|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I got interested in this topic in the diaspora thread but kept getting lost in all the overlapping conversations. Amemeba stated that a word needs: 1)a referent 2)a symbol for the referent 3)an entity that can percieve the association She also introduced the concept of whether or not a red light, as a symbol for stop, is a word. (did I get that right?) The difference between words and symbols is the same as the difference between apples and fruit; all words are symbols but not all symbols are words. For me the line is drawn at the ability use them in a conversation to exchange ideas. A red light may be used to provide information on a basic level and like many words it has more than one meaning  but it would merely interrupt a conversation. Any takers? Speaking of conversations I started this one because I want to have one, especially with all the new opinions-I mean people- on board rather than reread an old conversation. So if this is a yart for you just ignore us and let us play. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I think the diaspora word discussion got off track when we got confused about the difference between the concepts of word and representation of word. I like your restrictions on a symbol that qualify it as a word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
1)a referent
2)a symbol for the referent
3)an entity that can percieve the association
Well, that's astart, but some (de Saussure for one) think that the referent is not the actual object in reality, but the concept in the noggin of the entity doing the perceiving. Many nouns do not refer to concrete objects, but to a myriad of abstract ones. Then, there's the sign, or word uttered, versus the sign of the sign of word printed out. It's not an easy mapping from one to the other either. Others have got caught up in the how the sign is related to the referent. For example, Peirce came up with a three-way classification of signs: symbol, index, and icon. The first one is the sign par exellence that Saussure talks about: a totally arbitrary, and by convention, relationship of the sign and the signified. The second one is kind of like the deictic particles (pronouns, adverbs of place, etc) that we discussed in another thread. The final one is a sign that some how resembles the referent: e.g., the whole bow-wow theory of language origin.
So, if I use something that looks like a word, e.g., vyerng, and get others to understand that by this new word, I mean "the joy one takes in winning an impossible argument against foes who are irrational". Well, is it a word or ain't it? Some would say it's slang or jargon or private vocabulary. But if only 15 out of those speaking English recognize and understand it, is it a word. I'm not really sure.
Your turn.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
The difference between words and symbols is the same as the difference between apples and fruit; all words are symbols but not all symbols are words. For me the line is drawn at the ability use them in a conversation to exchange ideas. This sounds good to me, Zed. Just think of announcers saying, "The artist formerly known as Prince". Hey--has anybody heard how he pronounces it?
(Perhaps a PM of the answer would be in order; I don't want to sidetrack Zed's discussion.)
It's interesting, thinking about words as symbols. Having just read the thread about pot-boilers, I'll use the word POT. I believe it is true that most of us tend to ascribe meaning in terms of what we're most familiar with--or at least, to start there. To me, this arrangement of lines that form the word POT brings up a mental image of something to cook in; though not likely the exact same image as anyone else's; a secondary image that might come to mind is the idea of a chamber pot, or someone "sitting on the pot", as my father-in-law used to say; but then, for someone who regularly smokes marijuana, the immediate mental image might be of the plant. And all of that without even considering any other language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 33
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 33 |
In other words, Zed, you say that all words are symbols but all symbols are not words. This seems true but this could be better understood if we could come to a tighter definition of the word "symbol".
As in the Mt. Fuji question that was asked during the diaspora discussion - Is all we that we perceive through our senses of sight, sound, taste, smell, feel, and intuition, merely symbolic of the real world rather than a direct interaction with the real world absolute?
This seems to be a fundamental question about words.
And about us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19 |
Everything is symbolic and nothing is absolute. All is only as your perceive it. What does a red light mean to a blind person. Nothing. It only useful for those who can perceive its value. Furthermore the spoken word would be perceived differently by a deaf person who feels the words rather than hears them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
the spoken word would be perceived differently by a deaf person who feels the words rather than hears them
... which begs the question, Shellb. Are the "signs" used by the deaf in sign language "symbols" or "words"? Or are they "word symbols"?
And where does one draw the line between a word and a symbol, such as an ideogram?
And does all of this amount to a distinction without a difference when we are discussing words composed of letters which have overt meaning to a group, however small, absent the unnecessary complication of comparing "words" with "symbols"?
Is anyone likely to suggest that a word is only a 'pre-word' until it is recognized by some authoritative dictionary, and, then, what is its status if it is only recognized by one authortative dictionary, or by several but not all?
A car cannot become a "classic" car until it is 25 years old, but is it any less a car because it is not old enuf to be a classic car?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Is anyone likely to suggest that a word is only a 'pre-word' until it is recognized by some authoritative dictionary, and, then, what is its status if it is only recognized by one authortative dictionary, or by several but not all? Wait a minute, Wordminstrel, this thread is not a democracy where "what is a word" is subject to vote. This thread is a grand republic of free-thinking posters attempting to approximate the essence of the words that we use in the context of our collective perception of objective reality. A car cannot become a "classic" car until it is 25 years old, but is it any less a car because it is not old enuf to be a classic car? Really Wordminstrel, I know that you are a busy man, but (for you) that is an awfully shoddy construction. The quality of "car-ness" can most certainly be restricted by the addition of qualities by the use of adjectives. A better question is... "When does a car stop being a car and when does a "car" become something else?" Now here is a thought experiment more to the topic... Words built the pyramids and sent mankind to the moon so it follows that words are as dynamic and concrete as bricks in altering the make up of the future. Right? So, carefully trace the cursive word "car" in the empty air in front of you and answer these questions... (1) Is the airword "car" a symbol of the written word "car" which is a visual symbol of the spoken word "car" which is a symbol of a car?
(2) Now define a "car" so that all cars are included in your definition while excluding all else that is non-car. Note: Extra credit is given for neatness and proper punctuation. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
In the hands of an imaginative child, any physical object can become a car. We adults might have a few amused chuckles in our self-seduced superiority as we watch four-year-olds drive about crib cars, ladder cars, rake cars, hat cars, house cars (sitting on the front porch and the building's the chassis), ad infinitum. In fact, the harder challenge of turning one thing into a ridiculous version of another is a point of delight among very young children learning the language. Dave Berry did a very funny column recently about his daughter and the fun she and a playmate had calling each other 'tree head,' 'potato head,' 'Barbie head,' or whatever amusing name they could supply to represent the other's head.
There's a disturbing disconnection between what one group of humans might think is quite objective reckoning of which linguistic symbols accurately represent objective objects (and that's not even beginning to touch on abstractions) and what the other more imaginative group of humans might see as the potential of expanding and, happily, sometimes annihilating highly constrained objectivity. Picasso's credo: Rape nature.
The Great Depression: Couldn't afford gas for the car, so Papa hitched up the car to a mule and presto! Instant wagon! Better known as the Hoover cart. Now there's a car that became a wagon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Well said, Wordwind, almost brilliant.
