Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: demonknight17 on October 03, 2002, 10:37:50 am
-
Alright guys, a while back I bought Freespace and Freespace 2, but when I tried to find out what tools to use to create ships nobody seemed to want to help. I'm trying again, so if anyone can tell me how to create new ships and weapons, I'd appreciate it.
-
Where did you try?
Anyways, you need VPView32 from www.descent-network.com
You also need Truespace, and COB2POF from freespace.volitionwatch.com
There is also a tutorial there by Max Sterling.
Oh, and:
WELCOME TO THE HLPBBB!!!!!!!!!!!
Flamethrowers are under your seats, and exits are to the left and right. Please don't prod the large red, 5 legged creature, for he he bites (and HARD!:D)
-
Merci beaucoup, c'est tres aident
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
Please don't prod the large red, 5 legged creature, for he he bites (and HARD!:D)
Only cuz I get prodded!;7
-
Originally posted by demonknight17
Alright guys, a while back I bought Freespace and Freespace 2, but when I tried to find out what tools to use to create ships nobody seemed to want to help. I'm trying again, so if anyone can tell me how to create new ships and weapons, I'd appreciate it.
That's not good. My FAQ should give you some help getting the hang of VPView and has links to as many tutorials and tools as I could find. If there are any other problems I`m sure someone on HLP will try to be more helpful
-
Originally posted by demonknight17
Merci beaucoup, c'est tres aident
What the hell does that mean? Let me try.
Bonjour. J'mapelle Michael. Comment tali vous?
Well, that was all the French I know. Misspelled I bet you also. I think its supposed to say:
hello. My name is Michael. How are you?
I can't do all the accents or anything. WELCOME TO THE HLPBB!!!!
A follower from Ohio!!! I used to live in Dayton, but now I live in Tennessee.
-
that would mean, her...
thanx a lot, it's very helping ( yeah, with the error there ).
try again :D
Hadès, it's: "comment allez-vous"
I know yuo don't care, but still, I don't have many occasions of writing french here :)
-
Thanks. I'm kind of supposed to be taking Spanish, but in a few years I'll be able to take French. I do care, now I know how to spell it!! I've learned a few phrases of french, but only orally.
-
Gah, I hate Spanish. My worst subject.
-
Yeah, as much as I know Spanish will help me here in the US, I want to learn French. And I don't know why.
-
Ou est le poisson de mon harmonica?
That's about it- I learned a handful of French about, oh, six years ago, but it stuck better than Spanish, which I had a full class in for two years, ending last year, and can't remember a word of. Only really wanted to learn French so I could learn Hatian creole and cast voodoo curses properly, but I never got that far. Ah well.
-
UGH! le spam posting!
Je parle francais, pars-que Je m'appelle Canadian!
C'est Tres Formidable! :p
***TRANSLATION***
UGH! the spam posting
I speak french, because I am Canadian!
It's very good/formidable :p
------------------------------------------------------
Ok, back on topic.
WELCOME TO HLPBBS!!!!
I am Corhellion, fellow slow poster(I've been here since April or May :rolleyes: ) But I have good things to say when I post!
Welcome again!
Cor
-
Yeah, Cor is a "slow" :wink: poster. :D Kidding. I didn't think that just because you're from Canada that you speak French, I thought they only spoke French in Quebec. Oh well, just shows you what us Yanks know.
-
I....'...m....f....r....o...m...C...a...n...a...d...a...a...n...d...t...h...e...y...t...h...i...n...k...I...'...m...s...l...o...w...,...E...h...? ;)
heh!
Funny episode of the Simpsons(Homer works for the bad guys, "Omnicorp" I think it was called) and Bart went to the "special class" :lol:
C...o...r... :D
-
Homer should ride the short bus. If you know what I mean:D
-
ach mein Gott!
-
Bonjur et stuff!:D
Not everyone one up here in the Great White North speaks French. I did, while I took it, but I can't remember any of it. Oh well. And Cor, what are you doing talking about the Simpsons:rolleyes: . Don't you know about Bob and Doug Mackenzie? switches to Canadian speech What where you thinkin, eh. You hoser. Well, we'll just put it behind us, eh, and grab some back bacon and stubbies. How's it goin (demonknight17), eh?
-
Here's a foreign language phrase I picked up from a friend of mine:
"Suga mi minkya!"
It's Italian (and probably spelled wrong), and PLEEEEEZE don't ask for a translation or else this thread will be OWNT by Admin (and they'll be right to do so!)
Oh, and Cor, speaking of the Simpsons, remember this catchy little tune?
"Simpson, Homer Simpson! He's the greatest guy in history!
From the town of Springfield, he's about to hit a chesnut tree!
AHHHH!":eek:
:D
-
There are all these strange cited papers in one of my math books; can anyone here read French and/or German? Here's a few:
Lecons sur les fonctions inverses des transcendantes et les surfaces isothermes
La serie de Taylor et son prolongement analytique
Sur les fonctions hypergeometriques de plusieurs variables
Vorlesungen uber die theorie der elliptischen modulfunktionen
Grundzuge einer allgemeinen theorie der linearen integralgleichungen
Jacobische elliptische Funktionen, Legendresche elliptische Normalintegrale und spezielle Weierstrazsche Zeta und Sigma Funktionen
Does not mean a thing to me; good thing these are only cited works... :p
gah, all these languages are messed up; why doesn't everyone just write in math? :p
-
Yes, let's all write in math. Oh, what shall we use? How about variables. Wait, those are letters. If you start using letters, then soon you'll be using words! Then you'llbe right back where you started:D
-
I was thinking of just assigning a number to every basic idea and forming an intricate structure of numbers categorized by what they mean. So if we have "math is good," it can be represented by:
math-subj/obj=436-x
is(a,b...|tense)=1(a,b...|x)
good-intensity=25-x
So we have something like:
1( 436-1 , 25-10 | 0 )
Now this would be the ultimate language. ;7
-
You have WAAAAAAAAAYYY to much free time. Get out a little more.:D
-
one : Ahhhhhh!!!!! French canadians!!! :shaking: :shaking:
two: It was Globex, not omnicore, in the episode "Mr. Scorpio and the Globex Corporation" :Nitpickage: !! great episode
three:
(http://members.cox.net/wmcoolmon/images/welcome.gif)
and four : ahhhhhhhh!!! french candians!! :shaking: :nervous: :shaking: *runs*
;)
-
I'm not a Canadian. I'm from the good 'ole USA!!
-
Originally posted by Corhellion
Je parle francais, pars-que Je m'appelle Canadian!
Your name is Canadian? Perhaps you meant je suis Canadien. ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
I was thinking of just assigning a number to every basic idea and forming an intricate structure of numbers categorized by what they mean. So if we have "math is good," it can be represented by:
math-subj/obj=436-x
is(a,b...|tense)=1(a,b...|x)
good-intensity=25-x
So we have something like:
1( 436-1 , 25-10 | 0 )
Now this would be the ultimate language. ;7
That example is merely English written with different symbols.
Mathematics couldn't be used to make a language. Mathematics, no matter how complex, deals with only one quality, that of quantity. The human mind, and thus language, deals with innumerable other sorts of qualities, and these qualities are not quantitative (for if they were, they'd be quantity).
The core of language, or more properly, of languages, is in their relation of meanings. Mathematics' set of relations is limited to a very few, and in fact only two when we fully break them down: + and -. One need only look at the single most obvious example of linguistic terms of relation, the preposition, to see the inadequacy of mathematics in this regard: the meanings of in, at, under, by, to, towards, around, though, with, on, out, over, from, etc., cannot be even remotely accounted for by any mathematical terms.
