Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #125 – 2014-07-26, 08:23:23 Necessary distinctions. Language exists to make a difference For example there's A and B. There cannot be only A and nothing else. There must be both A and B - to make any sense of anything at all. Only A would be more economical, but with only A and with nothing else there's no way to make sense of anything. (Edit: Imagine dog and cat and cow and pigeon all be named "dog" - economical from the point of view of vocabulary, but intolerable for semantic purposes.) "Make sense" is achieved by making a distinction, i.e. using at least two elements.This is how the principle of economy and the principle of distinctions seemingly oppose each other, but actually cooperate for a higher purpose. Last Edit: 2014-07-26, 08:47:44 by ersi
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #126 – 2014-07-26, 08:27:08 Ah, yes.Making a difference with the less effort...
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #127 – 2014-07-26, 08:33:05 Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-25, 23:35:21First off, drop any adherence to the strong version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.Easily done: I never "bought" it… Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-25, 23:35:21My professional opinion on Piraha is that since it's poorly studied, there are many ways in which it may have been wrongly interpreted.My amateur opinion is the same, and I can't help but consider the possibility that the Pirahã have a subtle sense of humor! (Everett's supposed attempt to teach them basic arithmetic seems unlikely in the extreme…) Still, I've found nothing newer than last year -on the web- about them.(Only a few short papers to read! )
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #128 – 2014-07-26, 08:33:18 Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-26, 08:21:09You mentioned one, the principle of economy, what is the other that is opposite to this one?Asking for curiosity, not as a discussion.The principle of optimal communicative function stands opposed to the principle of the least effort. This works at probably all levels of language. For instance, phonologically speaking, it's the principle of easing production versus the principle of easing perception.Simplistically speaking, easing production means vowels are reduced to schwas whenever possible, while easing perception means that if all you're uttering is a bunch of schwas no one will understand a word you're saying.(I know ersi already posted the same thing while I was writing this, but I don't want to waste my minor effort.)
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #129 – 2014-07-26, 08:47:25 Ok, those are some of the technical aspects of language's inner structure.I have a war on languages but relating to the political and social functions of languages. My country it's my language.The defense of purism and denial of language "dynamism and evolution", as well as deviations, as means of preserving independence and identity.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #130 – 2014-07-26, 08:51:10 You might (dis)like this video:[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6NU0DMjv0Y[/video]
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #131 – 2014-07-26, 09:13:01 Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-07-26, 08:51:10You might (dis)like this video:Well Frenzie... you let me with mixed feelings, what should I think about people that finds their own weaknesses to be... funny?Since they're not my people, I like it.Since many of my own people acts the same way, I don't like it.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #132 – 2014-07-26, 09:44:21 On dictionaries (re Frenzie's video)It actually is funny how English-speaking people tend to think "Is that even a word?" when the word is missing in the dictionary. In my own native language derivation (of adjectives from nouns, deverbalising, etc.) is so lively and rich that it makes no sense to include all such words in the dictionary. It would be pointless ballast because such derivation is a perfectly regular function and the meanings are straightforward. (You could just as well try to make a dictionary of all possible sentences in the language.) What makes sense to include in the dictionary is words with lexicalised meanings.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #133 – 2014-07-26, 10:29:04 English is no different: it's just the spelling that is less receptive to compound spellings. In Dutch this is an internetforum; in English it's an internet forum. I wouldn't expect to find either in the dictionary. Verbing and nouning () also occur constantly. The problem is just that especially Americans are whacked around the ears with nonsensical usage advice by the likes of Strunk & White, who blatantly disregard just about everything they say in order to produce what is actually fairly decent prose. The problem with the utterly nonsensical "advice" and "rules" is that no one knows what's what and is insecure about using stranded prepositions, passives, and whatnot. Not that anyone knows what a passive is, of course.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #134 – 2014-07-26, 11:03:32 Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-07-26, 10:29:04English is no different: it's just the spelling that is less receptive to compound spellings. In Dutch this is an internetforum; in English it's an internet forum. I wouldn't expect to find either in the dictionary. You speak about compounding, I spoke about morphological derivation. Different things. Here we have lots of strictures and inflexibility in compounding so the languages seriously differ in this aspect.And yes, compounding is so rich and vibrant in English that there's no chance for dictionaries to reflect this aspect of the language. It's the job for grammar books. Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-07-26, 10:29:04Verbing and nouning () also occur constantly. But in English the word doesn't need to change its spelling when you change its grammatical category. Here it's inevitable to add/drop some suffixes. In principle like in German all infinitives end in -en, and when you make a verb out of some noun, -en needs to be attached. Edit: Right, exactly the way you add -ing in English to form a gerund, but here we have many more such suffixes just to denote the syntactic function of the word. Last Edit: 2014-07-26, 11:29:55 by ersi
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #135 – 2014-07-26, 11:23:39 beach please , in Java you speak in Java language .and it have totally different Language for differrent People .it's will be like , Speak with friends with english Speak with Older People With Spanish and Speak with a Sir with Latin
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #136 – 2014-07-28, 12:24:09 Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-26, 11:23:39it's will be like , Speak with friends with english Speak with Older People With Spanish and Speak with a Sir with LatinIn my language we also use different vocatives and the correspondent different verbal modes depending on the social relation you have with your interlocutor. Factors as age, degree of intimacy or social status are always present, it's called "to have manners". Increasingly, many don't.Also written language it's very different from verbal language, it's much more formal and elaborated. However, computers are destroying it and people start writing the way they speak.Barbarism it's arriving at full force.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #137 – 2014-07-28, 12:33:41 People here still speak vowels out. But it won't last long...
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #138 – 2014-07-28, 12:48:51 Quote from: Barulheira on 2014-07-28, 12:33:41People here still speak vowels out. But it won't last long... If up to me, I would lead a linguist crusade against Brasil as a punishment for what you're doing to the Portuguese language... languagecide, it's what it is Desconseguir?? for Christ's sake... what saves you is that when a gorgeous mulata starts talking I immediately can't resist surrendering into her arms...
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #139 – 2014-07-28, 12:55:55 I have never seen such word, but here it seems not to be an exclusively Brazilian aberration.pq? blz vlw
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #140 – 2014-07-28, 13:13:24 Quote from: Barulheira on 2014-07-28, 12:55:55blz vlw hmm... can't get it.Anyway, the point being that, to my dissatisfaction, the language that wrote the epic of epics, the Lusíadas, it's falling apart. As everything else.Better to stick to philosophies...
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #142 – 2014-07-30, 06:08:56 Belfrager, why bother to speak to others — if you can't proscribe their means of expression? The deterioration of language has been a constant topic, since -at least- the written word was invented… And, surely, long before; ugh!I really mean it: Ugh!
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #143 – 2014-07-30, 10:13:59 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-30, 06:08:56Belfrager, why bother to speak to others — if you can't proscribe their means of expression? The deterioration of language has been a constant topic, since -at least- the written word was invented… And, surely, long before; ugh!I really mean it: Ugh!Oakdale, while you ugh the caravan passes...At my caravan, it's me who decides how things are.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #144 – 2014-08-02, 16:19:05 I'll give you an annoying example of seemingly ungrammatical English: Me and my friends went...A great many people say such nowadays, specially the young. But few -perhaps none- would say *Me went... So, might they have a different pattern in mind than the simple Noun-Verb combination?Consider: We, me and my friends, went... Appositional phrases are not uncommon! And there's some sense to dropping the superfluous plural noun. No? There's much to be said for style, I'd agree. But sense is more important. Isn't it?
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #145 – 2014-08-02, 16:53:05 Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-28, 12:24:09it's called "to have manners". Increasingly, many don't.Aristotle said something quite similar to this of the younger generation--it is timeless and a matter of perspective. At times I see an abundance of good manners and at others, almost a complete lack of them.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #146 – 2014-08-11, 03:31:20 Well, ersi, since I mentioned "statistical reasoning" in another thread and you, correctly, surmised that I was referring to Probability Theory…What are your views? What are their sources? How would you handle the various "problems" with (at least, your favorite) such theories as are known? (I.e., have been created… Or, alternately, "so far discovered" — BTW: How does one "discover" something that isn't true? )Or is there a Medieval text that precludes questions?
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #147 – 2014-08-11, 04:27:06 Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-28, 12:24:09However, computers are destroying it and people start writing the way they speak.People writing as they speak is not new. However, one way to tell a new, amateurish author is precisely that he writes his stories in a stiff formal manner using vocabulary and phrases never found outside books. That isn't to say you should writing should be exactly like speech because the spoken language is often very poor. It should be like speech, but refined and cleaned up considerably.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #148 – 2014-08-11, 05:08:36 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-11, 03:31:20What are your views? What are their sources? There was a course on statistics in the university, mainly important for those who would do their thesis as a kind of poll. This kind of thesis was not in my plans, so I didn't care any deeper about the statistical theories and their sources. I simply remember what was taught.Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-11, 03:31:20How would you handle the various "problems" with (at least, your favorite) such theories as are known? (I.e., have been created… Or, alternately, "so far discovered" — What problem? It's not enough that you say there's a problem. You have to describe the problem. Every problem contains its own solution. In your case, problems are either defective formulations or completely imaginary.Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-11, 03:31:20BTW: How does one "discover" something that isn't true? Those things are invented. Just like Columbus invented America. He didn't even know it was America, so whatever he thought it was was a complete invention.Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-11, 03:31:20Or is there a Medieval text that precludes questions?There are medieval texts that provide answers. As long as you scoff at the idea, the answers won't reach you.
Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems Reply #149 – 2014-08-13, 06:20:44 I gathered from your reply that you had no interest in the subject… But —As Ronald Fisher said (in the beginning of a "recent" paper in 1955):Quote[…] a more complete understanding has been reached of the structure and peculiarities of inductive logic — that is of reasoning from the sample to the population from which the sample was drawn, from consequences to causes, or in more logical terms, from the particular to the general.He was referring to the last century.If you would, ersi, read this paper. If you won't, know that -no matter your predilection for terminological niceties- what I call statistical reasoning is in a quandary: As a field of mathematics, its foundations are controversial. As a practical science, utter nonsense is accepted by academics and their journals. As a science applicable to real-world problems, it hardly surfaces above the sea of politics…And yet you see no problems!Perhaps you think Probability only refers to the "toy" games of chance upon which, four centuries ago, brilliant mathematicians speculated… But I doubt you are familiar with such.Still, you may be able to think something through:In what sense does a single event have a probability?———————————————————————————There are, of course, other questions: How do we instantiate finite subsets of the infinite underpinnings of Frequentist theories of probability? (The same "problem" exists for every finitist version… Hume asked some good questions!)How, if probability is merely a personal propensity to believe, do we understand science, when it is statistical?When do we say that something is probable, if we can't agree on what "probable" means?
Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 72805 times)