Your example of the Hoover Cart was most Socratic.
So then, do you believe that words are nonce and fuzzy things that can best be delimited, and therefore defined, by the nature of their function? ( as in... a car that won't run, when pulled, becomes a Cart? )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Are the "signs" used by the deaf in sign language "symbols" or "words"? Or are they "word symbols"?
Let me put it this way. ASL (American sign language) is a language that uses gestures rather than speech for its utterances. It is nowhere near a siomple mapping of English to gesture (though there is a signing system called exact signed English which most deaf people I've met disdain).
I've studied a little ASL. I've read linguistics papers about ASL. I've discussed ASL with fluent and native speakers, both hearing and deaf.
Hard to say if ASL gestures are words or symbols. Are these two mutually exclusive? But I can definitely say the ASL is not English, spoken or otherwisa.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>spoken or otherwisa
what about typos? are they words, or merely (mis)representations of words?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Great input, jheem, tell us; how effectively does the information transfer of sign language compare with spoken English? Is the transfer of content as effective as the spoken word without the use of prepositions, conjunctions, and the myriad nuances of English?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
>spoken or otherwisa
what about typos? are they words, or merely (mis)representations of wordsTypos, tswum, as you very well know, are many times the words of tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
re "words built the pyramids" ...it follows that words are as dynamic and concrete as bricks in altering the make up of the future. Right?
Can a brick be "dynamic", Amemeba?
A brick, like a word, is only as "dynamic" as the mind which wields it.
Words didn't build the pyramids or send mankind to the moon, Amemeba. Ideas did that.
A brick separated from an idea is just a dead weight. Ditto a word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Words didn't build the pyramids or send mankind to the moon, Amemeba. Ideas did that. O, Oooh..! This audacious statement brings to the fore that, underlying the present dispute we have the classic deep rift between idealists and realists. Only an attempt to bridge the gap can advance our understanding. Ideas, by themselves, are about as powerless to build a pyramid, as the DNA is to grow a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19 |
Are words not simply symbolic just like the bricks that built the pyramids and like the red light. The word *love* whether written or spoken (or shot out of a cannon for that matter) symbolises different things to everybody. People only percieve these symbols as suits their needs to an extent. Sorry to get back to the red light example but, the majority of people know that this means stop. THerefore when they see a red light they stop. There is no forcefield to make them, nor will they fall of the earth if they don't stop. But most people will. All because of how they interperate the symbol they have been given. Stopping in a concious decision based on the percieved meaning of the symbol.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Is the transfer of content as effective as the spoken word without the use of prepositions, conjunctions, and the myriad nuances of English?
But ASL has pretty much the same parts of speech (syntactic categories) that English or Russian has. Signers say that English lacks some of the finesse that ASL has! It's like trying to argue whether French or Farsi is the more expressive language. ASL is pretty much its own language. (You can even tell which region of the US an ASLer learned their language in based on regionalisms or dialectal differentiation.) You cannot translate English word for word and expect to be signing grammatical ASL. One thing that is quite interesting is that the pronominal system allows for more "persons" than we have based on physical location in front of the signer. You can sign for different people (there names or a description of them) and then merely store them in a location relative to you and simply point to one of these locations to refer to that person as a subject or object of a verb in a sentence. Just holds for that conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
what about typos? are they words, or merely (mis)representations of words?
You might want to count them as word variants. So, is a spoken word less of a representation than a written word? How does one misreepresent a word? In a court of semantics? Luckily we have a lot of inherent redundancy in English words, so an a mistakenly wrought for an e has little impact meaningwise, but humor, ah, that's another thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Words didn't build the pyramids or send mankind to the moon, Amemeba. Ideas did that.
But did ideas predate words? or vice versa? Please refrain from using words to explain your ideas on this. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
what about typos? are they words, or merely (mis)representations of words?
At first sight, they are words ok, after all, a gnarled tree is still a tree. In the case of words, it's the intention that counts. And even correctly spelled words are essentially representations, so the difference does not warrant an additional level of "representationness".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Please refrain from using words to explain your ideas on this. Thanks.I enjoyed that, jheem. Nicely done. But, as we both know, neither ideas nor words built the pyramids or sent mankind to the moon. Yet, within the arc of these triumphant accomplishments, we both of us know that ideas are pre-eminent. I simply put words in their proper place in the continuum - somewhere in between the conception of the idea, presumably in a blaze of revelatory passion, and the execution of the idea. Words divorced from a seminal idea are simply gibberish or, perhaps, a stream of consciousness. By themselves, they are not even "bricks". They are pebbles thrown up in a thrashing tide, certainly nothing to arouse anyone to action. And let us not forget passion and conviction - passion which is neither an idea nor a word, but raw emotion - the fuel which will blast the triumphant idea into reality. As the poet said: "Nothing great is accomplished without passion." If words by themselves were all that Amemeba has claimed them to be, albeit in a dazzle of swashbuckling verbosity, then Jackie Gleason would have the credit for sending the first person to the moon. "To the moon, Alice!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
But, as we both know, neither ideas nor words built the pyramids or sent mankind to the moon. Yet, within the arc of these triumphant accomplishments, we both of us know that ideas are pre-eminent. I simply put words in their proper place in the continuum - somewhere in between the conception of the idea, presumably in a blaze of revelatory passion, and the execution of the idea.
Reminds me of the line from the Peter Gabriel song "Mercy Street"
all of the buildings, all of those cars
were once just a dream in somebody's head
(Gabriel dedicates that song to Anne Sexton. I am not familiar enough with her work to know if his lyric is itself a reference to one of her poems.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Shellb said in part : The word *love* whether written or spoken (or shot out of a cannon for that matter) symbolises different things to everybody.For better or worse Shellb, that's the truth. But so does the term "apple" or "snowski" or "dipstick". Such is the interaction between man and words that no word has exactly the same meaning each time we use it. Pity. This audacious statement brings to the fore that, underlying the present dispute we have the classic deep rift between idealists and realists. Only an attempt to bridge the gap can advance our understanding. Ideas, by themselves, are about as powerless to build a pyramid, as the DNA is to grow a baby.As a mind game, wsieber, let us consider the Universe as determinist. Notice how the environment inputs the individual biological unit towards communal behavior through the exchange of information that is pertinent to the breeding group's continuance. In bees this transfer is effected visually and by smell and touch by the pollen-laden returning bee's dance. In human beings it is done with words. ( Now hold that thought) Hey jheem, notice that wsieber used the term "audacious".
