Semantics (how good is English?)

The older I get and the more time I spend debating the big issues with people, the more I've come to feel that the English language is a sloppy, ambiguous, imprecise mess. Do you ever get really frustrated trying to explain something and no one seems to get what you're trying to say, and you just can't seem to wrangle english words together into exactly what you're trying to convey?

I know English is a living language and that meanings of words change and fluctuate, gain and lose associations, and just generally morph a lot over time. Is this a good thing? Personally it bugs the hell out of me. How are we supposed to express ourselves with any kind of precision when every word means ten different things to ten different people or when nuetral words become carriers of bias that was never intended?

And another question... to what degree does our language limit our ability to formulate thoughts and conceptualize? Does a limited and imprecise language not only impede communication but also the ability to think up concepts in the first place?

No. No . And No.

English is a very complex language... From work I've done in natural language processing, I can tell you that it's very difficult to get a computer to make sense of it.

But, in terms of dealing with other people, english can easilly serve the need. The key is to clearly define the terms you choose to use up front.

In 1984, Orwell played on the same concept I'm getting at here... Thought was controlled partly by manipulating the language. To what degree do memes propogate due to language being susceptible to infection by them (metaphorically speaking)?

Although rigorous and time consuming, you must make sure that everyone is on a level ground. (not high grounds)

To a very large degree with the subject matter that has been discussed here of late! But it can all be overcome by explanation...

No, I don't believe so. When you come across something that is in dispute, just make sure the other person understands fully what you mean by 'it'.


As a side note...

And I think I have come up with a solution to the *eist problem, 3 camps:
1) Atheist - Believes whole heartedly that no diety exists.
2) Non-Theist - Doesn't know or even necessarily care if there are deities.
3) Theist - Believes whole heartedly in a deity(ies).

But, that is a mute point now since I know where you were coming from Chip

I was just about to make that point, good job!

if one doesn't have a word for "freedom", one can't long for it was the example if I remember correctly

anyway, leaves me to wonder, why is Latin a dead language?

don't only really smart people learn Latin?

I'm really not trying to reopen the other discussion. I do truly appreciate everyone's input and opinions on the subject and apologize if I started to sound snippy. It just made me think about another topic that I've been pondering for a while. I mean these questions in general, not specific to the previous debate.

Language sucks as a communication medium. That's why we always use other mediums whenever we can to enhance it - images, graphs, charts, numbers, and moving pictures.

All languages need to evolve, because your view on the universe is evolving. The trouble comes from the (many) times the language evolves out of laziness. My favorite example of this is "of" replacing "have" typically after the words "should" and "would". "He should of taken the turn faster, he would of won the race." Words losing their specific meaning by being over associated - like “game” coming to mean any form of leisure activity - also hurt the language.


I can't really speak to the last question. I'm more of a visual thinker, like many Aspies.

An observation I've had about English for some time now is you can mangle it a great deal and still have it somewhat semi-intelligible, but really getting the fine, finer, finest nuances takes a LOT of work. Especially with how it's such a malleable composite of other languages. There's a word for just about everything, and if there isn't yet, it may come into common usage sooner or later. I mean, back a decade ago, who would have thought "blog" or "podcast" (technically inaccurate but too late now!) would be so propagated?

I used to often struggle to put things into words. I found the problem lay in how I was trying, in vain, to use words in a way like other people—in other words, not choosing terms that were true to my heart, but being a copycat of other writers. This soon collapsed, and I am finding my way. I have personal stylistics: for example, dropping inefficient (in my view) letters out of "thought" to make it "thot", or spelling "stuff" as "schtuff" just because I find the former to lack flava.

And what is flava?

That's not something I can explain. I like bouncing off of other Resis here, just doing something that can be explained better by an observer. (That's a hallmark of science too, using powers of observation.) And then I can get an analysis, backtrack, dig into deepers and realize more things about myself, and WWWWWH I do the things I do.

Knowing this, I can take responsibility for things that I've come up with, or at least have greatly been influenced by and have a considerable understanding of.

Funny how "bad", "ill", "sick", and "wicked" all used to mean such, well, bad things. Now, they're common compliments for skater tricks, even music tracks. "That was a SICK BASSLINE d00d!" I know I've heard that one a lot.

If I start to stare at words like THE or even I a lot, they look really funny to me. It's something that can be taken for granted.

