[Galemp]

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*runs away from thread screaming*

[Sesquipedalian]

[Su-tehp]

Too...MANY...WORDS!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

*Runs away from thread in opposite direction of GalaticEmperor*

[Black Wolf]

I like tomatoes. Do you?

[CP5670]

More of them coming up...

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 () - 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 )

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? In that case, the ultimate language would be to have, say, the same symbol mean everything.

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.

[Sesquipedalian]

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.

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.

[CP5670]

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? ) 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)

[Sesquipedalian]

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.

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.

[Corhellion]

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

[CP5670]

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...

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!