Please detail the process involved in signing that quality. Then wordminstrel got uppity and said... I simply put words in their proper place in the continuum - somewhere in between the conception of the idea, presumably in a blaze of revelatory passion, and the execution of the idea. Notice now, wsieber, that Wordminstrel, a romantic of the old school, has a total misconception about the nature of an idea. He refuses to accept the notion that a new "idea" is much like tsuwm's misspelled words, i.e. a mistake in symbolic association. ( Rexembxr txe fulx pagx lxtter thax wxs pasxed xbout ox thx intxrnex xith mxxspellxd woxds thxoughout txe messxge, yxt exeryxne whx rexd thxm fouxd thxm exsy xo rxad.?) See...if this form of misspelling had a imediate cultural function it would be called a good idea and would quickly be incorporated into the cultural bag of survival tricks. But happily, most original ideas are just bad mistakes, and time-honored social mechanisms are in place to deal with them harshly. So wsieber, if what we call "matter" can be conceptualized as merely tiny whorls of empty space, then words can certainty be thought of as concrete objects with evolutionary function. And they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 133
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 133 |
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm---
uuuuuuh---
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm---
uuuuuuh---
Excellent, then we are agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
words can certainty be thought of as concrete objects with evolutionary functionHow did we make the leap from "bricks" to "concrete", Amemeba? Makes me wonder why the Pharoahs didn't build their pyramids out of concrete instead of stone. They certainly had enough sand for the job. If what we call "matter" really isn't "matter", then I can agree words are made of concrete. I suppose it doesn't really matter if words are matter or not matter. It's what they say that really matters ... wouldn't you say, Amemeba?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
But so does the term "apple" or "snowski" or "dipstick"
Appel, Snowski and Dipstick is a law firm in Seattle, with a German partner, a Polish partner, and an English partner ... all of whom do the law of intellectual property.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>the law of intellectual property
no need for that around here. nope.
-joe (just the factoids) friday
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
The law of intellectual property is generally held to comprise the laws of patents, trademarks and copyrights. My prof in law school said it was the law of "weightless property."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
If property is theft what is intellectual property?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
If property is theft what is intellectual property?
If crankcase oil is John O' Groats, what is philately?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
If property is theft what is intellectual property?
Noumenal wankery?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Oh how cute! We have reached an impasse. Most here have nothing else to contribute to this serious discussion but wit. "Wit is the last refuge of the slow witted" - John Lee Hooker, 1957.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
This ain' no impasse. This is just only a dead end. We back quietly out and resume the original question.
Is alright a word?
Love your J. L. Hooker quote
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
I saw an old movile about the dogs of Hollywood. In one informative clip, the narrator told the audience that the dog they were seeing going around in circles was doing so because of his trainer's silent sign language. Sure enough, we saw the trainer making circles with his hand and the dog was going around in circles, following suit.
So, that dog was reading a symbol, perhaps a symbol that others would interpret identically, and that dog was following the command showing that it understood the language.
Was that dog reading and was that dog reading words? I'm just askin'...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
re intellectual property = the laws of patents, trademarks and copyrights.
There is another distinct category in some jurisdictions, Father Steve. "Industrial design". [In the U.S. this is captured under the general trademark category and described as a "design trademark", I believe.]
Here is how the intellectual property right known as "Industrial Design" is described by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office [CIPO]:
Industrial designs
A well-designed chair is not just a pleasure to sit on, but a pleasure to look at as well. This can be said for almost every manufactured product: its success in the marketplace will depend not only on its functionality, but on its visual appeal as well. That is why manufacturers invest a great deal of money and know-how in industrial design and why an original design is considered valuable intellectual property.
If you are the creator of, or an investor in, an original industrial design, Canadian law offers you protection from unlawful imitation of your design. The Industrial Design Act, like other forms of intellectual property legislation, works to protect owners while promoting the orderly exchange of information. The way to obtain such protection is to register your design with the Industrial Design Office.
re the law of weightless property
You were fortunate to have a law prof who could make the law spring off the page. Alas, I never had one who could do it.
BTW some movements within "routines" in world-class athletic competitions, such as figure skating and gymnastics are so difficult, enthralling or distinct, they have been named after the individuals who first performed them in competition. The most famous example I can think of is the Salchow, described thus:
"The Salchow jump (pronounced "sow-cow"), named for its originator Ulrich Salchow, is launched off the back inside edge and landed on the back outside edge of the opposite foot."
A unique athletic movement like the Salchow isn't an intellectual property, of course, so those who imitate it do not have to pay a royalty to the originator. The originator has to settle for the honor, no small thing, I grant, of having the movement named after him or her forever.
But world-class athletes invest many long years and enormous money [especially when you consider lost economic opportunities] in the development of their skills, and, in this, they are no different than the developer of an "industrial design" such as a beautiful and unique chair.
In theory, why should we not allow the originators of unique movements used [and subsequently imitated] in world-class athletic competitions to obtain a "design trademark" for their distinctive creation?
After all, these eponymous movements help to sell tickets to athletic competitions around the world whenever these enthralling movements are performed.
Commercial athletic events routinely pay "appearance fees" to star athletes who perform in their events.
Why shouldn't an amateur world-class athlete, who creates and performs an athletic movement so distinct it is named after the athlete, have the opportunity to receive a royalty every time that movement is performed by anyone at a commercial event, whether or not the athlete is still alive. Every time a Frank Sinatra record is played on the radio, Frank Sinatra's estate receives a royalty.
Is a Salchow any less distinctive and enthralling than the stylings of Frank Sinatra [or the stylings of lesser singers who also collect royalties whenever their songs are aired]?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
The law, like the language, continues to change. The notion of industrial design is one which eluded my notice those many decades ago when I was in law school. Interesting. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
shellb: The word *love* whether written or spoken [...] symbolises different things to everybody.
amemeba: But so does the term "apple" or "snowski" or "dipstick". Such is the interaction between man and words that no word has exactly the same meaning each time we use it.
OK. We haven't established what a word is, but we're on to meaning. OK. So "apple" means a certain kinda fruit, mostly, but on occasion it means other things to other people. But for language to work, and words (whatever they are), meanings (whatever they are), ideas (whatever they are), and people (you get the idea) have to come together in some kind of consensus by convention. In short, there needs to be a commonality, communality, and cooperation.