Moving to a more complex situation, adjectives and adverbs relate to their nouns or verbs/adjectives/other adverbs in ways that, even on the formally grammatical level, are far beyond the capabilities of mathmatics to express or even recognise. Beyond this, the relations of meaning being conveyed through the medium of the grammatical form of the situation are so astoundingly far beyond mathematics' capacity that the very thought of comparision is nonsensical.
I could keep going on to, say, relations of meaning via verbs, meanings conveyed through topics of discourse, meanings conveyed via inflection, emotional meanings (how do you be sarcastic mathmatically?), and so on and so on for as long as one might wish. The coup de gras however, comes with the fact that words have semantic range, which means they could never be pinned down to any one single meaning anyway, thereby utterly defying the most intrinsic nature of mathematics at its very core. But I think I've made my point. :D
-
I'm scared
:nervous:
-
That example is merely English written with different symbols.
This is a very simple example, but my point is that the meanings contained there can be broken down into more general concepts and their their combinations create more specialized meanings. (of course, there is no true logical "elementary building block," but any of a number of them can be used)
One need only look at the single most obvious example of linguistic terms of relation, the preposition, to see the inadequacy of mathematics in this regard: the meanings of in, at, under, by, to, towards, around, though, with, on, out, over, from, etc., cannot be even remotely accounted for by any mathematical terms.
um...every one of those can be reduced to some series of mathematical commands, + and - if you will. Or rather, logical algorithms, but that is basically math. :D
Mathematics couldn't be used to make a language. Mathematics, no matter how complex, deals with only one quality, that of quantity. The human mind, and thus language, deals with innumerable other sorts of qualities, and these qualities are not quantitative (for if they were, they'd be quantity).
Well, anything is quantifyable in some way or another. :p (no such thing as a quality that is not also a quantity)
Beyond this, the relations of meaning being conveyed through the medium of the grammatical form of the situation are so astoundingly far beyond mathematics' capacity that the very thought of comparision is nonsensical.
All language can be reduced to mathematics, so it is simply a subset of mathematics. This is what the field of logical semantics is all about. Mathematics encloses every language out there and much more; give me one example of something that is "astoundingly far beyond mathematics' capacity" and you'll get a cookie. :D
You have WAAAAAAAAAYYY to much free time. Get out a little more.:D
What is this "getting out" you people speak of? :D
-
We should make a thread where Ses (our Language Buff) can duke it out with CP (our math nerd ;) )
High Noon at the 0/K Corral
:D
EDIT: a thread completely dedicate dto it :wink:
-
Sesqui: er...ya, I think, I dunno I was half alseep when I wrote that.
KT: YEAH! That's the one!
Cor
-
It means "Thank you very much, it was very helpful." I'm not going to post en francais, but I was in the middle of French class when I typed the message.:yes:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This is a very simple example, but my point is that the meanings contained there can be broken down into more general concepts and their their combinations create more specialized meanings. (of course, there is no true logical "elementary building block," but any of a number of them can be used)
You aren't breaking them down. You just found a simplistic way to render English into different symbols. French written using your "system" would be different, even as French itself is different from English. If you want to invent a new language, you are going to have to invent a new grammar to govern it.
"Breaking down" the meanings of words is not possible the way you seem to be thinking. First of all, the meanings of words are dynamic, and can't be pinned down the way numbers are. Secondly, the meanings of words are already as simple as they get. I cannot reduce the verb "break" down into simpler components. The meaning of the verb already is as simple as it gets.
um...every one of those can be reduced to some series of mathematical commands, + and - if you will. Or rather, logical algorithms, but that is basically math. :D
Do it then. Give me a full mathematical set of operations that can correspond to all the meanings of the prepositions listed. :D
Well, anything is quantifyable in some way or another. :p (no such thing as a quality that is not also a quantity)
False. "Nice" is not quantitative. "Japanese" is not quantitative. "Attack" is not quantitative. "Perhaps" is not quantitative. "Unknown" is not quantitative.
All language can be reduced to mathematics, so it is simply a subset of mathematics. This is what the field of logical semantics is all about. Mathematics encloses every language out there and much more; give me one example of something that is "astoundingly far beyond mathematics' capacity" and you'll get a cookie. :D
I did: sarcasm. One cannot have a sarcasitic math equation.
-
You aren't breaking them down. You just found a simplistic way to render English into different symbols. French written using your "system" would be different, even as French itself is different from English. If you want to invent a new language, you are going to have to invent a new grammar to govern it.
Not really; every single language out there follows the exact same conventions as far as the meanings go, because they are all based on the same thing: common human experience. (and you can ask a linguist for the details) I agree that the particular one I gave there was a poor example in certain ways, but my point still stands.
"Breaking down" the meanings of words is not possible the way you seem to be thinking. First of all, the meanings of words are dynamic, and can't be pinned down the way numbers are. Secondly, the meanings of words are already as simple as they get. I cannot reduce the verb "break" down into simpler components. The meaning of the verb already is as simple as it gets.
The meanings may be "dynamic," but discrete (or if continuous, can be represented as a real number), and can thus be reduced a multitude of equivalent logical statements. I can certainly reduce "break" into simpler components; its individual meanings are distinct and the word can thus be subdivided into 10 or so parts, each of which carry a more definite meaning, and these can then be reduced to a bunch of logical statements. Where do you think logical semantics comes from? :p This field is all about breaking down linguistic statements into logical statements, and yes, it works. Even computer programming languages are equally as much "languages" as any of the ones in common human use.
Do it then. Give me a full mathematical set of operations that can correspond to all the meanings of the prepositions listed. :D
True/False/indet/etc.
+/-
Iteration
If/then/else
ZF set theory axioms
That should cover most things. :D
False. "Nice" is not quantitative. "Japanese" is not quantitative. "Attack" is not quantitative. "Perhaps" is not quantitative. "Unknown" is not quantitative.[/size]
False. :D Every single one of those is quantitive. We will examine the first one to get the idea. Nice is opposite of whatever, mean, so it can be considered 0 as opposed to 1. Already we have a true/false quantity. What exactly defines "nice" in common usage? We need a precise statement such as this: a person is said to nice if he or she responds to stimuli in category x1 with actions in category x2 under certain given conditions. (the details need to be filled in of course, but this is the general idea) Now, it is easy to see that "nice" actually has a number of meanings; among them are any level of intensity of "nice." (somewhat nice, nice, very nice, etc.) To remove this ambiguity, "nice" can be much further quantified by assigning an intensity value as well, say between 0 and 100. By doing so, we also circumvent the need of the opposite word, "mean," since these two words are just different extremes of the same quantity.
I did: sarcasm. One cannot have a sarcasitic math equation.
It's not like sarcasm is actually of any use, but yes, you can have a sarcastic math equation if so desired. Have some symbol somewhere to indicate that it is intended to be sarcastic, and there you go. (and this is really all that sarcasm is; it is more or less explicit in the sentence, just sometimes a bit hidden, so don't tell me that "this isn't real sarcasm" or some crap like that :D)
This stuff I don't need to argue much on, as you will find the same things in any semantics textbook.
-
can you give an example of a sarcastic math problem? ppllllllllllllleaaaaaaaaaasssssseeeeee !!?
-
ahhh!! You are making my head hurt!!!
-
uhh...
1/G(x) has an infinite number of zeros.
(but actually it has none! there are an infinite number of places where the limit goes to zero, but no actual zeros! get it? hahahaHAhaHAhAHa...hahah...ha... :nervous: )
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Not really; every single language out there follows the exact same conventions as far as the meanings go, because they are all based on the same thing: common human experience. (and you can ask a linguist for the details) I agree that the particular one I gave there was a poor example in certain ways, but my point still stands.
