makes no sense to me
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Jun 2010 12:54 On Jun 22, 4:27 pm, DrParnassus <DrParnas...(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 06:22:58 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >Language is defined by what people say, not by lists. If your list > >doesn't include "It'd" as a contraction of "It would", then your list > >is incomplete, > > It is not "the complete list", it is "the generally accepted proper use > list", AND it would sound strange to use it in conversation, which is the > basic criteria. Well, it doesn't sound strange to me. Most of the conversations that I've listend to - in English - have taken place in Australia and the U.K. so we may be talking about a regional variation. There is at least one list out there that does accept "It'd" as a contraction of "it would" or "it had" http://esl.about.com/od/grammarintermediate/a/contractions.htm so the problem may lie purely in your idiosycnratic choice of list. Be that as it may, language isn't defined by lists of "generally accepted proper usage", but by what people say. Pedants hate this, but linguists have long since reconciled themselves to the fact that the only definitive lexicon is the one that sits between the ears, and the only definitive guide to what that contains is what people say and appear to comprehend. Linguists assemble collections - corpora - of spoken and written language. Here's a list covering a number of such collections. http://www.corpora4learning.net/resources/corpora.html -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Nobody on 24 Jun 2010 16:40 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:54:29 -0700, Bill Sloman wrote: > Be that as it may, language isn't defined by lists of "generally > accepted proper usage", but by what people say. But *which* people? In the absence of any reference point, phrases can end up with multiple, contradictory meanings, essentially making them useless. E.g. if someone says they "could care less", it's not always clear whether they actually mean "could care less" (do care) or "couldn't care less" (don't care). In order to convey meaning, it's necessary for both parties to have a shared understanding of the language. In terms of the information conveyed, words don't mean what the speaker thinks they mean, but what the listener thinks they mean. If the two differ, the speaker hasn't said what they think they said.
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Jun 2010 17:03 On Jun 24, 10:40 pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:54:29 -0700,Bill Slomanwrote: > > Be that as it may, language isn't defined by lists of "generally > > accepted proper usage", but by what people say. > > But *which* people? Check out the various corpora that I pointed to http://www.corpora4learning.net/resources/corpora.html In general, the people whose speech was recorded were involved in linguistics and working in situations where it was practical to record their conversations. Different corpora line up well enough to suggest that these converstations were more or less representative of the universe of all our conversations, but obviously there is going to be some sampling error. > In the absence of any reference point, phrases can end up with > multiple, contradictory meanings, essentially making them useless. > > E.g. if someone says they "could care less", it's not always clear whether > they actually mean "could care less" (do care) or "couldn't care less" > (don't care). > > In order to convey meaning, it's necessary for both parties to have a > shared understanding of the language. In terms of the information > conveyed, words don't mean what the speaker thinks they mean, but what the > listener thinks they mean. If the two differ, the speaker hasn't said what > they think they said. Language has to work. If listeners have an appreciable chance of misundertanding what is said to them, the speakers will amend what they say until it is creates a predictable effect on their listeners. This is implicit in the idea of the evolving two-way communication system that we call language. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Fields on 24 Jun 2010 18:19 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jun 24, 10:40�pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:54:29 -0700,Bill Slomanwrote: >> > Be that as it may, language isn't defined by lists of "generally >> > accepted proper usage", but by what people say. >> >> But *which* people? > >Check out the various corpora that I pointed to > >http://www.corpora4learning.net/resources/corpora.html > >In general, the people whose speech was recorded were involved in >linguistics and working in situations where it was practical to record >their conversations. Different corpora line up well enough to suggest >that these converstations were more or less representative of the >universe of all our conversations, but obviously there is going to be >some sampling error. > >> In the absence of any reference point, phrases can end up with >> multiple, contradictory meanings, essentially making them useless. >> >> E.g. if someone says they "could care less", it's not always clear whether >> they actually mean "could care less" (do care) or "couldn't care less" >> (don't care). >> >> In order to convey meaning, it's necessary for both parties to have a >> shared understanding