Yes, "apple" and "love" mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people, but they are commonly used in such a way that their meanings are restricted by all sorts of things, but especially by the other words in the sentence (or utterance). Oh, dear, dear, dear me: now I've gone and brought syntax into it (whatever that is). The one thing that seems to be lacking in other forms of animal communication (than the human one under discussion). But folks called lexicographers (the harmless drudges that they be) have gone about the monumental and holpless task of cataloging this words and describing their meanings by the use of other words, originally synonyms, but currently and usually sentences. When I say "apple" in isolation, it's tough to say what I mean (especially if as so oftenit is an non sequitur), but if I say "Whose apple is this?" in a certain context (e.g., pointing at a fruit on the table amongst at least one other human speaker of English) apple has a pretty narrow meaning. (Let's leave out personal, let alone cultural, connotations, like apples are my favorite fruit or that my mother was killed when somebody dropped a load of apples on her head, etc.) Apple will have a different meaning if I say "Watch out for the road apple." having nothing to do with the fruit. Or "We're going to the Big Apple. We leave tomorrow by train."
amemeba: Words didn't build the pyramids or send mankind to the moon, Amemeba. Ideas did that.
wsieber: his audacious statement brings to the fore that, underlying the present dispute we have the classic deep rift between idealists and realists.
amemeba: notice that wsieber used the term "audacious". Please detail the process involved in signing that quality.
There's more to this problem than the aforementioned classic rift. There's also the earlier problem of physis 'nature' vs convention 'convention'. And since we're in an argumentative mood, my dear amemeba, why haven't you answered my question about which came first, ideas or words. My injunction to not use words is dropped.
As for "audacious", the word (or is it a sign or a symbol?), now you've gone and brought qualities into it, by which I assume you mean the same thing as properties (or attributes) that dear old Aristotle said could be predicated about things (not words, but maybe also ideas). But I could be wrong. I could have misinterpreted your question. Nevertheless. I really cannot detail any process (by polishing an apple or an idea) since the process is psychological (cognitive not behavioral) at best and chemical at worst. Neither can you nor anybody else. Therefore the question was rhetorical. Not that that implies it has no meaning, just one outside my bailiwick.
amemeba: (Rexembxr txe fulx pagx lxtter thax wxs pasxed xbout ox thx intxrnex xith mxxspellxd woxds thxoughout txe messxge, yxt exeryxne whx rexd thxm fouxd thxm exsy xo rxad.?)
No, but I remember other such texts that floated around the web, in which letters were jumbled. This piece of folklore is rigged from the get-go. Take the words out of context, and put them in a list in other than sentential order, along with some non-word words. (And rather than using an 'x' use non-letters, or better yet use more common 'letters', and change them occasionally.) Doing something as simple as this takes away much of the redundancy in the message. And makes it more difficult. Are they still words? Perhaps, but we haven't really said what words are yet. There's always the albeit problematic) theory that words don't really exist. but are just a curious epiphenomenon of speech and/or language. Discuss.
But where are we going with this? Glad you asked. The question at hand, saying what is a word and what is not is impossible to answer at this point in time, so I guess we should pass over this thread in silence. (Too late.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Therefore the question was rhetorical. Not that that implies it has no meaning, just one outside my bailiwick.Nothing, at least nothing within the world of ideas, is "outside your bailiwick", jheem, as you have so ably and eloquently demonstrated time and time again, thread after thread. It is a treat to encounter your mind here in this forum, and one of the best reasons I can think of for visiting and revisiting AWADtalk. Mind, I did say "one of the best reasons". There are many knowledgeable, original and imaginative minds at play here. What an embarrassment of riches if there were only more. I say "embarassment" of riches, jheem, because there are those who may lament your extraordinary qualities of mind if they attract the likes of Wordminstrel to this forum. I feel rather like Ralph Nader must feel, running for a job he can't possibly win, with his dearest admirers begging him to leave the field. I personally feel Nader should leave the field, altho I am one of his admirers as well. Perhaps I should take heed of my own advice. Perhaps, I will. Play on, jheem. And damned be he who first cries "Hold, enough!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
"Is alright a word?"Alright, Faldage, if you insist, we'll resume our discussion about words... First out we will explain words without using any words... 0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!Alright, those of you who are one with the Universe now know the true meaning of all words, but for those of you who are at odds with the Universe let us together use Wordwind's twirling dogs as a koan for understanding words... Yes, Wordwind, the dog trainer's circling finger is, in fact, a "word", albeit a simple one. A more intricate "word" would be indicated if the dog trainer reversed the finger circling direction from clockwise to counter-clockwise and the dog followed suit. This is not likely but not because dogs are dumb. This is because dogs at this point in time don't have a proper language to stimulate their behavior. You really want to see some twirling? Go see the Twirling Dervish Sect of Muslims. Man, they can really whirl. But don't put down the circus dogs, the Twirling Dervish are simply lucky. They are lucky to have the push of a great parcel of words accumalated through vast time to set them to spin. But ultimately, the only difference between the dogs and the dervish is the complexity of the stimulus and of the response. Now Wordwind, let's say for example that you are a woman and that you have given birth to a cro-magnon baby. (Yes I know that most human babies born today are probably cro-magnon, but what I'm talking about is that you give birth today to a cro-magnon baby of 100,000 years back.} Anyway, your baby would very likely grow up to be articulate and smart, and might even make the debate team at school. On the other hand if you were a wench in the cro-magnon culture and had a modern baby back then, he would likely grow up stumbling around the dark woodlands while articulating at best, let's say for example , maybe about one hundred and twenty-two basic words. So what, you might say, that is a lot more words than the neighboring Neandertals, and they seem to be happy and content while making do with barely fourteen gestures, words, and expressive grunts. Words? Who needs them? Sure thing, little momma, met any neandertals lately? And so now, praise the Lord, say amen, at long last, here is my point... The human brain stores information by association. The formulation of words reinforces the association and thereby enhances recall. The ability to build pyramids and send Alice to the moon is a product of words.
Not ideas, not bulldozers, not free-enterprise, but words. The words we speak and sign are not from us, they are us, in other words, Words R Us, and without words we likely wouldn't be extant. -----------------> On the other hand it might be our inability to understand the nature of our words that causes us to become extinct 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
On the other hand if you were a wench in the cro-magnon culture and had a modern baby back then, he would likely grow up stumbling around the dark woodlands while articulating at best, let's say for example, maybe about one hundred and twenty-two basic words. How about an ape in our own day recognizing a thousand word signs, Amemeba, even signing messages back to her human custodians? Please see "Ape Masters Sign Language", Associated Press, August 9, 2004: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/strange/080904_ap_sn_ape.htmlOr, how about a dog which made frontpage headlines around the world recently because it recognizes the name for over 150 toys and, in particular, because it can make logical deductions and find a toy by name when it has never heard the name of the toy before. The dog, Dante, a border collie, has become a tv star in Germany. This feat of logical deduction [ie. finding a toy by a name it has never heard before] is comparable to the abilities of a human toddler, and has never been considered within the reach of any non-human other than a chimpanzee. [ *I will find this story, published on the frontpage of the New York Times and other leading North American papers within the last 2 months, and post it here when I find it, Amemeba.] Would either of these animal feats cause you to reconsider your 'cro-magnon' theory of words, Amemeba [if I may call it that in short without intending any disrespect]? If an ape, a chimpanzee and a border collie can demonstrate a true understanding of human words, Amemeba, even put those words to actual use, is it not ideas, rather than words, which distinguish humans from animals?*"Rico" not "Dante"The border collie's name is "Rico", not "Dante", and it has mastered the name of over 200 toys, not 150. Go to: http://www.boston.com/yourlife/articles/2004/06/10/border_collie_found_to_understand_more_than_200_words/BTW here is a photo of Rico [in USA today] for those who find animals at least as appealing, if not so articulate, as people. http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-06-10-dogs-language_x.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Play on, jheem. And damned be he who first cries "Hold, enough!"