A powerful method for me is relationalism (hell is that even a word). Like pointing to an apple, and saying "apple". And then eating the apple, knowing what it tastes like, and then you taste an orange, and know they are similar in some aspects (being fruit) but different (one is citrus, the other is not). On a particular level, I'm glad you started this up, Chip, because it relates specifically to people asking "What is Second Life?" and wondering why we can't get along better on the SL Forums.

I used to get bothered more, but now, I just keep things liquid. I have a colorful illustration. You know how in some sci-fi cartoons, the hero can summon up a blade, and cut away at the enemy, and then upon a voice command or psychic link, the blade transforms into a gun, or other utility? Maybe the blade is actually a sentient, living pet? That's how I see it.

That, and I like emoticons a lot.

And then after making my post, I read yours, and it perfectly illustrates why I feel the way I do!

As an English teacher, I feel fully qualified to offer, by way of response, a "Yep."

English is a contortionist that fully belongs center-stage in Cirque du Soleil. This I know; I have read thousands upon thousands of essays written by students. They, students, can make the English language do things that it best ought not do.

Meaning or intent often falls into the denotation/connotation chasm--precision is lost. Looking at the language morass from a different direction, however, yields the infinite possibilities that make literature relevant and eternal.

Right, exactly. I think the concept is greatly exaggerated in 1984, but I do think there's some truth to it. Obvisously concepts have to have the ability to form before words or language would never have been invented in the first place, or we'd never add new words. What I wonder is how much of a two way street it is. Obviously thought can drive language, but to what degree does language drive thought?

I think the current consensus on this is that the causality is the other way around. One does not have a word for freedom, because one does not long for it. Once someone sees the need to express the concept of "freedom" he will invent it, or borrow the word from some other language.


Because it's damn difficult to learn.

Great point, Euterpe. The ambiguity and contortionist nature of the language is of definite benefit to art and poetry.

Interesting thoughts. I would argue that English is difficult simply because it is *un* limited though and each word can (and often does), mean a bunch of different things based on context.

It is that imprecision that makes English difficult for communication at best. This is also the reason why French is "The language of diplomacy." That's not just a nice thing to say about French. French is used by diplomats because of the fact that it lacks a lot of the imprecision of English and a great deal of it's extraneous complexity as well.

That gets me thinking of languages like Chinese where one character carries so much history with it, and a lot of cultural benefits that become revealed by studying past works of literary masters who also used the same characters; sometimes to much comedic effect.

Oh neat. I'm really ignorant about other languages, and asian languages in particular. I usually have a pretty easy time figuring out what you're trying to say, Torley. I think in some ways people who stylize their individual language can be easier to understand because the way they stylize it offers more context to where they're coming from. Then again it often annoys me when it seems that people are doing it just to be fashionable or different and end up just obscuring their message. Maybe English is the way it is because it's a natural middle ground between the two extremes.

I truly wish someone had forced me to learn several other languages at gunpoint when I was young enough to still be able to absorb them easily.

The answer is to use the word W00T heavily, and to communicate only in highly sexualized Spanish slang.

Excellent!

Actually, French has been language of diplomacy since before Chaucer's time.

As a Romance language, French is actually more complex than English in some basic grammatic constructions (e.g. formation of the negative requires two words surrounding the conjugated verb "Il n'est pas sympathique" --a simple subject/to be verb/predicate adjective construction).

You're right and wrong..

Often, speaking in french is more complex, but that is because the actual language itself is much simpler.

The french vocabulary is smaller, because french will just combine words to form more complex meaning. In contrast, english will simply have a whole new word for that meaning.

An example would be something like "Of Cheese" in french, compared to "Cheezy" in english.

One big reason for this is that the french government actively tries to preserve the current state of its language, while english constantly absorbs words from other languages.

French is tricky because they change the grammar rules for no other reason than to make sure a particular word sounds good. Plus there is the whole pronouncing of the first syllable and then sucking the rest out your nose thing.

On the straight "ambiguity of language" question, I don't see much difficulty at least at the surface level. Unless some major misunderstanding goes unnoticed.

Usually a bit of exploration round a topic will bring such a thing into the light. The discussion group examine the competing definitions, reach a (hopefully) friendly respectful consensus on which to adopt, and proceed with the now commonly agreed nomenclature. The only thing that matters with any word-usage is common agreement on what it means.

Beneath the surface, there are of course huge complications and philosophic questions about language, meaning, and communication, but in practice it all works very well most of the time. At least, that is our impression, and what else is there ? No. Don't answer that