seems to have an ancient counterpart called 'ThV' which means 'mark, signature'. This 'mark, signature' is the concretion, while the English word 'the' as it is used now is the alien without the apparent concretion. It has a meaning of its own due to being made of words and is an idealization/alienation of the Hebrew meaning. For instance, look at how the dictionary defines 'the' as opposed to the Hebrew concretion:
the
[ stressed thee; unstressed before a consonant th uh; unstressed before a vowel thee]

DEFINITE ARTICLE
1.
(used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
2.
(used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
3.
(used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend John Smith.
4.
(used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
5.
(used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.


Note how much it takes to define 'the' in an English dictionary when not concretized into its Hebrew counterpart! Letter languages are more disparate when it comes to certain concrete and alien meanings, while Hieroglyphs are more in line with these two.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:07 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:06 am
I think the bane of epistemology is the universal. We cannot empirically derive a universal from its counterparts as there will always be variation in its references, while the universal itself refers to an ideal form;
If viewed from a strict perspective of "universality" you are correct, however the abstract nature of language requires the observation of universal's as a binding median that allows some form of "commonality". To limit language to a strict relativistic interpretation is to cause a process of continual "re-definition" where the language itself has no real value past its ability to change and adapt.

The problem of continual adaptation occurs in the respect that in itself is a constant form of negation through complexity.


this is much like how computers cannot compute the end of pi, but we can imagine and talk about a perfect circle in ideal. Thus the ideal is the alien, that which gives us the words such as 'the' and 'of' and so on, while Universals are more down-to-earth in that they refer to a true Being that is ever-different from Becoming, which thereof, being is static and unchanging and ideal/alien.
Static or stable degrees are not necessarilty "alien" or "foreign", assuming I understand you correctly, as foundations are built from constants. To label a constant as "alien" in many respects is to make "alien" a constant and in this respect "stability" is no longer "foreign or strange" to us.

We have learned to use these alien ideas to speak in language and apply them to all sorts of becoming, but if we were to concretion them, they would have both an alien and a familiar complementary distinction.

Assuming these "ideas" are alien is to assume that they are somehow strange or foreign to us and in these respects "seperate". This separation implies that not only are humans lacking in consistency but they cannot be assimilate into who we are...yet paradoxically we assimiliate them through "use" nonetheless.

For instance, in English the word for 'the' when translated into Hebrew seems to have an ancient counterpart called 'ThV' which means 'mark, signature'. This 'mark, signature' is the concretion, while the English word 'the' as it is used now is the alien without the apparent concretion. It has a meaning of its own due to being made of words and is an idealization/alienation of the Hebrew meaning.
The reflective capacity, you have observed, between "the" and 'ThV' does not limit it specifically to having a meaning of its own, but simultaneously points to a dual quality of "commonality". The lack of appropriate definition of a word, within a specific language, does not mean it has no "specific" definition within that culture, but rather the language achieves definition through reflection with a separate culture. The process of "individuation" between English and Hebrew cultures, does not eliminate any possible or potential dimensions to that language as their commonality acts as a "cause" for similiarity.

Take for instance the word "Odin" within the norse language. "Odin" was the god of "wisdom, madness, fury". The Hebrews have a similiar word (and fact check me, as I am going off poor memory) called "Odeen" which translates to "sorrow". Looking into Hebrew culture, specifically in their wisdom books such as Ecclesiastes, wisdom is equated with sorrow and suffering.

So if we are to step back and look at the similiarities between Norse and Hebrew cultures through the approximates of "Odin" and "Odeen" what we can observe are cultural universals where "wisdom" and "deep-sorrow/madness" are approximate structures of each-other.


For instance, look at how the dictionary defines 'the' as opposed to the Hebrew concretion:
the
[ stressed thee; unstressed before a consonant th uh; unstressed before a vowel thee]

DEFINITE ARTICLE
1.
(used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
2.
(used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
3.
(used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend John Smith.
4.
(used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
5.
(used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.


Note how much it takes to define 'the' in an English dictionary when not concretized into its Hebrew counterpart! Letter languages are more disparate when it comes to certain concrete and alien meanings, while Hieroglyphs are more in line with these two.