1) No they don't, or learning a new language would merely be a matter of learning new sets of words to substitute for current ones in a one-to-one relationship. Beleive me, I do have some clue what I'm talking about. :wink: 2) Your point does not stand at all, it is precisely what is under contest. D'uh. :rolleyes:;)
The meanings may be "dynamic," but discrete (or if continuous, can be represented as a real number),
1) The meaning of a word is determined only in its context, including, but not limited to, its grammatical context, emotive context, topical context, and extra-linguistic context(s). To speak of them as discrete in the sense you intend is higly misleading, since in any particular contextual situation, the word's "meaning" is being instantised in a way that can never be precisely reproduced in any other situation, ever. You cannot enumerate the meaning/s of a word, for every time a word is used, it acquires a new shade of meaning. 2) A real number is an exact, unchanging quantity. How can a real number represent an amorphous range? (Indeed, "range" itself is only a metaphor in discussing this topic, for there is no set of dimensions in linguistic meaning.)
and can thus be reduced a multitude of equivalent logical statements. I can certainly reduce "break" into simpler components; its individual meanings are distinct and the word can thus be subdivided into 10 or so parts, each of which carry a more definite meaning, and these can then be reduced to a bunch of logical statements.
:lol: As contexts intersect and linguistic situations emerge, certain linguistic expressions are called into play. The precise meaning at that intersection is determined by the intersection, and the expressions used are assigned their meanings by the intersecting contexts. At the intersection points, language brings into use such expressions as can be made to fit the context/s, not the other way around. Thus, a word does not have "10 or so" precise meanings, or even an infinite number of meanings, because the meanings are not, strictly speaking, properties of the words at all. (In case you're wondering, I assume no credit for this brief account, since I am lifting it directly from current linguisitic theory.)
Where do you think logical semantics comes from? :p This field is all about breaking down linguistic statements into logical statements, and yes, it works.
Of course it works. Logical semantics is conducted precisely on the premise of finding out exactly what the meaning assigned to a particular expression was in a given situation. Even computer programming languages are equally as much "languages" as any of the ones in common human use.
Actually, no. That they are called "languages" reflects upon the fact that they were christened by computer programmers, who, being normal human beings, were using metaphor as an intrinsic part of the language. Computer "languages" do not meet the criteria for language, and might more properly be called something like "mathematical function execution sets."
True/False/indet/etc.
+/-
Iteration
If/then/else
ZF set theory axioms
That should cover most things.
Really? :lol: So use those functions (I'll not even raise a fuss right now about differentiation between logic and mathamatics) to explain the meaning of "under" in the sentence "I studied under David Stewart," in comparision to the meaning of "under" in "Ivan worked under atrocious pressure."
False. Every single one of those is quantitive. We will examine the first one to get the idea. Nice is opposite of whatever, mean, so it can be considered 0 as opposed to 1. Already we have a true/false quantity.
Antonymity is not the same as mathematical negativity, any more that synonymity is the same as mathematical equivalency. :rolleyes: Such as description of the situation is a gross caricature. Let's assume one particular meaning of the word "nice" to be in effect for the moment, to which "mean" is the antonym. The relationship between the words is not binary, but more akin to analogue. The actual quality of the person in question is whatever it is (at that moment), and lets say that in can even be fitted somewhere onto the greyscale between the polar opposites of nice and mean. How a particular person might describe the individual in question is dependent entirely on their evaluative perspective. Nestorian Christians living in Persia described Hulaku Khan as magnanimous, wise, and of marvellously high character (and by the standards of the day, it seems he was), whereas we today would doubtless describe him as cruel. Where nice ends and mean begins is not set in any way, but a matter of contextual perspective.
But this constrained version we have just been using of the meaning of nice is not a true description of the situation. Someone may be quite nice in one respect, and not in another, and what is meant by calling him nice is dependent on the speaker's relationship to him in these respects, experience of him, and intended area of evaluative context for the statement. So obviously our simple greyscale between two points fails to account for the situation here, for person A may find person B quite nice about fixing cars but despicably mean when it comes to interior decoration, and her evaluation of him will be affected by what she is refering to when she speaks, the applicability of the various qualities of his nature that she has experienced to her context of speaking, and so on. Person C might describe B in quite a different way than A, even at the same time, if her context of speaking was different.
As we bring in fuller and fuller understandings of the context of a given speech-event, the contextual influences contributing to the meaning of the expressions involved grows ever more complex.
What exactly defines "nice" in common usage? We need a precise statement such as this: a person is said to nice if he or she responds to stimuli in category x1 with actions in category x2 under certain given conditions. (the details need to be filled in of course, but this is the general idea)
I'm afraid the devil is in the details, and he is a very malevolent devil indeed. As has been said, the meaning assigned to a word by the larger web of context/s is a function of the context/s. As an embodiment of the context/s, the word does not have a precise meaning to be stated.
Now, it is easy to see that "nice" actually has a number of meanings; among them are any level of intensity of "nice." (somewhat nice, nice, very nice, etc.) To remove this ambiguity, "nice" can be much further quantified by assigning an intensity value as well, say between 0 and 100. By doing so, we also circumvent the need of the opposite word, "mean," since these two words are just different extremes of the same quantity.
As said above, modern linguistics points out how meaning is not a property of words, but rather that the words are embodiments of meaning. Linguistic expressions have their usefulness precisely because of their flexibility, because of the ambiguity you wish to remove. The idea that one could discretely digitise this is just plain funny. :lol: What happens when the 102nd person enters the room and we have to describe his level of niceness? Then we suddenly find that our 101 levels of niceness do not correspond to the reality we are trying so desperately to pin down. Perhaps if we expand it from a mere 0-100 to a range of values sufficient to accomodate every person who has ever or will ever live? Well, firstly the quantity is unknown, so it would be imposssible to know where to position people, and secondly the niceness of a person is not a simple value: a person might be nice in one way, not at all in another, and somewhat nice in a third, and so on. So how are we to classify him on our grand scale? Beyond this, what if I wasn't talking about nice as a quality of people, but of nice as a property of interior design, or of food, or of a situational development? The antonym in each case is something quite different, making your zero pole of the digital scale correspond to entirely different things in each case. Not exactly precise, is that?
But beyond these niggling, though very telling problems with your system, the whole premise upon which it is constructed is faulty. This (flawed) attempt to quantify "nice" exists only by overlooking the fundamental need to demostrate how "nice" can be given quantitative values in the first place. It is the same sort of problem that undermines utilitarian ethics: how do you measure goodness, happiness, rightness, or in our case, niceness? Where is the 50% mark?
It's not like sarcasm is actually of any use, but yes, you can have a sarcastic math equation if so desired. Have some symbol somewhere to indicate that it is intended to be sarcastic, and there you go. (and this is really all that sarcasm is; it is more or less explicit in the sentence, just sometimes a bit hidden, so don't tell me that "this isn't real sarcasm" or some crap like that)
Sarcasm is the employment of words by language such that the apparent meaning being embodied by them is at odds with the actual meaning. Sarcasm exists precisely in the incongruity between stated and actual meaning. Adding a symbol to indicate sarcasm would be precisely a statement, and thus would in that moment cease to be sarcasm. "I am SO happy," would become merely "I am not so happy." The sarcastic element is destroyed by any attempt to state it.
This stuff I don't need to argue much on, as you will find the same things in any semantics textbook.
:rolleyes::lol:
-
Oh just give SQ his diploma! Maybe then he'll shut up! :D:D:lol:
-
1) No they don't, or learning a new language would merely be a matter of learning new sets of words to substitute for current ones in a one-to-one relationship. Beleive me, I do have some clue what I'm talking about. 2) Your point does not stand at all, it is precisely what is under contest. D'uh.