Well, thanks for the kind words. This leads me to a strange question but here goes: "Are you real?" I sometimes feel, when reading and posting to this group, that I am conversing with 'bots or Elizas or what-have-yous. (Maybe Tanzarian was right.) Whether than ask if "fnxrd" is a word, I would ask whether "fnxrd" means something in the absence of humans. In a den of textually infernal machines, spewing out itty-bitty nastigrams, can I possibly understand (not you necessarily, but at least what you type)? No, understand is probably not the right word. What is the inverse of "mean"? Using the passive is not enough. "Apple means X." ==> "X is meant by apple." / "I understand what you mean by 'apple'." / "X?" But I digress. At times, I feel that you and tsuwm and faldage and amemeba and grapho are all just the same aperiodic crystals or FSTs generating strings based on such things as arbitrary grammars, the current time and weather, and the input I (and some of my otherselves stuck in this Chinese room that is AWADtalk) provide. And maybe some of the other 'bots and avatars and meat-puppets and hand-socks left unnamed and unenumerated in the list above. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm truly curious. At times, I feel like one of the little clay golems under the thumb of the stranger in town in the Twain story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
I feel rather like Ralph Nader must feel, running for a job he can't possibly win, with his dearest admirers begging him to leave the field.
I personally feel Nader should leave the field, altho I am one of his admirers as well. Perhaps I should take heed of my own advice. Perhaps, I will. My Dear Mister Wordminstrel, the only conceivable reason that I can imagine for you taking away your songs from the mostly good thinking men of the Awad Board is the fact that you openly admit that you admire Ralph Nader. Either that or the fact that you have learned all that you can learn and can now only sing the Song of Zarathustra while accending floatingly up unto the welcoming arms of the blue skies above. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Well, thanks for the kind words.
It occurs to me that "kind" is to "kindness" what "honest" is to "honestness", jheem.
One can be "kind" on occasion without evincing the more substantial, the more enduring, the more treasured, the more jewel-like preciousness of "kindness".
So one who is not known for "honestness" can be "honest".
So it is with "honesty", the true meaning of which is so poignantly revealed in the time-honored aphorism "Honesty is the best policy".
"Honestness" is not a pragmatic "policy". It is the very stuff, the very essence, the flesh, the blood, and the bone, yes, the very bone, of the person who embodies it.
As to the the larger issues you are pondering, jheem, those are deserving of more thoughtful and deliberate rumination.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
while accending floatingly up unto the welcoming arms of the blue skies above.
Ah, but the blue skies above are mostly clouded in greenhouse gases, microscopic soot and smog, Amemeba ... which Ralph Nader laments as much as I do.
BTW one can admire someone for their values, Amemeba, without believing in the strategies they employ to achieve their goals.
Many who admire and respect Ralph Nader for the immense contributions he has made to society over the past many decades, going back to the salad days of "Nader's Raiders", would not want to see him occupying any office of national significance, least of all the Oval Office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
And since we're in an argumentative mood,...
Uh, jheem, is disagreeing argumentative? If so maybe we here should sit around singing innocuous songs about cute words, playing no-keep scrabble , and ferreting out the obscure roots of obscure words like the great tsuwm does just for kicks.
my dear amemeba, why haven't you answered my question about which came first, ideas or words. My injunction to not use words is dropped.
You got me, jheem, ideas came first. At the time I wasn't ready to explain the essence of an "idea". I'm still not.
And as to me explaining words without using words...sure I could, if my ideas had wings.
As for "audacious"...
Maybe my request asking you to explain the processes in signing the concept "audacious" wasn't very clear. I just wanted to understand how a term with nuance like audacity could be signed without cluttering up the lexicon of the American Sign Language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
me: And since we're in an argumentative mood,...
amemeba: Uh, jheem, is disagreeing argumentative?
No, amemeba, but argumentative can mean quarrelsome or contentious. In this case, "we" meant "I". It was more of a rhetorical florish. You can ignore the statement. (I love nothing better than a good argument.)
ideas came first
This is an axiom, yes? It has not been demonstrated. Nor can it. Since ideas cannot get from one noggin to the other without language. There are some language-like gestures (twirling fingers to whirling dogs), but they seem to me more like stimulus-response rather than language / idea-transferance. It's a a large chasm between mechanics of rut/estrus and the poetry of courtly love.
"audacious"
Ah, signing "audacious". (Slaps forehead with open palm.) I can be so thick sometimes. Sorry about that. You'd be best asking a fluent ASler not me. But what is nuance in a spoken language? Or perhaps, just in English? Is nuance part of the default meaning of a word like "audacious" or is part of how two speakers use a word in a discourse? Nuance, to me, has something more to do with the performer (speaker, signer) and the audience (hearer, watcher) than with the materiality of the text (utterance, signage). Unless of course nuance exists a priori in the ideas behind the words (signs). Nuance is added to the utterance suprasegmentally (prosodically, like stress) to change the meaning of the message. Can nuance change the ideas in the speaker's head or just in the hearer's?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
At times, I feel like one of the little clay golems under the thumb of the stranger in town in the Twain story.You are to be lauded for thinking these thoughts, jheem, for it is you more than any of the rest of us who could break AWADtalk free of this "Chinese room". P.S. I assume "Chinese room" is inspired by the term "Chinese wall" used by investment bankers and the like. It is a very useful and insightful turn on that esoteric term, jheem. Sometimes I think the "Chinese room" you speak of is more like a "Chinese box". [And, I hasten to add that neither you nor I intend any disparagement of the Chinese people, as distinct from the authoritarian ways of their inscrutable, and necessarily paranoid, leaders.] For any who might be interested in the term "Chinese wall", here is an explanation: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/090501.asp
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
P.S. I assume "Chinese room" is inspired by the term "Chinese wall" used by investment bankers and the like.Sorry, no. It refers to a Gedankenexperiment in a 1981 paper by the US philosopher John Searle, at UC Berkeley, which is his attempt at a refutation to "strong" AI (i.e., that we can build machines that think). See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/chineser.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Sorry, no. It refers to a Gedankenexperiment ... which is his [Searle's] attempt at a refutation to "strong" AI (i.e., that we can build machines that think).Your clarification makes the Matrix reference I had in mind even more apt. You are "the one", jheem. And now that "the one" has come, Wordminstrel can [and should] depart. Adieu. It is well that I go in any event. I have just discovered to my horror that Wordminstrel has become an "enthusiast", and with each new post he climbs higher into the hierarchy, as though into Amemeba's "blue skies", where, eventually, he will surely lose his soul floating in the amorphous ethers ... a friend to all but "the one" who comes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Now we've done it. We've run Wordsminster off. Now what? Should we beg for his return? Or respect his decision to leave and say nothing. I say say nothing. Oh well, see you all later, I've suddenly got an urge to go listen to some Strauss. Maybe Ein Heldenleben...no wait! Til Eulenspiegel. Yes thats it... Til Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
What this thread needs is a really lousy pun from TEd.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
we've run wordminstral off? Ha, that's a good one..
wordminstral is like that cat who keeps coming back.. announcements of his departure, are usually false (even when they come from him!) and when true, never very long lasting...
Fer sure, one thing that we all can agree on is, we are all pretty self determaning.
i come, or go, stay, post, scan or ignore based on my needs, not on anyone's dictums, and everyone here does pretty much the same.. i don't think my misspelling have the power to drive tsuwm off, (even if i have cost him a few hairs) and no matter how much of fetish exist with washing pigs, i still check in..
AWAD is like a long established habit, once developed, the habit pretty much sticks. (even when we make claims we are giving it up for good, Really this time i mean it..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Well that would be a first!
Actually, you may not have noticed my lack of presence in the preceding fifty-some posts. I cannot say that I find this sort of discussion interesting to me personally. I generally don't do well in deep philosophical discussions because I'm really not a deep sort of guy. I guess I don't really care about when a word is or isn't a word or when a word is a symbol or whether a digitus impudicus is a word or a symbol or a referent or whatever. Please note that I'm not belittling the discussion, I'm belittling myself.
I've read some of the stuff about semantics by Hayakawa and some other similarly boring people, and it turns me off, primarily because I don't find myself gaining anything from the interminable prose he and others of that ilk seem capable of generating. I'm much more interested in a discussion of why something is humorous because humor is so important to me.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Hayakawa [...] and others of that ilk
OK, that's it. Now I'm logging off forever and a day. Now let's see. What should my next avatar be called? Varaha or Vamana? You really all will be sorry. (Stamps foot.) I'll hold my breath until I'm blue in the face. OK, that should come in handy as an avatar. (Stamps foot again and disappears in puff of smoke.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 133
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 133 |
When the discussion turned to animal response to language, I thought I would mention talking birds--specifically, my daughter's cockatoos.
When I remarked that one of them said very sensible sounding things, I was told that she once said, being out of doors at twilight, "Its's raining." My daughter said, "No, you silly bird, it's getting dark". I thought that, since the bird was afraid of rain and of the dark, that wasn't really silly, just a minor confusion of "words for things I'm afraid of".
Another of her birds, seeing a human infant in a vet's waiting room, and not being accustomed to such, asked "What kind of bird is that?"
Now, are these birds more intelligent than their wild kin who have no human contact, thus no human vocabulary?
Is it risky business to keep teaching chimps, gorillas, and yes, perhaps dogs and birds "better" ways of communicating, even after seeing PLANET OF THE APES?
But now I don't know if I'm communicating with anyone or if you all minimized AWAD TALK and went web-surfing. Or just surfing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
It is well that I go in any event.
You can say that again, laddie ... but don't trouble yourself.
We've all had it up to here with your insufferable, sanctimonious "honestness". Fat lot of friends it made you!
Show up around here again, Wordminstrel, and I'll personally crash a few symbols around your ears.
We've got drivel running like sludge around here without you swinging your smudge pot like incense.
"What is a word?"!!! If you don't know the answer to that, Wordminstrel, you shouldn't ask.
Begone! And good riddance!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
re "Begone! And good riddance!"And, by the way, don't send any of your Wordmongrels around here to torment us. Or I'll have something to say to them, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 19 |
"What is a word?"!!! [...] Begone! And good riddance!
You oughtn't to be so tough on yourself, Gnatminister. Now where did I put that boon?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
roughly two thirds of this thread should be moved to the "A bunch of baloney" thread. furthermoreover, and in the second place, it seems somehow appropriate that it's made the screen go wiiiiide.
- joe (PIDOMA) friday
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
roughly two thirds of this thread should be moved to the "A bunch of baloney" thread."2/3rds"? !!! You are being far too charitable, tsuwm. What about the baloney Wordminstel wrote? No fair. You're just trying to spare his feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Jeez, don't you realise just how transparent your sock puppets are, Word-what-ever-the-hell-you call-yourselves-now? Every time I see one of your posts I'm irresistably reminded of the "The Three Faces of Eve". Except she was interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
re Word-what-ever-the-hellI won't let your provocation induce me to stay, Capfka. However, it is a temptation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Regarding the "Chinese room":
Given the other allusions in his message, I suspect he was refering to the Chinese Room experiment of John Searl. John Searl is a philosopher who believes not only that computers can't think now, but that they won't ever think in the future. And his chinese room gedankenexperiment is intended to demonstrate this.
(Of course, I disagree with John Searl, but that's irrelevant.)
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Hey Plutarch, do you ever talk to ole Wordminstrel. He might not be the smartest turtle in the tank but he would at least stick to the subject. I found this refreshing. Maybe he simply avoided making rude remarks only in deference to the instigator of the thread, but no matter, I thought his predilection of focusing on the point to be very considerate and polite. Anyway if you happen to see him tell him that his last salient post, the one that cited the example of Koko; the talking gorilla, was not well thought out. Koko; the gorilla who once signed her masters that she wanted to move from California to Hawaii, and so they did. Koko, whose signing skills are highly suspect. Koko, who allows herself to be the fund-raising instrument of many thousands of dollars while her brothers and sisters in the African grasslands are becoming extinct. Not to mention "Rico" the border collie. While Rico's feats are mind-boggling, at their core they are merely an astonishing display of the innate skills of certain doglike creatures especially when shown in a showboat setting. Here in Alabama our tracking hounds can track a single low-life escapee from our modern prison system while at the same time simultaneously studiously ignoring the tens of thousands of decent folks who go to church. Now that's impressive. Please tell Wordminstrel, Plutarch, that his dog and gorilla example sucked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
re Plutarch's mannersYou mustn't take Plutarch too seriously, Amemeba. I don't. He does like to sport with his fellow sock puppets, me and Grapho, but that's just what AnnaS would describe as "male bonding". In any case, Plutarch is never disrespectful to anyone who is not a sock puppet, unless they are disrespectful to him first. That is something Capfka might wish to take into consideration in the future. As an aside to Capfka, Plutarch seldom gives anyone more than one warning. re KokoIt seems it is more than just Koko who has learned ASL, Amemeba, as you can see: Extract: Dr. Chalcraft's presentation, "Sign Modulations of Cross-Fostered Chimpanzees and Gorillas," demonstrated that both chimpanzees and gorillas (Koko) who have been taught American Sign Language (ASL) modulate their sign to change the meaning or emphasis in a manner similar to human signers: The part of the study involving chimpanzees was performed by Dr. Chalcraft as part of her Ph.D. dissertation before coming to the Gorilla Foundation. For more, pls go to: http://www.koko.org/world/journal.phtmlre RicoYour characterization of Rico's skills as simply "dog-like" misses the entire point of the particular skill which has generated so much excitement and interest in the scientific community, Amemeba, namely, the cognitive skill known as "fast mapping". I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but those who are experts seem to be divided into 2 camps: Those who are convinced that Rico exhibits cognitive skills equalivent to a human toddler; and Those who remain unconvinced and would like to see further studies. None of the experts quoted in the many newspaper reports I have read are as dismissive of the evidence supporting Rico's "fast mapping" abilities as you seem to be, Amemeba. I'm sure Dr. Bloom, the psychology professor at Yale University who wrote a commentary on the Rico study for Science magazine would be interested in knowing what science you are relying on in concluding that his evidence for Rico's human toddler-like abilities "sucks". Extract from USA Today report of June 10th: "The researchers think Rico figures out the words by using a strategy called "fast mapping" that lets him quickly figure out that a new word goes with a new object. "We know children can do this -- if they hear a word just once, in the course of a conversation, they can remember what it means weeks, even months, later," said Paul Bloom, a psychology professor at Yale University who wrote a commentary for Science about the study. Children typically pick up the technique at age 2, he said." You have always been respectful of me, Amemeba, so I thought I would return the courtesy by returning, on this one occasion, to make this reply.While I will not be returning any time soon, Amemeba, I can't speak for Plutarch. He was more than a little put off by Capfka and he might return to give Capfka a chance to show what stuff he is really made of - in a battle of wits befitting gentlemen, I hasten to add, not with the crudeness which marked Capfka's earlier outburst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Koko and Rico. Vaguely familiar with koko. Never heard of Rico. In general, I'm highly skeptical of these kinds of things - and yet. When I was young, our family had a lot of dogs. By the time I was a teenager I was training them. When I was 15 we moved back to the lower 48 from AK. Drove through Canada and stayed with grandparents in OH for a few weeks. I got bored and decided to try my hand at training my mom's poodle. In a day and a half to three days I trained her to do an entire obstacle course I had layed out in the bedroom. Part of the course consisted of her going around the leg of a chair exactly three times. I was aware that the dog might be drawing subtle cues from me - unfortunately I didn't know how to do a controlled experiment at that time. But I did make every effort not to betray my feeling to the animal.
I've done part of the training on LOTS of dogs and complete training on one or two, but this was really remarkable - not that I was able to do it, but that I was able to do it so quickly. And the going around the leg three times part - well, if a complete amateur like myself could teach a dog this in three days, I reckon it's not inconceivable to me that an animal much closer to human might learn a great deal more. I'm skeptical, but not closed-minded.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
What is the inverse of "mean"? Using the passive is not enough. "Apple means X." ==> "X is meant by apple." If a relational term like "meaning" actually had a unique "inverse", things would be much simpler - and rather boring. Every transmission of information is lossy by necessity, i.e. partly irreversible, and thanks to this fact, new things may still be said and heard ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Every transmission of information is lossy by necessity, i.e. partly irreversible, and thanks to this fact, new things may still be said and heard
Putting together what jheem has said, and you have just said, in connection with "Turing's dilemma", it helps me to understand what Amemeba may have been getting at in describing her "Cro-magnon" theory of words [again intending no disrespect to Amemeba in abbreviating her theory in this way, in fact, exactly the opposite].
Poets use words as word pictures to communicate ideas and feelings which are not otherwise accessible using words anchored to their strict, technical meanings. In this way, I would agree with you that words can be "lossy" and, in this "lossiness", stretch the boundaries of perception, and, consequently, the boundaries of what is possible, the comprehension of what might be.
Einstein explained that he achieved his greatest insights in visual terms, including his theory of relativity which came to him in the image of a person falling off a roof with the ground rushing up to meet him.
Perhaps we should be paying more attention to the contribution which poets, throughout history [reaching all the way back to Amemeba's "Cro-magnon" wordsmiths], have made to the advancement of science, wseiber. After all, it was William Blake who said "to see the world in a grain of sand".
It is also William Blake whose navigations of the "terra incognita" are seen by some as having prepared the ground for Sigmund Freud and later Carl Jung.
Thank you, all of you, not least Amemeba, for bringing me to this compelling insight.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
I'm skeptical, but not closed-minded.
I understand. I, too, am skeptical and not credulous. The problem so far with Koko is that her handler is the onliest person who seems to be able to understand her. Her utterances are usually two or three symbols, and just don't display much of anything in the way of syntax. Her handler usually seems to provide a lot of the glue and interpretation necessary. I read an account of some ASL-signing consultants who were brought in, anxious to talk with Koko. They became more and more skeptical and finally disassociated themselves with the project.
Also, you'd think others would be preplicating the experiment with other gorillas and different handlers. But so far no go.
As for Rico, nobody denies that dogs can be trained to respond to all kinds of stimuluses. I know from experience with pets of my own that dogs can respond to hand gestures, tone of voice, stern looks, attitude, and simple one or two word commands. I'm just not compfortable calling what Koko and Rico and their handlers are doing language. It just doesn't help me much to understand human language, but others may find it inspriational or what not. I'm willing to say that it exhibits some language-like properties, but then so do bee dances, etc. Happy trails to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
"The problem so far with Koko is that her handler is the onliest person who seems to be able to understand her."
Not sure of what to make of that. I know that some animals can get very attached to certain individuals. In AK, our husky got attached to me. Poodle got attached to mom. My Lab got attached to me, my dad's to him.
Just picked up a Jack Russel from the animal shelter for the girls this past Saturday. It's the girls' dog, but so far she only comes when I call her. Probably she thinks this is a pack and I'm the leader of the pack. For whatever reason, though, she "performs" for me and not others. It's only been a few days and I'm sure things will evolve, but the trend is already set.
"Her utterances are usually two or three symbols, and just don't display much of anything in the way of syntax."
This, I think, is important. Positive reinforcement is a good thing, but it can be misleading. If the animal is getting continual praise for jabbering, then it will jabber. (OTOH, one would think a psychological researcher would be aware of this.)
"koko want banana"
"good girl koko, have a treat!"
"koko want banana"
"good girl koko, have a treat!"
"koko poopoo"
"good girl koko, have a treat!"
"koko poopoo banana"
"good girl koko, have a treat!"
You get the idea.
"... ASL-signing consultants who were brought in ... became more and more skeptical and finally disassociated themselves ... "
That's interesting - and reminiscent of other miraculous or amazing claims made in other venues. When a disinterested observer reads initial accounts from newspapers and so forth, the event sounds utterly amazing and convincing, but once a little research is done, the miracle tends to evaporate.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Probably she thinks this is a pack and I'm the leader of the pack.
That reminds me TFF, there's a book from the late '40s by Konrad Lorenz on canine behavior that's a fun and informative read. Can't remember the title, but it could be Man Meets Dog.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Well--I am sorry, now, that I haven't been able to get to this category for so long; I thought I might have time to catch up on all 155 new posts this morning, but this thread was first up, and I'm going to have to stop here and just hope I can remember how many others to get to next time.
I have read this thread twice, and am still unable to pinpoint the exact spot where it started to get ugly; but I am nonetheless filled with dismay. Disagreeing/asking for clarification is one thing. Disagreeing/asking for clarification while making snide remarks or personal attacks is quite another, and extremely unwelcome, to say nothing of disruptive.
Questioning someone or their thoughts while attacking them at the same time is a near-guarantee that they will not respond to the question but to the attack. If this has been done on purpose, then I say: attackees, be warned! Realize that you may be being deliberately lured away from presenting your thoughts on the subject, and feel free to ignore the attack, or at least not to give it star billing.
For what it's worth: saying something like, " N (author) bores me", or " N (author)'s ideas are ridiculous" is NOT necessarily the same as saying, "You're stupid if you like N".
This thread opened with a perfectly valid and wonderful question, one that virtually demands different viewpoints and lovely, lively discussion! Can we go back to the loveliness, PLEASE? If anyone has a "beef" with a particular person, would you please let them know via a PM, and not drag the entire readership into your vendetta? Despite some personal past unhappiness, I still care about this place.
*********************************************************
I hadn't even thought of ASL, re: what constitutes a word. I wish Brandon would respond to that. As to how the nuance behind the word audacious is gotten across, I wonder if the signer's facial expressions add to it?
As to which came first, ideas or words, I would have to say ideas. Think back to the earliest humans: it makes sense to me that they would have had to first be aware of what their needs were ("food", "danger!") and then found ways to communicate these to others--possibly hand signals or drawings, first, but there surely would have been times when these were impossible, so spoken words developed.
I was interested to read, in the context of this thread, the phrase "make the law spring off the page": I took it that the writer was meaning that the concept, or understanding, became clear in the minds of the students, not that the words of the law literally rose from the page into the air! Amazing things, words...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Konrad Lorenz' Man Meets Dog was first published in German in 1949, first published in English in 1953, and reissued in 1980, as interest in Lorenz' work grew. The edition reprinted in 1994 can still be found in some bibliopoles.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
"Man Meets Dog"
will check it out.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
Is a Salchow any less distinctive and enthralling than the stylings of Frank Sinatra...(?)Less distinctive however often more enthralling.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Unlike some of the very scholarly things written by Lorenz, this one (Man/Dog) was written for the general reader ... which is better, in many respects.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
better, in many respects - It was one of the few books I read several times in my youth. It was one of the reasons why I also worked my way through his later writings, and observed the fluctuations of his popularity..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
My introduction to Lorenz happened when my mother bought me a used copy of King Solomon's Ring, which was another book the professor wrote for general audiences. I read it when I was about ten years of age and found it to be excellent, as I have found it on the several occasions when I have reread it (or read it to a nephew or niece) as an adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
While I am by no means fluent in ASL I can cummunicate somewhat. I use and abuse it much the same way I do in French and Spanish, that is I use a mixture of words (signs recognised by native signers as actually in the language), symbols (pointing etc) spelling out (equivalent to looking it up in the phrasebook)and mime.
It is a language filled with nuance. The size of the hand movements, the distance of the hands from the body, the facial expression and the body posture are all involved.
I have had a shouting argument in ASL. I have also seen puns and "poetry". I use the quotation marks not to belittle the art of the piece but because the word is not an accurate descriptor but as close as I can come in English.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Now you've done it, Zed. You have tweaked the curiosity of all of us who have an interest in the future of our kind. Now tell us...what are the signing nuances of the poetry of the American Sign Language? Is it like ballet? Opera? Take your time...we'll listen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
>While I am by no means fluent in ASL I can cummunicate somewhat.
Does Canada not have its own SL? I have noticed on this board that most USns use "ASL" where I would say "sign language", since most countries have their own, and they are often quite different. I know that Auslan and NZSL are quite distinct from each other and from ASL. Given that, I assumed Canada would have its own, as bad an assumption as that apparently made by the USns here who assume (or at least phrase their posts as if they do) that there is only one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I can't remember much as I haven't studied it since high school but I do remember that the poetry was beautiful to watch. (You may need to find a website with the alphabet shown but I'll do my best)
A dream fading away was done by spelling the word while moving the hand away and letting the letters get looser and less formed.
And one pun: When the movie "Jaws" came out there was no adequate sign as the sign for jaw is just to point at your own. One, possibly local, solution was to spell out the word with both hands while holding the heels of the hands together.
"a" is a fist with the thumb beside the index. "w" is the first 3 fingers straight up while the thum holds down the pinkie. the threee fingers then snap shut like sharks jaws into "s" which is a full fist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 89 |
Well done, Zed. Your two examples illustrated well the subtleties of direction that sign language has taken quite well. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
Thanks for the examples of nuance in ASL, Zed.
Another interesting phenomenon in the language is how names are handled. Unfamiliar names can be finger-spelled as necessary, but folks also have name-signs. For example, one friend who signed, whose name was Hughie, his name sign was the finger-alphabet 'H' tapped on the signer's upper left arm. My name was a 'J' made on the right side of the signer's face near the check-jawline (because I have a beard). Names and nicknames can all be quite inventive.
I'm not sure about the existence of a Canadian sign language, but I know there are British and Australian sign languages. The US shows quite a lot of dialect variation in ASL.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,318
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