Intuitively when english is used, "the" implies an act of demarcation and while its "definition" is not limited to a strictly reflection/relation of other words and intuitive dimension results. Part of this may be due to the inherent cultural premise of English culture where colonialism (or the "marking off" of civilizations as one's own) has played such a dominant role that certain "definitions" for words were taken as "axiomatic" for what they were...no different than a math teach taking "1" as strictly and axiom for itself.

Language acts as both a stable and projective measure of observation within all cultures and in defining the "core" of a language one must reflect on the nature of the culture the formed it. Language is a measurement system which helps us both maintain and form reality, in these respect certain words, such as "the" in the English language, are often taken as simple axiomatic points which require no further reflection.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:07 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:06 am
I think the bane of epistemology is the universal. We cannot empirically derive a universal from its counterparts as there will always be variation in its references, while the universal itself refers to an ideal form;
If viewed from a strict perspective of "universality" you are correct, however the abstract nature of language requires the observation of universal's as a binding median that allows some form of "commonality". To limit language to a strict relativistic interpretation is to cause a process of continual "re-definition" where the language itself has no real value past its ability to change and adapt.

The problem of continual adaptation occurs in the respect that in itself is a constant form of negation through complexity.


Wouldn't it rather be similarity instead of negation through complexity? We don't define 'car' through negating everything it isn't,
but rather accumulating what it is, such as 'having wheels and an engine and windows and goes places and is a vehicle.'


this is much like how computers cannot compute the end of pi, but we can imagine and talk about a perfect circle in ideal. Thus the ideal is the alien, that which gives us the words such as 'the' and 'of' and so on, while Universals are more down-to-earth in that they refer to a true Being that is ever-different from Becoming, which thereof, being is static and unchanging and ideal/alien.
Static or stable degrees are not necessarilty "alien" or "foreign", assuming I understand you correctly, as foundations are built from constants. To label a constant as "alien" in many respects is to make "alien" a constant and in this respect "stability" is no longer "foreign or strange" to us.

We have learned to use these alien ideas to speak in language and apply them to all sorts of becoming, but if we were to concretion them, they would have both an alien and a familiar complementary distinction.

Assuming these "ideas" are alien is to assume that they are somehow strange or foreign to us and in these respects "seperate". This separation implies that not only are humans lacking in consistency but they cannot be assimilate into who we are...yet paradoxically we assimiliate them through "use" nonetheless.

They are alien in the sense that a universal is self-evident to the beholder yet it requires definition that in itself is alien to the machine or logic and it is alien in the sense that no matter how hard we try to define it within becoming it is impossible to have a clear demarcation within becoming. For instance, the Sorites Paradox.

For instance, in English the word for 'the' when translated into Hebrew seems to have an ancient counterpart called 'ThV' which means 'mark, signature'. This 'mark, signature' is the concretion, while the English word 'the' as it is used now is the alien without the apparent concretion. It has a meaning of its own due to being made of words and is an idealization/alienation of the Hebrew meaning.
The reflective capacity, you have observed, between "the" and 'ThV' does not limit it specifically to having a meaning of its own, but simultaneously points to a dual quality of "commonality". The lack of appropriate definition of a word, within a specific language, does not mean it has no "specific" definition within that culture, but rather the language achieves definition through reflection with a separate culture. The process of "individuation" between English and Hebrew cultures, does not eliminate any possible or potential dimensions to that language as their commonality acts as a "cause" for similiarity.

Take for instance the word "Odin" within the norse language. "Odin" was the god of "wisdom, madness, fury". The Hebrews have a similiar word (and fact check me, as I am going off poor memory) called "Odeen" which translates to "sorrow". Looking into Hebrew culture, specifically in their wisdom books such as Ecclesiastes, wisdom is equated with sorrow and suffering.

So if we are to step back and look at the similiarities between Norse and Hebrew cultures through the approximates of "Odin" and "Odeen" what we can observe are cultural universals where "wisdom" and "deep-sorrow/madness" are approximate structures of each-other.


For instance, look at how the dictionary defines 'the' as opposed to the Hebrew concretion:
the
[ stressed thee; unstressed before a consonant th uh; unstressed before a vowel thee]

DEFINITE ARTICLE
1.
(used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
2.
(used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
3.
(used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend John Smith.
4.
(used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
5.
(used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.