I will admit that I am no expert on this, but this does not exactly require a linguistics degree to understand. :D
The meaning of a word is determined only in its context, including, but not limited to, its grammatical context, emotive context, topical context, and extra-linguistic context(s). To speak of them as discrete in the sense you intend is higly misleading, since in any particular contextual situation, the word's "meaning" is being instantised in a way that can never be precisely reproduced in any other situation, ever.
Why so? I say that the meaning can indeed be precisely reproduced in any situation, because if it was not so, then words would be totally useless, since each one could mean anything. The fact that we are using words to represent ideas right now and the other guy is able to interpret the words reasonably well means that this is probably not the case.
You cannot enumerate the meaning/s of a word, for every time a word is used, it acquires a new shade of meaning.
So...how do you think that dictionaries are compiled? :p
2) A real number is an exact, unchanging quantity. How can a real number represent an amorphous range? (Indeed, "range" itself is only a metaphor in discussing this topic, for there is no set of dimensions in linguistic meaning.)
um...maybe using a function that returns the intensity? If there is no set of dimensions in linguistic meaning, then linguistic meaning would not exist as an objective quantity, so what you are trying to say is that languages are meaningless? That may be so, but at the moment I don't think we have any better way of symbolizing ideas.
As contexts intersect and linguistic situations emerge, certain linguistic expressions are called into play. The precise meaning at that intersection is determined by the intersection, and the expressions used are assigned their meanings by the intersecting contexts. At the intersection points, language brings into use such expressions as can be made to fit the context/s, not the other way around. Thus, a word does not have "10 or so" precise meanings, or even an infinite number of meanings, because the meanings are not, strictly speaking, properties of the words at all. (In case you're wondering, I assume no credit for this brief account, since I am lifting it directly from current linguisitic theory.)
You see though, when you say that "they are not properties of the word at all," you are also saying that all words mean the same thing, namely, anything. The very fact that meanings exist when put into context, or combinations of words, directly implies that parts of the meanings exist in those words. Otherwise, what would be the point of language in the first place? Every sentence would have its own unique word. :p If you like, you can of course use "contexts" in place of "words" (just assign a number to every context), but it will amount to the same thing in the end.
Of course it works. Logical semantics is conducted precisely on the premise of finding out exactly what the meaning assigned to a particular expression was in a given situation.
And if the meaning assigned to a particular expression exists, the meaning is still fixed. Change the meanings given by words to those of expressions, contexts, paragraphs, or whatever else if you want, but the meanings would still remain fixed for a language to exist in the first place.
Actually, no. That they are called "languages" reflects upon the fact that they were christened by computer programmers, who, being normal human beings, were using metaphor as an intrinsic part of the language. Computer "languages" do not meet the criteria for language, and might more properly be called something like "mathematical function execution sets."
In other words, languages. :p If this merely a metaphor, what is the meaning of the original word? And what are these "criteria for language?" A language is basically just a set of symbols (along with usage and transformation rules) for the representation of abstract ideas. Anything that can represent ideas symbolically would qualify, even a "mathematical function execution set.".
Really? So use those functions (I'll not even raise a fuss right now about differentiation between logic and mathamatics) to explain the meaning of "under" in the sentence "I studied under David Stewart," in comparision to the meaning of "under" in "Ivan worked under atrocious pressure."
These are pretty much the same core functions used by most programming languages out there, and it is certainly possible to program the meanings of either statement into a computer. Both sentences can be restated into something more definite for our purposes here. The first is essentially "I studied and Stewart was my teacher during this," if that is what it's supposed to mean. (it could mean a bunch of other things, too) The second can also be several things, but these two seemed likely to me: "Ivan worked while a physical force was acting on a part of him" or "Ivan worked while his brain was in a state of stress." We thus have at least two meanings of "under," and there are of course many more; they can all be grouped together by at least one certain classification system (the word under) and likely many more, but the important thing is any one of them will work. Therefore, we can change "under" definition number X to a number of other words without changing the meaning. Since each definition has its own unique set of meanings (with a specified context), they can be so partitioned.
Also, math can be considered a subset of logic if the axioms of arithmetic and iteration are assumed, which was done there.
Antonymity is not the same as mathematical negativity, any more that synonymity is the same as mathematical equivalency.
Yes it is, along with a number of other meanings that can also be reduced to positive/negative statements of sorts, but that does not rule out this one. Furthermore, any one of the concepts can likely be used to represent all of the other things. None alone qualify as an elementary base - they all do - but any can be used as such. And of course, if you want to be purposely ambiguous, so that things only make sense in "context," you could just have everything attached to the same symbol anyway.
Such as description of the situation is a gross caricature. Let's assume one particular meaning of the word "nice" to be in effect for the moment, to which "mean" is the antonym. The relationship between the words is not binary, but more akin to analogue. The actual quality of the person in question is whatever it is (at that moment), and lets say that in can even be fitted somewhere onto the greyscale between the polar opposites of nice and mean. How a particular person might describe the individual in question is dependent entirely on their evaluative perspective. Nestorian Christians living in Persia described Hulaku Khan as magnanimous, wise, and of marvellously high character (and by the standards of the day, it seems he was), whereas we today would doubtless describe him as cruel. Where nice ends and mean begins is not set in any way, but a matter of contextual perspective.
What is your point? You keep restricting this to individual words, but those are of little importance here; the ideas carried by them is what we are concerned with. The fact remains that it can be set so. (actually, it must be set so even today for the language to mean anything) If you like, the "contextual perspectives" can be broken down instead of the words, but the fact remains that the meanings still exist for the reason given above. Axioms are decided upon so that the results will be the same, and even in language, such a system exists (it may be complicated, but that doesn't mean much).
Person C might describe B in quite a different way than A, even at the same time, if her context of speaking was different.
In that case, they are not saying the same thing, and we can thus seperate the meanings.
I'm afraid the devil is in the details, and he is a very malevolent devil indeed. As has been said, the meaning assigned to a word by the larger web of context/s is a function of the context/s. As an embodiment of the context/s, the word does not have a precise meaning to be stated.
Okay, replace "word" with "context," and there you go; you still have a system of partitioning. :D
As said above, modern linguistics points out how meaning is not a property of words, but rather that the words are embodiments of meaning.
That is exactly the same thing as a property of words. :p The properties are only readily apparent in groups, but the elements do have properties, or the whole would have no properties either.
Linguistic expressions have their usefulness precisely because of their flexibility, because of the ambiguity you wish to remove. The idea that one could discretely digitise this is just plain funny. What happens when the 102nd person enters the room and we have to describe his level of niceness? Then we suddenly find that our 101 levels of niceness do not correspond to the reality we are trying so desperately to pin down. Perhaps if we expand it from a mere 0-100 to a range of values sufficient to accomodate every person who has ever or will ever live? Well, firstly the quantity is unknown, so it would be imposssible to know where to position people, and secondly the niceness of a person is not a simple value: a person might be nice in one way, not at all in another, and somewhat nice in a third, and so on. So how are we to classify him on our grand scale? Beyond this, what if I wasn't talking about nice as a quality of people, but of nice as a property of interior design, or of food, or of a situational development? The antonym in each case is something quite different, making your zero pole of the digital scale correspond to entirely different things in each case. Not exactly precise, is that?
No no; when I said 1-100, I meant a continuum in that interval. Since "niceness," as you said, needs at least one more element, we can further break it down into a number of other words. We classify the person by the same methods I gave earlier: see how the person responds to various precise actions. Based on the response, it can be determined how "nice" the person is in some given sense, or an average, or whatever else. Such distinctions must exist, no matter how subtle they may be, or, as I said earlier, words (and heck, all language) would be absolutely meaningless, since anything would mean anything else. If this cannot be done (which is quite possible), that means that the concept of "nice" (under any context) is relative and therefore nonsensical.
But beyond these niggling, though very telling problems with your system, the whole premise upon which it is constructed is faulty. This (flawed) attempt to quantify "nice" exists only by overlooking the fundamental need to demostrate how "nice" can be given quantitative values in the first place. It is the same sort of problem that undermines utilitarian ethics: how do you measure goodness, happiness, rightness, or in our case, niceness? Where is the 50% mark?
Very simple: it is arbitrarily defined to be somewhere. It does not matter where, so long as there is a relative point from where everything else can be gauged. The very fact that an idea exists means that it must be quantitative. All quantities are qualititative and all qualities are quantitative; either property can be used to represent ideas.
Sarcasm is the employment of words by language such that the apparent meaning being embodied by them is at odds with the actual meaning. Sarcasm exists precisely in the incongruity between stated and actual meaning. Adding a symbol to indicate sarcasm would be precisely a statement, and thus would in that moment cease to be sarcasm. "I am SO happy," would become merely "I am not so happy." The sarcastic element is destroyed by any attempt to state it.
That seeming incongruity is exactly the symbol that indicates sarcasm, and it is no less a symbol than an explicit marking somewhere would be. All aspects of language are such symbols.
-
Most of this last post reduces to one primary argument, based on a common error of people initially encountering modern linguistic theory: if meaning is not fixed, but contextual, then words can mean anything, and therefore mean nothing. This is not surprising, since my posts up to this point have largely been concerned with pointing out the flexibility and ambiguity of expression, and have thus quite naturally not stressed the other side of the coin so much. Probably the best way to proceed is simply to describe the full picture.
We exist as linguistic beings, embodying our experience through language. Every linguistic event occurs as an attempt to embody meaning/s arising from the context/s we are in. The context/s are endlessly varied, for no two contextual situations are ever identical in this spatio-temporal world, depending on everything from the will of the speaker, through spatial conditions and temporally based experience, to emotive states, levels of attention or distraction, what was last eaten for dinner, and so on (indeed, we are always unaware of nearly all the contextual influences acting in any given linguistic event). The meaning/s arising out of the context/s are unique to that situation, but the purpose of language is to embody the meaning/s sufficiently well to communicate them to another human being. These embodiments are always approximations of the original meaning/s, and language employs its forms of expression in order to approximate the original meaning/s in this way. The language has at its disposal a wide array of possible forms of expression and brings them into play to do so. The language assigns an expression its parameters, and brings it into play when the meaning arising from the contextual situation falls within those parameters. The parameters of an expression are not hard, however, nor are they exclusive. Bounds on an expression may be stretched, and they are fuzzy. They may overlap with those of other expressions (which allows synonymity). Because any expression is defined by its open-ended parameters, not a discreet "point" of meaning, they are of necessity ambiguous, though not absolutely fluid. It is only by painting with a broad brush that language can function at all -- remove the ambiguity, and language cannot function. Meaning is assigned to an expression by the language in regard to the contextual meaning, according to the rules and bounds the language imposes upon it. Thus, expressions cannot mean absolutely anything, but only anything within the bounds of their applicability.
You asked me about dictionary entries. They are attempts to identify the parameters of meaning/s a word can be used to embody. In effect, a dictionary definition tries to paint a broad stroke sketch of the sorts meaning/s a word is used for by the langauge.
You might be affronted by the statement "remove the ambiguity, and the language cannot function." If so, allow me to illustrate with a very classic example. Take the word "leaf." As a noun, it is among the most difficult examples to use for making my point, since nouns are supposed to point to concrete objects. It is because "leaf" is ambiguous, because it blankets over a multitude of discreet particulars, that the word has any use to us at all. The only way to remove the ambiguity would be to assign a noun to each and every leaf of a plant, each and every leaf of a book, each and every leaf of an extendable dining room table, and each and every leaf of every sort in existence. But the impracticality of this would bar us from ever communicting anything. It is the generalisation and resultant ambiguity that makes the term useful as a linguistic expression, allowing us to approximate reality. As another example, take the verb "defeat." This verb does not have an very broad semantic range, and yet "to defeat an enemy army," "to defeat a logic problem," and "to defeat a craving" all mean different things. The ambiguity of the verb is the source of its usefulness. The same can be said of every form of expression a language has.
So you ask me what my point is, and I tell you: ambiguity cannot be eliminated from a language, or is ceases to be a language. Any project to eliminate the ambiguity of language, of which your idea of a mathematical language is a very radical (and fairly innovative) example, cannot end in anything but the destruction of language. Reduce language to nothing but math, and you are left with nothing but math -- language will have disappeared.
This point is demonstrated quite clearly in the issue of "under." Although you did not produce any mathematical expression to equate the linguistic expression "under" as challenged, you did attempt to restate the meanings of the two sentences. Yet the restatements are also subject to the same process, for each word, if questioned regarding its "precise" meaning, can be eliminated from the sentence in such as way as to try to make the meaning of the word in this context clearer. The process would be never-ending if we wished to pursue it, ever trying to define a word by using other words. The reason for this (and indeed it is this observation which largely contributed to modern linguistic theory) is that the ambiguous nature of the words means that we can only give synonyms or synonymous descriptions which overlap the sematic range of the word in question, until the parameters of usage prescribed to the term are closely enough approximated to allow the person a good idea of what they are. This is, of course, very different from mathematical definition, where all definition is a matter of absolute identity, of equivalence in the strictest sense possible. In dealing with language, we do not deal in absolute equivalence, but similarity.
Three things remain to be said:
First, re: partitioning: you will see in the above that seperation of meaning/s is obviously still included in our understanding of language. But the lines of division are not set in stone -- they move, blur, and sometimes even collapse.
Second, re: the "50%" mark: perhaps I did not elucidate my objection clearly enough. We have no measuring stick for niceness. Say I give a friend a sweater, and I give another friend five dollars. Which was more nice? How do we measure it? Or again, what is the absolute maximum of niceness? To what do we point as the embodiment of absolute niceness? Perhaps if we can find that, and also find somthing to point to as the embodiment of the absolute lack of niceness, we will be able to devise a method for measuring degrees between them. But unless we can do so, we cannot identify anything that lies 50% of the way between them. We cannot call niceness quantitative until we have some way to measure it as a quantity. Gravity can be measured, and is thus quantitative, but how do we measure "nice?"
Third, re: sarcasm: no, no, no, the incongruity lies in the relationship between the symbols and the meaning. I understand what you are trying to say, but think of it this way: adding a "sarcasm symbol" would be roughly analogous to placing brackets around a mathematical expression and putting a negative sign out in front of it all. But in so doing, I am only negating the statement. Sarcasm is not the negating of the statement; negation does that. ("I am so happy," becoming "I am not so happy.") Sarcasm is the using of the symbols -- all the symbols, collectively -- to communicate the opposite of what they should communicate. So the statement is negated, but precisely on a level other than the symbolic one. Sarcasm is thus a relationship between symbols and meaning, not a symbol itself.
-
Did anyone notice that this discussion is getting a wee bit out of hand?
I mean, Jesus Christ! You have enough text for a frickin' thesis in your argument!
-
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*runs away from thread screaming*
-
-
Too...MANY...WORDS!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
*Runs away from thread in opposite direction of GalaticEmperor*
-
I like tomatoes. Do you?
