|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
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!"
|
|
|
|
|
