I guess there is an erudite way of saying 'grammar Nazi'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:00 pm Hi, "Commonsense". I take it you are a linguistic "prescriptivist"?
Neanderthals and Language
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Neanderthals and Language
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Neanderthals and Language
Without linguistic purism, there can be no literal meaning. There can be no reasonable approximation of literal meaning. Without reasonable approximation, there can be no valid communication.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Neanderthals and Language
I dunt now abot dat. U ken undastand wot I em seyeng jus fain.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:28 pm Without linguistic purism, there can be no literal meaning. There can be no reasonable approximation of literal meaning. Without reasonable approximation, there can be no valid communication.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
The human mind is all about heuristics/approximation despite channel noise.
-
- Posts: 8314
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Neanderthals and Language
How strange. I wrote the OP which you dismissed and I still stop at road intersections when there is a "Stop" sign present. I'm therefore not seeing the validity of your analogy. It sounds like it might be a false one to me.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:28 pm Without linguistic purism, there can be no literal meaning. There can be no reasonable approximation of literal meaning. Without reasonable approximation, there can be no valid communication.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Neanderthals and Language
It's posts like this that make this site worthwhile. Thank you.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:28 pm Without linguistic purism, there can be no literal meaning. There can be no reasonable approximation of literal meaning. Without reasonable approximation, there can be no valid communication.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Neanderthals and Language
I can understand what you are saying just faintly because I suspected that you are not a prescriptivist.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:49 pmI dunt now abot dat. U ken undastand wot I em seyeng jus fain.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:28 pm Without linguistic purism, there can be no literal meaning. There can be no reasonable approximation of literal meaning. Without reasonable approximation, there can be no valid communication.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
The human mind is all about heuristics/approximation despite channel noise.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Neanderthals and Language
During the Great American Depression, one phrase that was popularized was, "There's no free lunch." Apparently, "free lunch" was invoked loosely, resulting in disillusionment for the ones who were surprised by the strings attached to the meal.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:24 pmHow strange. I wrote the OP which you dismissed and I still stop at road intersections when there is a "Stop" sign present. I'm therefore not seeing the validity of your analogy. It sounds like it might be a false one to me.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:28 pm Without linguistic purism, there can be no literal meaning. There can be no reasonable approximation of literal meaning. Without reasonable approximation, there can be no valid communication.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
Likewise, "sale", when referencing commercial items, sometimes means merely that the items are for sale, and not on sale at a special price.
And so!
-
- Posts: 8314
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Neanderthals and Language
Fair enough, commonsense.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:11 pmDuring the Great American Depression, one phrase that was popularized was, "There's no free lunch." Apparently, "free lunch" was invoked loosely, resulting in disillusionment for the ones who were surprised by the strings attached to the meal.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:24 pmHow strange. I wrote the OP which you dismissed and I still stop at road intersections when there is a "Stop" sign present. I'm therefore not seeing the validity of your analogy. It sounds like it might be a false one to me.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:28 pm Without linguistic purism, there can be no literal meaning. There can be no reasonable approximation of literal meaning. Without reasonable approximation, there can be no valid communication.
If a stop sign means to me one must stop driving his vehicle, while to you the sign means you should stop your vehicle but you can continue if you want, there would be an increased chance that a collision will occur anytime you and I approach a stop-signed intersection.
So, to answer your post, Gary: yes, I am.
Likewise, "sale", when referencing commercial items, sometimes means merely that the items are for sale, and not on sale at a special price.
And so!
What are your thoughts concerning Chomsky's assertions that speculation over whether Neanderthals posssessed language or not are "uninteresting" or "means nothing"? Unless I'm mistaken, weren't Gregor Mendel's experiments with Pea plants largely ignored until scientists following Darwin, much later used his experiments to bolster the theory of evolution? Might scientists at some point in the future potentially find some value in whatever research invovling Neanderthals? Do we know for sure at this point?
I mean, I can undertand disuading scientists from doing research where science is used in a truly malicious way--weapons creation for example. However, if there's no real harm in some research, then what would be good reason to pronounce it as "uninteresting" or "meaningless"?
-
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Neanderthals and Language
I only said what I said because I suspected that you are. Defiance, you seecommonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:48 pm I can understand what you are saying just faintly because I suspected that you are not a prescriptivist.
Don't tell me how to USE language.
Natural languages are not regular languages ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language ) - to try to make them such is futile because of the symbol-grounding problem.
Furthermore, prescriptivists tend to be logocentrists too and I think logocentrism is harmful to thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Neanderthals and Language
Mea culpa. I am guilty as charged.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:12 amI only said what I said because I suspected that you are. Defiance, you seecommonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:48 pm I can understand what you are saying just faintly because I suspected that you are not a prescriptivist.
Don't tell me how to USE language.
Natural languages are not regular languages ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language ) - to try to make them such is futile because of the symbol-grounding problem.
Furthermore, prescriptivists tend to be logocentrists too and I think logocentrism is harmful to thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Neanderthals and Language
I cannot answer your questions without further reading at this point. You mistake me for someone who is current rather than someone who is relying on undergraduate work, with a major in computer science and a minor in philosophy, more than 15 years ago. I hope Timeseeker &/or others will continue this discussion with you, as I would like to continue reading this thread whilst I revisit philosophy of language.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:54 am What are your thoughts concerning Chomsky's assertions that speculation over whether Neanderthals posssessed language or not are "uninteresting" or "means nothing"? Unless I'm mistaken, weren't Gregor Mendel's experiments with Pea plants largely ignored until scientists following Darwin, much later used his experiments to bolster the theory of evolution? Might scientists at some point in the future potentially find some value in whatever research invovling Neanderthals? Do we know for sure at this point?
I mean, I can undertand disuading scientists from doing research where science is used in a truly malicious way--weapons creation for example. However, if there's no real harm in some research, then what would be good reason to pronounce it as "uninteresting" or "meaningless"?
Re: Neanderthals and Language
What would be this research into Neanderthals, should it continue?
Gazing at bones, or cave art?
Gazing at bones, or cave art?
-
- Posts: 8314
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Neanderthals and Language
Huh. I wonder if Chomsky thought of that.