transcending language?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » transcending language? » transcending language?

transcending language?
A messy heap of questions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

transcending language?

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 09/19/08 - 05:53 PM:	#51
Tense relates the subject to the speaker. So you are quite correct that a future utterance might refer to events in our present using past tense, but as you say the context sets this up. There is no "correct" time. What counts is that the utterance be understood. We don't usualy need to specify times down to a thousandth of a second, and in most situations doing so would be superfluous. If we were in a situation where it was important, then yes, we could add ec and ef. It's 1.23 apples comparing with 0.23 apples - both are plural. It's 1.000001 dollars, and 0.9999 dollars. We do place the "s". We never write "one percents" or "one voltages" - its one percent and one volt. R+S is greater than one foot, not feet. Yes, English is a bugger.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Cheng-Zhong Su

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 09/26/08 - 01:13 PM:	#52
Banno wrote: Tense relates the subject to the speaker. So you are quite correct that a future utterance might refer to events in our present using past tense, but as you say the context sets this up. There is no "correct" time. What counts is that the utterance be understood. We don't usualy need to specify times down to a thousandth of a second, and in most situations doing so would be superfluous. If we were in a situation where it was important, then yes, we could add ec and ef. It's 1.23 apples comparing with 0.23 apples - both are plural. It's 1.000001 dollars, and 0.9999 dollars. We do place the "s". We never write "one percents" or "one voltages" - its one percent and one volt. R+S is greater than one foot, not feet. Yes, English is a bugger. Let us change attitude to think what if there is no tense? After the adverbial tell you the time, without tense can you make mistake? If you always thinking about language and philosophy, maybe you don’t need to care about ‘correct’ time, but any language has to serve the people who work in science. 0.0001 percent of one second may kill someone; it is really an important issue. So how you give them several thousand markers for the same word? This is the first time I know 0.23 apples, but if my children put it in the answer sheet, they will get no mark. I don’t know what you mean ‘English is a bugger’? My English is poor; can you explain it for me?

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 09/26/08 - 02:49 PM:	#53
Cheng-Zhong Su wrote: Let us change attitude to think what if there is no tense? After the adverbial tell you the time, without tense can you make mistake? If you always thinking about language and philosophy, maybe you don’t need to care about ‘correct’ time, but any language has to serve the people who work in science. 0.0001 percent of one second may kill someone; it is really an important issue. So how you give them several thousand markers for the same word? It's all just a question of use. There is no point in setting the start of a meeting to 0.001 seconds. English is sufficiently flexible to cover all eventualities. What more do you want? Cheng-Zhong Su wrote: I don’t know what you mean ‘English is a bugger’? My English is poor; can you explain it for me? An Australian colloquialism, meaning English is difficult and inconsistent. My apologies - the literal meaning is far ruder than intended.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1513

Posted 09/27/08 - 09:43 AM:	#54
Banno is being a bit of a bugger, Cheng-Zhong Su, because he's only telling you part of the truth. "English is a bugger" is also a colloquialism used (before the Australians) by the English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, etc. Using the word "bugger" opens the linguistic door to many imaginative phrases but needs to be used with care to avoid offence and care must be taken if offence is intended. In brief, it's use is very socially-sensitive, which is a "real bugger". If Banno claims I know "bugger all" about its use that won't offend me.
feeling cheerful

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 09/27/08 - 02:36 PM:	#55
Perhaps. It's use in Australia is certainly more common, and creates less offense, than elsewhere. For a while I referred to myself as a "old bugger" on this very forum, which I thought might provide a certain self-deprecating tone. Apparently, from comments received, it created quite the opposite impression. I'm buggered if I know why.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 09/27/08 - 02:44 PM:	#56
But The subtlety of a simple word like "bugger" brings up my principle objection to formalized languages. How could something dreamed up by a bunch of folk at a committee meeting be more expressive and subtle than a language that has evolved over thousands of years of daily use by millions of individuals?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1513

Posted 09/28/08 - 02:48 AM:	#57
unenlightened wrote When God says "Let there be light", behold, it is so; but when I say stuff, behold, the world completely ignores me. Completely? Maybe you've not been paying sufficient attention. Would you also assert this about the words that others say to you? Cheng-Zhong Su wrote Yesterday, he gave me a pen. The sentence expressed the past time twice. First ‘yesterday’ tell you it happened in the past, then the past tense ‘gave’ repeat it again. The double expression reflects the speaker suspecting his word. Suspecting his word? An alternative (and IMO more reasonable) understanding is that "gave" is a general indication of a past event and "yesterday" is more specific. Thus "gave" and "yesterday" are usefully informative. .
feeling cheerful

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 09/29/08 - 01:38 PM:	#58
ragus wrote: unenlightened wrote: When God says "Let there be light", behold, it is so; but when I say stuff, behold, the world completely ignores me. Completely? Maybe you've not been paying sufficient attention. Would you also assert this about the words that others say to you? Well thanks, pal, for proving me half wrong - If only I could remember why I said it, I might be able to enlighten you further.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1513

Posted 09/29/08 - 02:09 PM:	#59
unenlightened wrote Well thanks, pal, for proving me half wrong So you don't talk to yourself?
feeling cheerful

Cheng-Zhong Su

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 49

Posted 10/03/08 - 01:29 PM:	#60
Banno wrote: It's all just a question of use. There is no point in setting the start of a meeting to 0.001 seconds. English is sufficiently flexible to cover all eventualities. What more do you want? If you always discuss language, it maybe useless but if you know something about how a chain reaction start in atom bomb, how a division going on in a cell and how our computer work, it would be useful. Language is not just for linguists, it should meet the requirement of any people.

Members currently reading this thread: Diekon
	Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.