:nervous:
-
More of them coming up... ;7
We exist as linguistic beings, embodying our experience through language. Every linguistic event occurs as an attempt to embody meaning/s arising from the context/s we are in. The context/s are endlessly varied, for no two contextual situations are ever identical in this spatio-temporal world, depending on everything from the will of the speaker, through spatial conditions and temporally based experience, to emotive states, levels of attention or distraction, what was last eaten for dinner, and so on (indeed, we are always unaware of nearly all the contextual influences acting in any given linguistic event). The meaning/s arising out of the context/s are unique to that situation, but the purpose of language is to embody the meaning/s sufficiently well to communicate them to another human being. These embodiments are always approximations of the original meaning/s, and language employs its forms of expression in order to approximate the original meaning/s in this way. The language has at its disposal a wide array of possible forms of expression and brings them into play to do so. The language assigns an expression its parameters, and brings it into play when the meaning arising from the contextual situation falls within those parameters. The parameters of an expression are not hard, however, nor are they exclusive. Bounds on an expression may be stretched, and they are fuzzy. They may overlap with those of other expressions (which allows synonymity). Because any expression is defined by its open-ended parameters, not a discreet "point" of meaning, they are of necessity ambiguous, though not absolutely fluid. It is only by painting with a broad brush that language can function at all -- remove the ambiguity, and language cannot function. Meaning is assigned to an expression by the language in regard to the contextual meaning, according to the rules and bounds the language imposes upon it.
All of those are just characteristics of the common languages of today. Look at what a language in the generality really is - forget about today's common languages and think in more abstract terms. As I said earlier, any system that symbolizes ideas into a form of simpler representation (for communication, deduction, etc.) is a language. Languages were designed to express ideas through symbolic representations, and any consistent system that does this qualifies perfectly as a language. The computer programming languages are therefore just as much languages - never mind that they are called "languages," they can be called shivans for all we care (:D) - since they satisfy the required conditions. (they express ideas in symbols) Even random markings in the dirt are a language if there exists a set of precise rules for interpreting them into ideas. The "math language" I had in mind will be basically the same thing as a programming language; different syntax, but the same general structure.
Now you say that no two contextual situations are ever identical, which is true, but it is not saying much. (it is like saying that no two distinct numbers are equal) They may not be equal, but the important thing is that patterns exist that determine their inequalities. The very fact that language is capable of "assigning expressions [their] parameters," regardless of how fluid those parameters may be, means that the meanings must have patterns, or else language would not be able to do anything whatsoever. As for the fluidity of the parameters of expressions, it may well be so, but it does not have to be so. All of the common languages have it so, but then we have the programming languages for which this does not hold, and they work equally well. (better, in fact) We know that ideas cannot be partitioned into quantized parts due to the concept of ideal continuity but that is not at all necessary here; we need only seperate them into intervals defined by functions, and these can be fine-point intervals that do not overlap. In regards to the last sentence, that is absolutely correct, but the contextual meaning is just as much of a part of the expression as its constituent words are. (no, it does not have to be actually written in there to be a part of it, as you should well know) What you are saying here is the equivalent of asserting that, say, English is the only "true" language, and if you remove English words and conventions out of the language system, you would have no language. (actually, there are people who claim just this :D)
Thus, expressions cannot mean absolutely anything, but only anything within the bounds of their applicability.
Oh, so now they do have bounds to their applicability. So such bounds exist, and the words/contexts/whatever can thus be classified.
So you ask me what my point is, and I tell you: ambiguity cannot be eliminated from a language, or is ceases to be a language. Any project to eliminate the ambiguity of language, of which your idea of a mathematical language is a very radical (and fairly innovative) example, cannot end in anything but the destruction of language. Reduce language to nothing but math, and you are left with nothing but math -- language will have disappeared.
You are telling me that a language should deliberately be made ambiguous? :wtf: In that case, the ultimate language would be to have, say, the same symbol mean everything. :D
First, re: partitioning: you will see in the above that seperation of meaning/s is obviously still included in our understanding of language. But the lines of division are not set in stone -- they move, blur, and sometimes even collapse.
Exactly, and that is the main flaw with the common languages. This, however, is not a necessary characteristic of language in general insofar as it contributes to the purpose and utility of language.
Second, re: the "50%" mark: perhaps I did not elucidate my objection clearly enough. We have no measuring stick for niceness. Say I give a friend a sweater, and I give another friend five dollars. Which was more nice? How do we measure it? Or again, what is the absolute maximum of niceness? To what do we point as the embodiment of absolute niceness? Perhaps if we can find that, and also find somthing to point to as the embodiment of the absolute lack of niceness, we will be able to devise a method for measuring degrees between them. But unless we can do so, we cannot identify anything that lies 50% of the way between them. We cannot call niceness quantitative until we have some way to measure it as a quantity. Gravity can be measured, and is thus quantitative, but how do we measure "nice?"
You don't, unless the differences between the applied test situations lie within a certain interval. Again, you need to establish exact and precise conditions for a "niceness test" to be valid, and give equally precise "niceness" intensity values based on the parameters of the test. Heck, how else would you judge this "niceness" anyway? I said this before: even the common languages have such standards, even if they are not explicitly "set in stone," because the words would otherwise have no real meaning in common usage. Of course, these standards are very messy due to the way they have come into usage and need to be rewritten from the ground up, but that is a mere technicality. Either one of two conditions must hold here: such standards exist in some way, or the word is completely meaningless. Of course, the word "nice" is indeed a pretty meaningless term today since it could mean just about anything, but that is because the standards need to be revised.
Third, re: sarcasm: no, no, no, the incongruity lies in the relationship between the symbols and the meaning. I understand what you are trying to say, but think of it this way: adding a "sarcasm symbol" would be roughly analogous to placing brackets around a mathematical expression and putting a negative sign out in front of it all. But in so doing, I am only negating the statement. Sarcasm is not the negating of the statement; negation does that. ("I am so happy," becoming "I am not so happy.") Sarcasm is the using of the symbols -- all the symbols, collectively -- to communicate the opposite of what they should communicate. So the statement is negated, but precisely on a level other than the symbolic one. Sarcasm is thus a relationship between symbols and meaning, not a symbol itself.
A relationship like this is just another symbol. It by no means has to be explicitly written down to qualify as a symbol. All aspects of language are like this, and sarcasm is no exception. Adding a symbol of sarcasm somewhere in sentence will be no different than the current symbol for those who are used to it. We have all been brought up with one of the languages in popular use (e.g. English), and these all have the same symbol for this particular idea; we thus are much more used to seeing and interpreting this particular symbol as sarcasm, but we do not want to lose sight of the fact that other, radically different methods of symbolizing ideas exist are equally "good" at whatever purpose they serve.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Languages were designed to express ideas through symbolic representations, and any consistent system that does this qualifies perfectly as a language.
This definition of language and its function is inadequate. Language is and does more that just represention of ideas. Language can be exhortative, imperative, descriptive, emotive, evaluative, and more, but above all, language's function is COMMUNICATION, which is something computer "languages" do not do. Computer "languages" perform operations on data, they do not communicate.
Oh, so now they do have bounds to their applicability. So such bounds exist, and the words/contexts/whatever can thus be classified.
:wtf: Of course they can be classified. The difference is the nature of that classification. Expressions are not digital, discreet, fixed entities like numbers.
It is the ambiguity of an expression, its flexibility and capacity for covering a range of meanings, that allows it to approximate reality, to put it into managable form. The patterns of mathematics are unambiguous, precise, digital. The patterns of language are of necessity ambiguous, broad, and diffuse around the edges. I point you again to the example of "leaf." It is only be painting over the incredible diversity of real leaves with the single term "leaf" that we are able to see a pattern; it is only by being ambiguous that classification is possible in language.
