|
|
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? )
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,614
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
283
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