Note how much it takes to define 'the' in an English dictionary when not concretized into its Hebrew counterpart! Letter languages are more disparate when it comes to certain concrete and alien meanings, while Hieroglyphs are more in line with these two.

Intuitively when english is used, "the" implies an act of demarcation and while its "definition" is not limited to a strictly reflection/relation of other words and intuitive dimension results. Part of this may be due to the inherent cultural premise of English culture where colonialism (or the "marking off" of civilizations as one's own) has played such a dominant role that certain "definitions" for words were taken as "axiomatic" for what they were...no different than a math teach taking "1" as strictly and axiom for itself.

Language acts as both a stable and projective measure of observation within all cultures and in defining the "core" of a language one must reflect on the nature of the culture the formed it. Language is a measurement system which helps us both maintain and form reality, in these respect certain words, such as "the" in the English language, are often taken as simple axiomatic points which require no further reflection.


Agreed.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:49 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:07 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:06 am
I think the bane of epistemology is the universal. We cannot empirically derive a universal from its counterparts as there will always be variation in its references, while the universal itself refers to an ideal form;
If viewed from a strict perspective of "universality" you are correct, however the abstract nature of language requires the observation of universal's as a binding median that allows some form of "commonality". To limit language to a strict relativistic interpretation is to cause a process of continual "re-definition" where the language itself has no real value past its ability to change and adapt.

The problem of continual adaptation occurs in the respect that in itself is a constant form of negation through complexity.


Wouldn't it rather be similarity instead of negation through complexity? We don't define 'car' through negating everything it isn't,
but rather accumulating what it is, such as 'having wheels and an engine and windows and goes places and is a vehicle.'


In one respect, through a logistic ancestry yes. The problem occurs, that through a "strict adaptation" approach (strict relativism) the continual relations cause a "loss of identity". While language systems may originate in a specific language, the process of individuation as particulation causes and ever fracturing nature to the language where a language system or system(s) may become more "complex" over time what is really happening is a "negation" of the original language. Is it entirely negated? No, that would be impossible. However considering a perpetual nature inherent within language, perpetual negation does lead to perpetual complexity. This complexity is rooted the myriad of language commonalites however their continual individuation causes a form of gradation which we observe as "differences".

this is much like how computers cannot compute the end of pi, but we can imagine and talk about a perfect circle in ideal. Thus the ideal is the alien, that which gives us the words such as 'the' and 'of' and so on, while Universals are more down-to-earth in that they refer to a true Being that is ever-different from Becoming, which thereof, being is static and unchanging and ideal/alien.
Static or stable degrees are not necessarilty "alien" or "foreign", assuming I understand you correctly, as foundations are built from constants. To label a constant as "alien" in many respects is to make "alien" a constant and in this respect "stability" is no longer "foreign or strange" to us.

We have learned to use these alien ideas to speak in language and apply them to all sorts of becoming, but if we were to concretion them, they would have both an alien and a familiar complementary distinction.

Assuming these "ideas" are alien is to assume that they are somehow strange or foreign to us and in these respects "seperate". This separation implies that not only are humans lacking in consistency but they cannot be assimilate into who we are...yet paradoxically we assimiliate them through "use" nonetheless.

They are alien in the sense that a universal is self-evident to the beholder yet it requires definition that in itself is alien to the machine or logic and it is alien in the sense that no matter how hard we try to define it within becoming it is impossible to have a clear demarcation within becoming. For instance, the Sorites Paradox.

The Sorites Paradox deals fundamentally with the tension of physicality and abstractness. Using the common sand pile example, one looking can see it as a pile of sand. Keep taking a piece of sand away and when does the pile become a few grains? The grains appear as grains for what they are: grains. The prior existence of the pile, while their no longer warrants abstract proof of "pile" within the logistics ancestry of language even though it has been "gradated" to a few pieces of sand.

The problem occurs in the definition between "Pile" and "grains" as what is the turning or "median point". Well if we look at the nature of definition, within a language, all words are strictly "medians" for other words and in this respect observe an inherent nature of approximation. Both "pile" and "grains" are approximates of eachother.

In a seperate respect we have the other issue of "Pile" and "grains" forming an inherent unstable duality as the Sorites Paradox also points out the problem of "transition". In these respects "Pile" and "grains" can be mediated by another word such as "few" or "many" (which we see as common factors within primitive languages who do not have extensive vocabularies that may include "Pile".

