Should language mean stuff?

Tools    





You ready? You look ready.
What I meant was some people *cough*you*cough* take it too far by saying language is voodoo hoodoo. That's not the point of Derrida's work.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
It ain't hoodoo, but it's more complex than most people make it out to be, especially in how it relates to reality, which is the most important part of what PoL is.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I have to admit that I've been trying to avoid this thread, and before I go back and read everything, I'm going to do what I normally do. I'm just going to make a comment based on the title and "my vibe". Yes, "language should mean stuff". The problem is that the stuff doesn't even have to be true. Language can be a way to confuse or misdirect people; codes, for example. Spoken language can usually be explained, at least if the person you're talking to cares enough to figure out something they don't understand. Written language is really the key, killer idea to me though because you will probably have more people read what you say than hear what you say, at least unless you're a teacher or some kinda boss in the workplace. I try to make my written language very clear, but I'll admit that it can be a problem when I'm trying to convey more than one thought to different groups of people by only speaking one set of words. That's when you really learn if "language means stuff', and based on my experience, it doesn't as much as it should. Powdered Water gets me most of the time though. HA!
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Far be it for me to even attempt to sound profound on this jive; so I'll just try and sum up my thoughts with a few quotes from some other...clever-er-er cats...

What words say does not last. The words last. Because words are always the same, and what they say is never the same. ~Antonio Porchia

No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous. ~Henry Brooks Adams

The existing phrasebooks are inadequate. They are well enough as far as they go, but when you fall down and skin your leg they don't tell you what to say. ~Mark Twain




planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Misc. reply:

Is this really an argument about whether or not words actually mean something?
Nah, that's just Shout Tyrant's way of poisoning the well. It's actually about whether language should be top-down standardized. For once, Yoda is a liberal.

it doesn't as much as it should
How much should it mean then? What is the standard? The point I'm trying to make is that it can only mean so much, and it means as much as it can when it is allowed to flow.

There are atomic words from which further meaning cannot be extracted . . .
Like what? Do these logical atoms also correspond to materials? I think this is a highly contentious way to open your post. The existence of basic propositions would render everything I'm saying absolutely moot.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
I feel more has been said in these past three posts than in this entire thread.



Like what? Do these logical atoms also correspond to materials? I think this is a highly contentious way to open your post. The existence of basic propositions would render everything I'm saying absolutely moot.
Well, it is a meaningful term in linguistics. I'm sorry if you feel I'm somehow stepping on toes. Language is intrinsically referential and there are certain fixed concepts derived from human perception which are the basis for atomic words. However...

"It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial repositories, put together well after the languages they define. The roots of language are irrational and of a magical nature." -Jorge Luis Borges

I'm not sure you really understood the gist of my previous post, however, since I was not absolutely claiming language is inflexible.

Words themselves are compound symbols, symbols only valid insofar as the mind can recognize their content. Meaning itself is most likely established collectively, and the individual cannot grossly neglect shared definitions although there is always a reasonable amount of "wiggle room" for idiosyncratic expression.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Anyway, I'm no expert, but I tend to think that form/biology itself must dictate to some extent a cross-language similitude in basic structure and ideation. I speculate that subject/object formulations are fundamental to language even when masked by cultural semantics.

To return to the matter of the language/reality relation from my earlier post, I would add that I think said natural bipolarity of language is reflective of the nature of the mind itself, and that that mental nature is also reflective of the nature of reality.



So, yes, I would say there is a foundational logical/atomic structure to language which corresponds to the material universe.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Your Borges quote speaks strictly against logical atomism.

It is not merely that language can be flexible. It is that its very basis is either nonexistent or only retroactively made existent and only then for a very short amount of time as memes diverge.

There is also the matter that words are never precise either in themselves or in a sentence.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm somehow stepping on toes.
It is only insofar as late Wittgenstein stepped on the toes of early Wittgenstein.

It is very contentious to claim the existence of basic propositions. I can't say I have a strong opinion on the matter yet other than the matter is not at all clear.



I should point out, this can also apply to mathematics as a language. The fundamental informative dialectic duality is present there, as well.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Yeah. No system like that can be complete and fully self-consistent. And if any system was going to be like that, it would have been maths. Language is already a clusterf*ck just looking at it. Our grammar in particular is super adaptable. Languages like Japanese emphasizes word order more, which definitely cuts down on the ambiguity.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Misc. reply:

How much should it mean then? What is the standard? The point I'm trying to make is that it can only mean so much, and it means as much as it can when it is allowed to flow.
When you mention "flow" do you mean two or more people having a discussion where everyone is listening and nobody is interrupting, or do you mean something we can all read and where we visually see the flow? I believe they have two different intents and meanings. In a conversation, someone can always correct a misinterpretation if desired, but not so much when reading a novel, article or post. Remember, I just checked into this thread so excuse me if I missed it.

I'm also not as articulate as will.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
I meant how we learn new words. It's rarely that someone teaches them to us. We pick up on the meaning through its usage. And it can never be fully understood apart from this usage. Take dictionary definitions, example sentences are key. A word without a sentence is hardly anything.

Children aren't really taught words per se. We do have vocabulary lessons, but those more or less strengthen our actual capabilities to learn words then serve as the basis for learning words. Children learn through mimicry and this never changes. Every phrasing in my last sentence has been some kind of mimicry. No one taught me how to do it. It couldn't be taught. One of the hardest things to teach is writing. One just has to have an "ear" for it. This of course includes words, grammar, and style.

So mimicry is the flow and anything can be mimicked.



Your Borges quote speaks strictly against logical atomism.
Yep, and I wrote "however" before it.

It is not merely that language can be flexible. It is that its very basis is either nonexistent or only retroactively made existent and only then for a very short amount of time as memes diverge.

There is also the matter that words are never precise either in themselves or in a sentence.
Objectivity and subjectivity form a continuum of reference.

"Precise" description is more a matter of practical functionality, since these are arbitrary semantic abstractions approximating their referents. When description is isomorphic to that which is described, it can be said to be equal to reality.

It is only insofar as late Wittgenstein stepped on the toes of early Wittgenstein.

It is very contentious to claim the existence of basic propositions. I can't say I have a strong opinion on the matter yet other than the matter is not at all clear.
Contentious, hm? To you?

I've pointed out that objective/subjective basis repeatedly.



Yeah. No system like that can be complete and fully self-consistent. And if any system was going to be like that, it would have been maths. Language is already a clusterf*ck just looking at it. Our grammar in particular is super adaptable. Languages like Japanese emphasizes word order more, which definitely cuts down on the ambiguity.
I'm guessing that some ambiguity is essential and unavoidable.