Language is meant to approximate meaning in order that we might communicate. There is no such thing as an "ultimate language" for which to strive. The possibility of useful language exists only by following the middle way, balancing ambiguity and precision. Going to either extreme destroys language and the possibility of communication. Neither absolute precision, with a word for every single shade of meaning in all of reality, nor a single resounding "Om" (the Hindu/Buddhist word representing Everything) would be useful for communication.
Utter precision is possible in mathematics because 2 is 2 is 2, and 2 can be understood as only one thing, the quantity 2. Language deals with a world where in any one referent there are a multiplicity of qualities to be seen, and thus its terms have to have the flexibility to deal with multiple qualities simultaneously. Math can be precise because it has to deal with only one quality, that of quantity. Language does not have that luxury; ambiguity and approximation are the rules of the game.
We know that ideas cannot be partitioned into quantized parts due to the concept of ideal continuity but that is not at all necessary here; we need only seperate them into intervals defined by functions, and these can be fine-point intervals that do not overlap.
Well, you're halfway there now. We've re-established ambiguity and left behind the idea of quantanization. Now all you are looking for is the elimination of synonymity. But I'm afraid that will have to be brought back in, too. Words exist in heirarchy. Foliage is a broader term that leaf, subsuming leaf under itself. Can we have a chihuahua which isn't also a dog? A dog which isn't a mammal? If we do not have semantic overlap, our ability to discuss reality and communicate the meanings behind our expressions will be so severely stunted as to be well-nigh useless.
A relationship like this is just another symbol. It by no means has to be explicitly written down to qualify as a symbol. All aspects of language are like this, and sarcasm is no exception. Adding a symbol of sarcasm somewhere in sentence will be no different than the current symbol for those who are used to it. We have all been brought up with one of the languages in popular use (e.g. English), and these all have the same symbol for this particular idea; we thus are much more used to seeing and interpreting this particular symbol as sarcasm, but we do not want to lose sight of the fact that other, radically different methods of symbolizing ideas exist are equally "good" at whatever purpose they serve.
Yet sarcasm would cease to exist if rendered into a symbol. We can certainly convey nearly the same meaning by using a simple negative statement (i.e. by simply stating "I am not happy," instead of the sarcastic "I am SO happy."), but the simple negative statement is not sarcastic. The reason for this is that there are at least two levels of operation in any communication. On the one hand we have the obvious and apparent symbolic level of communication, the level of words and phrases and grammar and the like, and on the other the metasymbolic level, which lies above/behind/below (whichever preposition you prefer) the symbolic level, consisting of emotive content, implied meanings, body languge, and the like. Sarcasm exists when the negative element of the full communication is placed on the metasymbolic level. If one brings the negation down into the symbolic level, the communication ceases to be sarcastic, and becomes merely negative.
-
This definition of language and its function is inadequate. Language is and does more that just represention of ideas. Language can be exhortative, imperative, descriptive, emotive, evaluative, and more, but above all, language's function is COMMUNICATION, which is something computer "languages" do not do. Computer "languages" perform operations on data, they do not communicate.
Actually, yes they do; the very act of encoding ideas into symbols and decoding them back elsewhere is communication of sorts. (you cannot really define communication otherwise) But regardless of that, all of the extra things you gave are simply forms of symbolic representation of some sort or another. Then there is another important sub-purpose of language, possibly even more so than communication: that of deduction. You probably know that our brains tend to think and reason on a linguistic level, using whatever language we have been brought up with. When we think, our brains first convert everything into the symbolic language (since it is easier to work with and transform) and then, once the deductive process is complete, convert everything back. (which is why people who speak different languages tend to have slightly different methods of thinking; the same would be true for a mathematical language and people familiar with it instead)
It is the ambiguity of an expression, its flexibility and capacity for covering a range of meanings, that allows it to approximate reality, to put it into managable form. The patterns of mathematics are unambiguous, precise, digital. The patterns of language are of necessity ambiguous, broad, and diffuse around the edges. I point you again to the example of "leaf." It is only be painting over the incredible diversity of real leaves with the single term "leaf" that we are able to see a pattern; it is only by being ambiguous that classification is possible in language.
eh? The word leaf is a more generalized word than that representing a certain kind of leaf would be, but not necessarily ambiguous in the way you mean. It would be ambiguous, were it not for the existence of other words that give more specific meanings. Although actually, it is indeed quite ambiguous in a different sort of way in the plural form, that is, in a bad sort of way. There needs to be something to indicate which of a few things the word leaves means (in its current state, it can mean any of them): a homogenous group of a certain class of leaves (where the type is arbitrary, but there is only one type), the set of all individual leaves in existence, the set of all classes of leaves in existence (of course, this needs a "class level" specified as well), and some other such things.
Language is meant to approximate meaning in order that we might communicate. There is no such thing as an "ultimate language" for which to strive. The possibility of useful language exists only by following the middle way, balancing ambiguity and precision. Going to either extreme destroys language and the possibility of communication. Neither absolute precision, with a word for every single shade of meaning in all of reality, nor a single resounding "Om" (the Hindu/Buddhist word representing Everything) would be useful for communication.
Utter precision is possible in mathematics because 2 is 2 is 2, and 2 can be understood as only one thing, the quantity 2. Language deals with a world where in any one referent there are a multiplicity of qualities to be seen, and thus its terms have to have the flexibility to deal with multiple qualities simultaneously. Math can be precise because it has to deal with only one quality, that of quantity. Language does not have that luxury; ambiguity and approximation are the rules of the game.
I still don't see why deliberate ambiguity is of any use, though. You could say that common language is somewhere in middle ground of the two extremes, but that's not necessarily a good thing. But like I said earlier, there exist representations in which all things are quantities (just as all things can be reduced to quality) and if the world is viewed as such, the two subdivisions of representation, communication and deduction, will both greatly benefit.
Well, you're halfway there now. We've re-established ambiguity and left behind the idea of quantanization. Now all you are looking for is the elimination of synonymity. But I'm afraid that will have to be brought back in, too. Words exist in heirarchy. Foliage is a broader term that leaf, subsuming leaf under itself. Can we have a chihuahua which isn't also a dog? A dog which isn't a mammal? If we do not have semantic overlap, our ability to discuss reality and communicate the meanings behind our expressions will be so severely stunted as to be well-nigh useless.
What you are talking about there is not synonymity at all, but specialization. For a synonymity condition to hold between two words, each one must imply the other, but that is not the case there. (a chihuahua implies a dog, but a dog does not necessarily imply a chihuahua; what is a chihuahua anyway? :p) I said earlier that things can be categorized by exactly these same forms of specialization, with some Om-like word to represent the top of our heirarchy and things getting more and more specialized down the pyramid. There is no unique way of performing such a categorization, but any of the (infinite) number of classification systems will work for our purposes. As for true synonymity, you probably know that it is actually pretty rare, since even two relatively synonymous words tend to have some small, subtle differences in the final meaning, with all other parameters set to be constant. (and if two word/context/etc. combinations mean exactly the same thing, then we can discard one of them anyway)
Yet sarcasm would cease to exist if rendered into a symbol. We can certainly convey nearly the same meaning by using a simple negative statement (i.e. by simply stating "I am not happy," instead of the sarcastic "I am SO happy."), but the simple negative statement is not sarcastic. The reason for this is that there are at least two levels of operation in any communication. On the one hand we have the obvious and apparent symbolic level of communication, the level of words and phrases and grammar and the like, and on the other the metasymbolic level, which lies above/behind/below (whichever preposition you prefer) the symbolic level, consisting of emotive content, implied meanings, body languge, and the like. Sarcasm exists when the negative element of the full communication is placed on the metasymbolic level. If one brings the negation down into the symbolic level, the communication ceases to be sarcastic, and becomes merely negative.
That is simply the way that our brains are trained to think due to our upbringings with one of the common languages. To someone who is used to speaking a language where sarcasm is indeed denoted by an explicit marking, it will carry the same meaning and convey the same appreciation that the conventional sarcasm does for us. Such ideas merely have the properties; it is for us to give those properties meanings. Also, these two levels of operation you talk of are really the same things at their cores, each being completely integral to the operation of the other in the systems of today, and no linguistic theory can be complete until it unites the two. (when we make distinctions for deductive purposes, we must keep in mind that these are not absolute)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, yes they do; the very act of encoding ideas into symbols and decoding them back elsewhere is communication of sorts. (you cannot really define communication otherwise)
Computer "languages" pick up numerical data, manipulate them, and produce results. There is no interchange between minds, nor is there understanding of the data involved, for there is no one to understand. The opportunity to communicate does not exist, and the "communication of sorts" described is merely a poorly metaphorical sort of communication at best.
*bit about deduction*
I assume you meant analysis, not deduction, given the use of the term in the paragraph. But anyway, of course; analysis is a pre-requisite of communication, and an indispensible function of language, though the primary purpose of language is communication.
eh? The word leaf is a more generalized word than that representing a certain kind of leaf would be, but not necessarily ambiguous in the way you mean.
am-bi-gu-i-ty (am bi gyue'i tee) n. pl. <-ties>
1. doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or
intention: to speak with ambiguity.
2. the condition of admitting more than one
meaning.
Leaf of a plant, leaf of a book, leaf of an extendable table, just to name three. I have been using ambiguity in the technical sense, meaning not that an expression should be hard to understand (def. 1), but that an expression must admit to multiple meanings (def. 2). Generalisation entails ambiguity. At its most fundamental level, "leaf" is ambiguous, for by it I may mean this oak leaf, or this oak leaf, or this oak leaf, or this...
I still don't see why deliberate ambiguity is of any use, though. You could say that common language is somewhere in middle ground of the two extremes, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
On the level of practicality, lack of ambiguity would require a vocabulary of near-infinite size, for we would need a word for every meaning in every context ever. Obviously that can't happen, so ambiguity (generalisation, if you prefer) is a necessary part of human langauge. Moreover, absolute precision would disbar us from being able to make generalisations, and thus from recognising patterns, and thus of learning how to cope in this world. One can't have an unambiguous langauge. One just can't.
But like I said earlier, there exist representations in which all things are quantities
Not unless and until you can measure them. I take you back to the "niceness" problem. That's way language has to deal in qualities.
What you are talking about there is not synonymity at all, but specialization...
I was in a hurry, and figured the direction of the syllogism was apparent. In your original words, you said you wanted to eliminate semantic overlap. I mentioned synonymity as one prime example of that, and subclassification as another. I ran with the second as my example of why overlap is necessary, and assumed the implications would also be obvious for the first. I see now that in my hurry my wording was not clear on that.
Oh, and a chihuahua is one of a breed of small, ugly, Mexican dogs. :D
To someone who is used to speaking a language where sarcasm is indeed denoted by an explicit marking, it will carry the same meaning and convey the same appreciation that the conventional sarcasm does for us.
We may as well talk about how arithmetic will work for someone living in a world where 2+2¹4.
sar-casm (sär'kaz uhm) n.
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
i-ro-ny (ie'ruh nee, ie'uhr-) n. pl. <-nies>
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that
is the opposite of its literal meaning.
If a written or spoken symbol is used to convey the sarcasm (that is, the harsh or bitter irony), then it is part of, in every sense, the literal meaning of the expression. Thus sarcasm cannot, by definition, be written.
Anyway, congratulations. We've managed to drive everyone else out of this thread. They aren't even complaining anymore. :D
-
good god!
*stands back and looks at the BIGGEST Off-Topic thread he's ever seen*
I have a feeling that before this ends...it'll be owned
Cor
-
Computer "languages" pick up numerical data, manipulate them, and produce results. There is no interchange between minds, nor is there understanding of the data involved, for there is no one to understand. The opportunity to communicate does not exist, and the "communication of sorts" described is merely a poorly metaphorical sort of communication at best.
If you want to put it that way, there is no "understanding" involved between humans either. There is absolutely no system to define "interchange between minds" in such a way that involves humans but not anything else. The communication exists in this situation just as much as it would when two humans talk.
Leaf of a plant, leaf of a book, leaf of an extendable table, just to name three. I have been using ambiguity in the technical sense, meaning not that an expression should be hard to understand (def. 1), but that an expression must admit to multiple meanings (def. 2). Generalisation entails ambiguity. At its most fundamental level, "leaf" is ambiguous, for by it I may mean this oak leaf, or this oak leaf, or this oak leaf, or this...
The first "leaf" you put in there is really the main definition of the word; the other two are secondary, and other words exist that mean pretty much the same thing. Of course an expression can have multiple meanings, but then it should be specifically indicated that the expression is intended to have multiple meanings as opposed to a specific meaning, and which possible meanings are available, since it can have multiple meanings without carrying all possible meanings attached to the word. (e.g. a variable in math is denoted as such because it is a variable and can represent a range of numbers, and sometimes a range of inequalities is given as well) In the end, you would still effectively only have one meaning. This what I was saying earlier.
On the level of practicality, lack of ambiguity would require a vocabulary of near-infinite size, for we would need a word for every meaning in every context ever. Obviously that can't happen, so ambiguity (generalisation, if you prefer) is a necessary part of human langauge. Moreover, absolute precision would disbar us from being able to make generalisations, and thus from recognising patterns, and thus of learning how to cope in this world. One can't have an unambiguous langauge. One just can't.
Not exactly, since there are not all that many different word/context combinations out there anyway that cannot be quickly built from others. (at the most fundamental level, you have the logic and math things I gave earlier) You have, for example, FS2, which has lots of new ideas built from just the basic C++ commands. The problem with today's system in the way that these combinations are categorized - the classification is completely jumbled up - and that is primarily what a math language would change. As for the last statements, I yet again give you the existence of computer programming languages.
Not unless and until you can measure them. I take you back to the "niceness" problem. That's way language has to deal in qualities.
I already told you: that quantity is to some extent measurable, or it would make no sense to us at all today. It might be possible to make it far more measurable through the methods I gave earlier, but if not, there is no point in keeping this quantity in our system anyway.
If a written or spoken symbol is used to convey the sarcasm (that is, the harsh or bitter irony), then it is part of, in every sense, the literal meaning of the expression. Thus sarcasm cannot, by definition, be written.
Again, that is only the definition we choose to assign this particular property. It can be assigned any other. Once again, this is the equivalent of saying something like the only "true" sarcasm is the one offered by use of the English language. It is simply a matter of what one is used to.
I was in a hurry, and figured the direction of the syllogism was apparent. In your original words, you said you wanted to eliminate semantic overlap. I mentioned synonymity as one prime example of that, and subclassification as another. I ran with the second as my example of why overlap is necessary, and assumed the implications would also be obvious for the first. I see now that in my hurry my wording was not clear on that.
I said that I wanted to eliminate true synonymity, or bidirectional overlap, where each word/context/whatever implies the other. (not just one-way) These kinds of combinations are certainly quite useless, so we can drop one.
Oh, and a chihuahua is one of a breed of small, ugly, Mexican dogs.
I thought I had heard that word somewhere before, but I had no idea what it was... :p :D
Anyway, congratulations. We've managed to drive everyone else out of this thread. They aren't even complaining anymore.
That has always been the case in the arguments I participated in; I guess the issues tend to bore everyone soon. Ah well, it has been getting a bit pointless anyway. hey, you started it! :D :D