The Aborigines come to mind, however any primitive tribe will do as most do not count past "3" before resorting to "many" (this is an important point to remember in understand the nature of how people quantify...3 is a reocurring number)).

The Sorites paradox is based upon a tension of opposites which can only be resolved through a form of synthesis where another word is created or "remembered". The duality within the paradox itself is conducive to a flux in logic as "pile" and "grains" exist only if their is further definition.


For instance, in English the word for 'the' when translated into Hebrew seems to have an ancient counterpart called 'ThV' which means 'mark, signature'. This 'mark, signature' is the concretion, while the English word 'the' as it is used now is the alien without the apparent concretion. It has a meaning of its own due to being made of words and is an idealization/alienation of the Hebrew meaning.
The reflective capacity, you have observed, between "the" and 'ThV' does not limit it specifically to having a meaning of its own, but simultaneously points to a dual quality of "commonality". The lack of appropriate definition of a word, within a specific language, does not mean it has no "specific" definition within that culture, but rather the language achieves definition through reflection with a separate culture. The process of "individuation" between English and Hebrew cultures, does not eliminate any possible or potential dimensions to that language as their commonality acts as a "cause" for similiarity.

Take for instance the word "Odin" within the norse language. "Odin" was the god of "wisdom, madness, fury". The Hebrews have a similiar word (and fact check me, as I am going off poor memory) called "Odeen" which translates to "sorrow". Looking into Hebrew culture, specifically in their wisdom books such as Ecclesiastes, wisdom is equated with sorrow and suffering.

So if we are to step back and look at the similiarities between Norse and Hebrew cultures through the approximates of "Odin" and "Odeen" what we can observe are cultural universals where "wisdom" and "deep-sorrow/madness" are approximate structures of each-other.


For instance, look at how the dictionary defines 'the' as opposed to the Hebrew concretion:
the
[ stressed thee; unstressed before a consonant th uh; unstressed before a vowel thee]

DEFINITE ARTICLE
1.
(used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
2.
(used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
3.
(used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend John Smith.
4.
(used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
5.
(used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.


Note how much it takes to define 'the' in an English dictionary when not concretized into its Hebrew counterpart! Letter languages are more disparate when it comes to certain concrete and alien meanings, while Hieroglyphs are more in line with these two.

Intuitively when english is used, "the" implies an act of demarcation and while its "definition" is not limited to a strictly reflection/relation of other words and intuitive dimension results. Part of this may be due to the inherent cultural premise of English culture where colonialism (or the "marking off" of civilizations as one's own) has played such a dominant role that certain "definitions" for words were taken as "axiomatic" for what they were...no different than a math teach taking "1" as strictly and axiom for itself.

Language acts as both a stable and projective measure of observation within all cultures and in defining the "core" of a language one must reflect on the nature of the culture the formed it. Language is a measurement system which helps us both maintain and form reality, in these respect certain words, such as "the" in the English language, are often taken as simple axiomatic points which require no further reflection.


Agreed.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Defining the core of language

Post by Viveka » Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:59 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:In one respect, through a logistic ancestry yes. The problem occurs, that through a "strict adaptation" approach (strict relativism) the continual relations cause a "loss of identity". While language systems may originate in a specific language, the process of individuation as particulation causes and ever fracturing nature to the language where a language system or system(s) may become more "complex" over time what is really happening is a "negation" of the original language. Is it entirely negated? No, that would be impossible. However considering a perpetual nature inherent within language, perpetual negation does lead to perpetual complexity. This complexity is rooted the myriad of language commonalites however their continual individuation causes a form of gradation which we observe as "differences"."
How do they cause a loss of identity? The fact that I am defining a car by its relative parts from the whole of the universal of 'car' doesn't mean that it would have a loss of identity unless it is found that there is a broader or thinner definition of 'car.' Individuation itself is simply something that doesn't occur with universal nouns or verbs unlike proper nouns, and yes, this would result in the negation of a universal... in fact, if we wanted we could negate until we reach Emptiness! Emptiness itself, a product of a analytical deconstruction and negation, like Chandrakirti's Chariot scenario, shows that there cannot be universals or individual parts, but it reduces it to emptiness, and thereby renders all language absurd. Differences and similarities are similarly deconstructed by Chandrakirti.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests