M
Man.0
Guest
Most of what followed the above by you was answered both by the point of language and how it functions and is measured in definition, which I provided prior.
I do not think you provided a substantive answer. I felt no satisfaction with the answer you gave - it could have been more detailed. And you could have given greater depth to the answer. You may say to me, 'The answer I gave is sufficient and substantial'. But who is that determines if a substantial answer has been given - is it not the one who asks the question? If you give an answer on a test, is it not the examiner/teacher (the one who formed the questions) who decides if the answer is substantial? I have assessed your answer and I do not think that it properly addresses the questions that I put forth. It seems that you're rather adept at parrying questions that are put forth to you, appearing to answer them, when not actually answering them. You seem to be a person who thinks that to provide just an answer - any answer - is enough.
Fish contains subsets. If you want to distinguish between a trout and a catfish, well, there you go. Beyond that a fish is a fish, it's the sounds/symbols that, within the way we arrange language has been decided as the fit.
It seems that you totally and completely missed the point(s) I was making - through the hypothetical scenarios that I gave.
Language can be messy, but context usually clears up any ambiguity. It's harder for those who aren't native speakers, but they do all right.
Even context doesn't always clear up ambiguity.
That's the type of answer which I feel you have often given me. Answers which provide no further reasoning, or concrete explanation.
But I will not do the same. And I hope I haven't been doing so. To my knowledge, I have been giving you ample reasoning, and analogies, and examples.
I will do that now. I will give you an example - in the form of a short story - in response to.your above statement.
Mary is on a trip to England. She comes from America, and is a native of that country. The purpose of Mary's vacation is to visit her friend, Jane. When Mary arrives at the airport, Jane picks her up. Jane then suggests that they both go to a bar for a drink. "A nice drink will ease the jetlag that you're feeling', says Jane. "It's not far from here, it's just round the corner'. When they arrive at the pub, they place their orders. After sitting down to drink, they get chatting to two gay men, who are husbands. They also a met a man, carrying a dog. Later on he made the decision to put down the dog. They also met a young man who had two little birds on both arms. In the pub, they all end up getting very inebriated. They leave the bar in the late hours of the day.'Good night' Jane says to Mary. The next morning at the hotel where Mary is staying, the receptionist checks her out. Mary had only flown over to stay for one night, and is now getting ready to return in the same way she arrived.
There a number of ambiguities in the story:
'She comes from America, and is a native of that country.'
1. Is Mary an American Indian? Or simply a citizen of America? Or both?
' When Mary arrives at the airport, Jane picks her up. '
2. Did Jane physically lift up Mary; was Jane flirting with Mary; or did Jane simply go to collect Mary?
' "It's not far from here, it's just round the corner" .'
3. Was the bar literally around the corner?
'...they get chatting to two gay men...'
4. Are they happy men or homosexual men?
'...who are husbands.'
5. Are the men married, or are they simply houseowners (which is what the word 'husband' used to mean - how do you know the story isn't set in that era of time)? If married, are they married to each other?
'They also a met a man carrying his dog. Later on he made a decision to put down the dog.'
6. Is he going to euthanise the dog, or simply stop carrying it?
'They also met a young man who had two pretty, little birds on both arms.'
7. Did the man have two small, gorgeous women on either side of him, or two feathery animals?
'In the pub, they all ended up getting very inebriated.'
8. Who is that gets very drunk? Mary, Jane, and the men they meet... or everyone in the pub?
' "Good night" Jane says to Mary.'
9. Was Jane expressing her enjoyment of the night; or wishing Mary a good night?
'The next morning at the hotel where Mary is staying, the receptionist checks her out.'
10. Was the receptionist admiring Mary's physical appearance, or was the receptionist simply checking her out of the hotel?
'Mary had only flown over to stay for one night, and is now getting ready to return in the same way she arrived.'
11. Did Mary literally fly over to England from America? How do you know she's not a superhero, with the ability to fly?
You say that context can usually clear up ambiguity. Well, I've provided you with a context in the form of a short story. Clear up the ambiguity - answer those questions.
By the way, I needn't have written a story. Context could have been provided with just one, single sentence. Like in a newspaper headline, for example.
It doesn't make sense because you can't rely on the meaning of the sounds/symbols I've used and, as you understand those sounds/symbols they aren't conforming to rules established to facilitate communication. And that's what language boils down to in the end. That is it's truth and measure.
I want to pick up on a point you made earlier, which I feel is relevant to what you say here. You said that the 'point of a common language is first and foremost communication' (post #5). Now in what you say here, in the quote above, you seem to continue to stick by this point. I do not agree with your sentiments. Rather, I believe that the point of a common language, is first and foremost, expression, not communication. I think they both go hand in hand, but one precedes the other. Babies and young children express themselves (through language) before the point of communication is reached. What do I mean by that? I mean that, for example, when a baby cries, his first and foremost desire is not to communicate, but to express himself. Likewise, when primitive people first made marks on cave walls, it could be argued that the primary motive and desire wasn't communication, but expression. Expression first, and then communication follows - but both are interlinked.
'they aren't conforming to rules established to facilitate communication.'
Who says they have to conform to those rules?
Because the truth of language is in its function, which relies on rules of construction and a common lexicon.
But don't you understand that the 'rules of construction and a common lexicon' could be althogether different than to what is currently established', if society had chosen a different framework?
Right. And yet is objectively true that any number of words have primary, secondary and tertiary meanings and that understanding which is being applied is contextual.The answer to 1+1 cannot be 2, 8 and 13.
I don't think you get the connection I was making here - by using the analogy of a mathematical statement that has only one correct answer. I really don't think you comprehend the connection. Nor do I think you comprehend the other things that I've been expressing to you. You may think you have understood, but by the answers you are giving, I really don't think you have. We are currently on different wavelengths, trying to get each other to understand our own point of view. I don't wish to convert you to my own point of view - and by own efforts I think it would be impossible to do so.
I imagine that you have a different intellect than I do, and nothing I can do can cause you to see things the way I see them. Now the question is, whose statements up until this point have been right, and whose have been wrong? I think we will need to appeal to an objective judge, that is, God - for He, who knows all things, would be able to decide who is right, and who is wrong. If I am wrong in anything I've said, may He make it known to me - either through revelation or via someone else. And if you are wrong in what you are saying, may He make it known to you - again, through revelation, or someone else. Lastly I shall say that what you, or I, must try not to do is present our own subjective reasonings as if they are objective truth - which it seems we have both been guilty of. Can you say you have not been guilty of doing so?
The objective truth of language is that words have meaning and that meaning can change depending on usage. The truth of a word is found within that understanding.
You say 'meanings can change'. Well, let me ask you... can objective truth change? Isn't objective truth solid, concrete and unchangeable? If a meaning of a word can change, how can it then be objective truth? It can be relative truth, but not objective truth. And even the existence of 'relative truth' - that in itself is contradictory. I hope you can see why.
Only if you misapprehend the truth you're looking for.The meanings of 'bread' cannot all equally be true.
What if I'm looking for one truth? What if i'm looking for a singular meaning of the word 'bread'?
It doesn't. It is, to the one currency at that time. It is to another food at that time. And so on.
Then it is relative, and not objective. If you hadn't realised, my focus and concern is on objective truth, not relativity.
That's not a meaningful question.To you, you're using the right word, but to the cashier - who doesn't know your slang (let's presume that he doesn't) you're using an incorrect word for 'money'. Who is right, you or the cashier?
Interesting how you fail to answer the question itself, because it is apparantley not a 'meaningful question'. Who are you to determine what is meaningful or not?
There's the intended communication and either a deficiency in presented context or some other impediment in play that brings a momentary confusion. But it should only be a momentary one, if that. It would be odd for a banker to suspect the man approaching him had mistaken his place of work for a bakery and odder still for the man to have made the mistake.
You say that would be odd for such things to happen, but I do not think such things are unheard of.
Rather, you removed it from the context, the sentences in support an illustration. Without context language is fairly pointless.
I don't need your beloved 'context' to help me define whether a sentence is objectively-worded or not. And it was an objective sentence, was it not? Re-read it again, and tell me whether the sentence was personal (that is subjective) or impersonal (that is, objective).