Dogs versus Cats

[cowsmanaut]

sounds to me the english decided to chop it into a smaller part. The french include the whole river.. and the brits only grab the top portion where it actually connects. Doesn't mean they ignored it

but again this is what I was saying. The english language has no words for some ideals and concepts that exist in other languages. Some languages describe every subtlety. Because of this and because of the fact that we have words that sound the same but mean different things and common spelling for different words that sound different and so on. People coming to learn english can be confused a lot. I know this because I'm an instructor and have to deal with people who are still new to the language.

No all people will have the same issues.. but many do.

Look at translations for movies.. where the mouth is moving like crazy and yet 3 words come out.. or the reverse where they say one thing and yet the voice is still struggling to explain the concept of the one word they had said. Or they will try to match the mouth movement and essentially change the meaning or context of what was going on in the orriginal.

as for cats.. a cat again as I say.. is a master CATegory You have then the breed. Persian, burmeese, Tabby, etc. It just so happens we also classify the larger breeds under that as well. Where Chat means only the domestic breed to you.. to us Chat means we just filled our pants

(sorry play on the sound of the word, shat)

Seriously though, we will both have many words that we directly translate over without taking the full concept of them with the word. If you think about how those translations can first arrive.. it's two people who do not understand each other so they point to something and name it.

a man points to someones hat and says "geegeet" what is he saying? Hat? black hat? is it the style of hat? does this hat show his statition? like in the case of a crown? there are a number of interpretations.. once someone decideds it means hat.. and it's a common use.. then the explanation to fix the error just becomes part of the whole eplaination of the cuture. "Yes, their hats show their house. So if you see a blue hat he is from the royal house, if he wears a red hat he is from the workers guild" and so on.. so.. they still think HAT.. not Hat of status or whatever new translation could be used..

I think I'm just confusing the issue now and I have to go to work anyway

moo

[PaulH]

If we had to define absolutely everything for what it is, right down to the last detail we would have a phenomenal amount of words.

[Zyx]

At last! On 10 Aug 2005 08:02, somebody told a truth!

About the Thames: Is there a correct category for defining the Thames or are they all equally arbitrary? Should we conclude that the truth is a delusion, since all concepts trying to describe the unique reality are arbitrary and consensual?

@Paul: are you denying options 1 and 2?
We have a phenomenal amount of words. A normal person barely handle between 2000 and 6000 worlds, out of 300 000 words for any occidental language. Not to mention outdated words that were supressed, or scientific "words" describing species, or molecules. Besides the problem of language goes beyond the nomenclature task. I'll try to explain...


I fear my point was missed in the previous posts. I'm not judging the english language. Let me expose better the target of my concerns...

Beyond and before the languages, there are things out there.
To reach them by thought, we mostly use the language. Language provides shareable concepts to handle the perception of reality.
Problem is, do we have somehow a direct access to the things, or do we always use the intermediary of words? Because, in the last case, we depend on the words. What happens if the concepts are wrong or incorrect? How could we take conscience of it?

This leads to the problem of truth. Let's define truth, at first, roughly, as a correspondance between an idea and reality.
Between our minds and the things, there are two intermediary layers: concepts and words. Are they tools easing the access to reality, or are they masks hiding the reality?

Try to think about the same thing in different languages. Not only will they change your mood, they will alter also your perception of the thing. Each language constitutes a different approach to reality.
Only that, if you speak one language, you will be convinced at first that your approach of reality is reality. But once you realize the relativeness of your understanding of the world, because of arbitrary, contingent, fortuitous, almost gratuitous categories, you're doomed to wonder if and how you can reach absolute truths then; without surrendering to mystic or religious faiths of course...

From our youth to our death we live in a wordy world without knowing for certain wether words are true, wether they describe something real or wether they are just artificial illusions of our minds.
Maybe the reality we think we live in is only a virtual world, fashioned by words. Maybe, when we're talking, we're only exchanging words about voidness. Like in the web, like on forums, even in this own thread. Above all in this thread. Definitively in this very post.

We've been misguided so long by the dream of language...



The sleeper must awake. The sleeper must awake. The sleeper must awake.

[PaulH]

The thing is, nobody has any concerns. We can all communicate with one another and accept the idiosyncracies. We would have many more words if we had to give everything an exact definition or absolution to get closer to this 'truth'. But it is not feasible. So there is a blurring of edges.

Sometimes it is plain to see that in English we may not have quite as many words to convey broadly what we are intending to communicate. Thats why the dictionary expands. Other languages have many more words than in English for a term, ie the Eskimoes and snow (17 I believe) but as snow is not a common thing here I guess we are not going to need that many. The French have the two terms for river, and you may class the Thames differently due to the way it physically is and the word you have for that physicality, but in ENGLISH it is a river. No matter what the truth may be. And river may cover more than one physicality in English, I can see that but as yet we don't feel the need for any more words. We are quite happy to call it a river!

[Zyx]

[...]in ENGLISH it is a river. No matter what the truth may be.

That's the part worrying me. Using words with no relation to truth. Is it the only way to use them? I still have no clear answer for it.

This is driving me nuts. The perfect mood for designing a little bit my dungeon. Over and out.

[beowuuf]

It all becomes clear how conflux came about

Language seems to be about simplifying concepts and perceptions so that they are palatable, digestable and transferable. But the basis to do this is for the language itself to strip all elements to a basic quantity, and for the user to then ignore the complexity of the concept to convey it. A river is infact a collection of water molecules flowing at a designated speed in a certain dimensioned hollow of land sliding down a certain gradiated slope, and it has forces of intereaction that allow it to drag all maner of wildlife along in its journey. It has a destination and place of origin etc, yet we jsut say 'river'. Even when the word is complex, as pointed out it them becomes impossible to translate except by the people who expereince it or caused the word. I could define a word 'floobillily' for the sensation I expereince sometimes of a high pitched whine that isnt' a whne a sometimes hear, I believe when something electrical is switched on. No one else knows what the hell I mean, so does the word 'floobillily help me at all convey anything? In the same way, you can't rescribe redness or cold or anger or anything to someone who hasn't experienced it, beyond tryign to tie them to similar sensations, you can't define a taste without refering to another taste. Language is a tool merely to quickly transfer concepts that we all share, and even then with this discussion we see the limits as we try to learn and interact with another language.

Think about how hard it is to really, truely describe the state of your mind when you have ambiguous, complex or strong contrary feelings over a certain event. If this is the case, wjen it is hard to describe events we are feelign simply because we have not really dealt with them before or tried to communicate them to others, who may well know what we are feeling, then how difficult is it to truely try to think beyond our simply perceptions. How difficult would it be to talk to an extra-terretrial or super-natural intelligence that did not perceive or expereince as we do. How would yo investigate and define and entirely new experience no one has ever experienced before, no one has ever thought before, including yourself, that has no link to similar experiences?

I think that's where you are steering this, right zyx?

[Ameena]

Oh gawd...well it's 4:25am so I haven't read the past several zillion posts too thoroughly...but erm well it seems like a simple humourous post about cats and dogs has evolved into some big poncy discussion thing about erm...complicated...stuff...relating to language...Gambit, it's your revenge for us all calling you grumpy, isn't it?
Btw Wuffy, I experience Floobillily when someone has a TV on in another room or in the same room but with the sound off .

[beowuuf]

Ameena, thank you! I ain't mad...whew. So, that yoomperousness, eh? Really annoying

[Gambit37]

I'm such a hypocrite. This thread went off topic and yet it was so interesting that I didn't notice. When I did, I didn't care!

Does that make me a gurnlyfwumpingbarnit?

[cowsmanaut]

I think there are a lot of positive and intelligent ideas in here and yet we prove it to ourselves that the written language is insufficient to describe adequately our ideas and intention. There is more to it than the common string of letters. There is inflection of voice, the expression of your face, the expression of your body language, the context of what you are speaking about (ie someone reading only one post in this thread can quickly become lost with the meaning behind the post), as well as common experience, or common knowledge of the content presented, and yes even the moodset of the reader.

With so much to take into consideration it's small wonder we find people getting the wrong ideas and things being "lost in translation". Wars can happen over a single conversation. An idea can incite thousands to kill those who they feel have opposing views. Even when those being killed may not have an opposing view.. who really stops to talk it over with someone who not only doesn't speak your language, but also is trying to kill you?

If we had telepathy.. could we not more easily convey our ideas.. or desires and dreams.. not just our intentions. Would that make for a better society? Or would it mean blokes with a dirty mind would never be able to get a date? Or perhaps the mind set would be different and they would get more? How would it all change? better? worse?

I myself, certainly pass judgement on the english language and say that it's a horrible mess of words that have too many meanings attached to each word and yet a mess of other words that mean the same thing as annother. I mean the idea of a thesaurus is odd to me. Why would you want to look for words that mean the same thing as the words you already know? to appear more intelligent.. and why is that seen in that way? that's a societal ideal.. that if you know the big words.. that you are smarter than those who communicate in the most simple and efficient manner.

Annother example of communication without the need for words is those who have grown up with eachother.. or have lived together for so long they no longer need words or very few to understand what the other means. A simple look across the room could send my mother roaring with laughter as she would understand the thought behind the look. based on the experiences surrounding that moment in time. True understanding can always bypass the need for the spoken or written word. So does that not essentially mean that language is intended to be used to explain yourself to those who do not know you? What an odd but interesting concept..

moo

[PaulH]

Great summation of the thesaurus. *puts it back on shelf*

[Sera]

hmm, guess i missed a lot, but im too lazy to even look at it all, long posts... *curls up and sleeps, dreaming of chaing cats... and dogs...* hee... i own both of them... ^^

[beowuuf]

The family cat died today : (

Interesting, for the interview I was asked about persuasion and dealing with difficult customers - basically a point I had forgotten until then that I brought up is that when you are in a discussion, the easiest thing to do is find the argument or discussion getting out of hand not because you disagree with someone, but because you both disagree with what you assume the other thinks, and you suddenly find your either go off topic and lose the original thread and have the disagreement degenerate, or lose your original position when the assumption rears its head and the tangent argument collapses takign the original points with it

And that's in a normal discussion with someone of your own language talking about a common area of knowledge. Language and interraction is a funny thing, and the brain is even funnier