of the language. In terms of the information >> conveyed, words don't mean what the speaker thinks they mean, but what the >> listener thinks they mean. If the two differ, the speaker hasn't said what >> they think they said. > >Language has to work. --- Total nonsense. By itself it doesn't, and it's incumbent on the translator to understand the nuances of the languages involved in order to render like meaning between the two, or three, or whatever. A simplistic example would be where an English-to-English translator hears "bonnet" from the UK and translates it into "hood" for the US. --- >If listeners have an appreciable chance of >misundertanding what is said to them, the speakers will amend what >they say until it is creates a predictable effect on their listeners. --- Got an example? --- >This is implicit in the idea of the evolving two-way communication >system that we call language. --- Oh, nice words but, it seems to me that what you want to do is to is denigrate the feedback so that you're the only one left in charge. JF
From: Bill Sloman on 24 Jun 2010 22:37
On Jun 25, 12:19 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 24, 10:40 pm, Nobody <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:54:29 -0700,Bill Slomanwrote: > >> > Be that as it may, language isn't defined by lists of "generally > >> > accepted proper usage", but by what people say. > > >> But *which* people? > > >Check out the various corpora that I pointed to > > >http://www.corpora4learning.net/resources/corpora.html > > >In general, the people whose speech was recorded were involved in > >linguistics and working in situations where it was practical to record > >their conversations. Different corpora line up well enough to suggest > >that these converstations were more or less representative of the > >universe of all our conversations, but obviously there is going to be > >some sampling error. > > >> In the absence of any reference point, phrases can end up with > >> multiple, contradictory meanings, essentially making them useless. > > >> E.g. if someone says they "could care less", it's not always clear whether > >> they actually mean "could care less" (do care) or "couldn't care less" > >> (don't care). > > >> In order to convey meaning, it's necessary for both parties to have a > >> shared understanding of the language. In terms of the information > >> conveyed, words don't mean what the speaker thinks they mean, but what the > >> listener thinks they mean. If the two differ, the speaker hasn't said what > >> they think they said. > > >Language has to work. > > --- > Total nonsense. On the contrary, it's absolutely fundamental to understanding how language works. > By itself it doesn't, and it's incumbent on the translator to > understand the nuances of the languages involved in order to render > like meaning between the two, or three, or whatever. > > A simplistic example would be where an English-to-English translator > hears "bonnet" from the UK and translates it into "hood" for the US. > --- This - in fact - illustrates how a single language evolves into separate dialects and - eventually - several distinct languages (as with Latin evolving into French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian). English people speaking U.K. English to one another in the U.K. say "bonnet" when they meean the hood of car, and everybody is happy, while US inhabitants say "hood" which works equally well. In Australia, we say either "hood" or "bonnet" and - providing that we are talking about cars - we all understand the same part of the car. In each context, the expression is unambiguous. Australian are wasting mental capacity remembering two words for one object, but they have enough spare metal capcity that it isn't a problem. Within each community, there's no risk of misunderstanding. Between the communities there is a risk of misunderstanding, but the US, UK and Australian communities don't interact enough for these misunderstandings to bias the structure of the respective mental lexicons, which reflect the much more frequent within-community interactions. > >If listeners have an appreciable chance of > >misundertanding what is said to them, the speakers will amend what > >they say until it is creates a predictable effect on their listeners. > > --- > Got an example? > --- Go find a linguistics text-book. Individual tutoring is reserved for students with some evidence of talent. > >This is implicit in the idea of the evolving two-way communication > >system that we call language. > > --- > Oh, nice words but, it seems to me that what you want to do is to is > denigrate the feedback so that you're the only one left in charge. Since I'm telling you what linguists tell me, usually after I've got some detail wrong, I don't quite see how this recapitulation of elementary linguistic theory puts me "in charge". I suppose that if you were silly enough to think that I could pose as an expert on linguistics, you might be able to see the interaction in this light, but do try to be realistic. I'm not posting on linguistslist, or language log, where real linguists hang out http://linguistlist.org/ http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?page_id=2 but I was just correcting an ill-informed misconception. AlwaysWrong does need a lot of correction, as even you might have noticed. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |