Paradigm Paralysis In Linguistic Systems

[Layra-chan]

Even if you do have all the stems being able to form any sort of word (actually, my two languages nerurav and mraow both do that as well) the suffixes still turn the words into nouns and verbs and stuff. You might not have "condition()" be a verb, but the conjugated word "condition(verb)" is still a verb.

I didn't mean to imply that it is impossible to overcome the psychological difficulties; I've actually done quite a bit of work on that adjective-only 3-dimensional language, at least in terms of grammar, and it violates all sorts of things, including word types, linearity, clausal conditions, and other stuff. But it only works because there are a ton of grammatical structures outside of the words themselves, and translation into oral languages is basically impossible. I'm not even sure whether it can be constructed, to be honest; depending on the cycling structure it might not even be realizable physically, and it certainly wouldn't be readable except by a fourth-dimensional being.  

[WaffleBat]

I think I was the one who implied it was impossible.

Thinking entirely in terms of concept, a language is what allows you to say somthing about somthing.

Meaning you would need a way to answer who and what. Unless the beings have enitely different concepts as us. But us being trapped in our world means we can only theorise this language. It would be nearly impossible for us to use it, and I also do not think we would have a use for it.

I mean, if you're not talking about a thing, what are you talking about? Can you imnagine how usless a stalmate conversation between beings without anything to talk about would be? It would be like a constant akward silence.

If you're not talking about a thing, why on would you be talking at all?

Perhaps all I've managed to do is demonstrate being "trapped".  

[Fogwolf]

Something that could be called a language could probably break most of the paradigms of language we're used to, but it will necessarily be very different from languages we know.

Consider beings who have a system of communication such that there is a constant stream (of sound, say), and the tone correlates to the being's emotional state, the higher the better (basically what many animals seem to do, but a constant stream rather than a series of sounds). Here we have communication, we have no breaking points (either physically or conceptually, really). So we seem to have broken out of the idea of 'words'.

But in doing so, we've also eliminated almost everything that our languages can encode for.

Quote:

Some languages like Chinese and English have very vague parts of speech with words that can be used in a variety of parts with no change to the word itself.

Adjectives can be used as nouns, nouns can be used as verbs, and verbs can be used as adjectives... But that's still so inside-the-box.

I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but it sounds a bit like zero derivation or conversion, in which a word changes category without undergoing any changes to its morphology. But the result is still word of a different category. When people verbed 'access', going from "I have access to the website" to "I access the website" is an example of this - and now we basically have two words - a verb and a noun - and they differ in the range of possibilities open to them.

Quote:

I'm wondering if maybe... Language is purely a human concept. That doesn't sound too strange, since we've yet to prove that a non-human can learn language. Even animals that are super-intelligent -- like dolphins and such -- don't appear to use language as we know it. They communicate, yes, but they don't use true language.

I can't remember if it was chimps, or gorillas, or both, but they've taught some animals sign language and others to use a chart of symbols that stand for certain events, foods, activities, etc.  

[Layra-chan]

Fogwolf

Quote:

I'm wondering if maybe... Language is purely a human concept. That doesn't sound too strange, since we've yet to prove that a non-human can learn language. Even animals that are super-intelligent -- like dolphins and such -- don't appear to use language as we know it. They communicate, yes, but they don't use true language.

I can't remember if it was chimps, or gorillas, or both, but they've taught some animals sign language and others to use a chart of symbols that stand for certain events, foods, activities, etc.

We've taught them vocabulary; currently, grammar still eludes them.  

[WaffleBat]

Corecct grammar still evades highschool students. It's not saying much for the chimps, but I don't think it's fair to expect them to just know it all of a sudden when we have years of language and civilazation and still can't get it right.

What if there was no concrete grammar? Like, just a bunch of ideas stapled on eatchother?  

[Eccentric Iconoclast]

WaffleBat

Corecct grammar still evades highschool students. It's not saying much for the chimps, but I don't think it's fair to expect them to just know it all of a sudden when we have years of language and civilazation and still can't get it right.

What if there was no concrete grammar? Like, just a bunch of ideas stapled on eatchother?

Oh great. Please don't make me start on THAT s**t again.

CORRECT GRAMMAR DOESN'T EXIST.  

[Rimbaum]

Eccentric Iconoclast

WaffleBat

Corecct grammar still evades highschool students. It's not saying much for the chimps, but I don't think it's fair to expect them to just know it all of a sudden when we have years of language and civilazation and still can't get it right.

What if there was no concrete grammar? Like, just a bunch of ideas stapled on eatchother?

Oh great. Please don't make me start on THAT s**t again.

CORRECT GRAMMAR DOESN'T EXIST.

I have a rebuttal against this, and the very article you provided has given me the ammo.

Quote:

But if the person on the street is so good at avoiding [Me is going] and [Give I a break]...

I have heard these phrases actually being spoken in a conversation. I've also been blatantly laughed at for asking "what are these" when the person I was speaking to would have said "what is these?". To say that "correct" grammar doesn't exist and to claim that humans instinctively know the best and easiest ways to speak their native language is in itself a farce when people aren't being taught even at the earliest of stages how to speak their own language in a way that makes sense.

I can kind of see your point, though. Slang evolves a language, and if we stuck to how the English language originally had been made with all of its now-outdated rules, we'd still be using words like Thee, Thou, Ye, and even using Whom in a "proper" basis. However, to claim that language is purely instinctive rather than taught at an early age (as was the idea I got from the article) is... well, I said it before: It's a farce.

I don't particularly like a lot of the slang being used, especially by kids who try to emulate the "rapper culture", but actually going so far as to teach your kids something contrary to the supposedly instinctive rules of our language by saying [Me is going] or [Is these] on a regular and consistent basis makes people sound dumbed-down to a level that they may or may not be.


I guess what I'm trying to say is this: There's certain rules we're taught to follow at the earliest stages of our mental development, and we make natural extensions based on those rules... extensions that other people say are "incorrect grammar," even though they follow the rules we're taught as small children. Blinking your eyes when something comes close to them suddenly is instinctive, knowing the grammar rules of a language is not. Look up feral children sometime and you'll see what I mean.  

[WaffleBat]

Exactly! There is correct grammar. People just chose not to use it. I don't think it is the "rapper culture" so much instilled upon them. Some kids pick it over thier normal speech to be cool or whatever. I can tell who they are becuase they understand me when I speak.

I think it is because they learned to speak that way, they teach thier kids that. That "slang" dialect was made from semi-broken "slave english" as I believe the people of the time would likely have called it. It has been around before Rap. Rap just made it cool.

It has always been cool to be uneducated though.

Now, actually ON topic:

Since it is a constant stream grammar with either be more important or not-at-all important. The order of the objects that relates to the ideas is part of grammar and seems to be important as we are no-longer only using it to convey emotions (seemingly).

What if we have three base "pitches" (--, 00, and ++) and two moderate pitches (0- and +0). The changes and frequencey of change could convey an idea.

If we appily "vocals" to it (a good way to test it I think as it is good enough to simulate a constant stream of information):
0 would be a moderate tone, ++ would be a high screech and -- would be a low moan sort of sound.

This would compleetly work, it might end up a bit like solresol though.  

[Layra-chan]

Let me clarify: it isn't that correct grammar eludes chimps, it's that grammar at all eludes chimps. No matter how "incorrect" a person's grammar might be, people without agrammatism will form sentences with subjects and verbs with the semantic structure of the subject enacting the verb. There will be sentences, there will be clauses, there will be some sort of rule structure for defining relationships between lexical units, whether or not these rules are "correct".
Chimps do not do this. They string together concepts with no regard to clause, subject-verb relations, etc. It's not "give I a break" so much as "gift I breaking" or " breaking give I" or "breaking you I give I break", and each individual chimp will go through the permutations fairly randomly, so it's not even like each chimp has an individual grammar.  

[Fogwolf]

I think I started something I didn't mean to start - sorry!

When I mentioned the chimps, I was only saying that there is, or appears to be, something linguistic going on, which is interesting and is some evidence for language not being only a human thing.

I didn't mean that they understand or can produce complex human language, but that the basic idea of symbollic representation of meaning is there. Semantics if not syntax.  

[Xeigrich]

I would just like to point this out...


Communication =/= Language


So just because something can communicate to another thing, doesn't mean it's using language. Although "language" is often loosely defined and no definite definition has been... defined (defdefdef argh), I'm pretty sure there's more to it than mere "communication." Otherwise, screaming/grunting/burping and other random bodily functions or gestures that communicate some sort of meaning can be classified as "language" beyond the mere metaphor of "body language." I'd like to see someone take bodily functions and make them into a sort of language, with grammar and stuff.

Computers communicate to eachother by sending binary data back and forth, often in the form of either electrical or audio signals (modems). They aren't using a language.



And as far as grammar goes... I think "correct grammar" does exist. It would be fallacy to argue otherwise. However, just because there is a defined "correct grammar" that doesn't mean that it is the only grammar, and that no exceptions can ever arise. Remember, you can never prove something doesn't exist.

And yes, no animal has been found to be intelligent enough to comprehend even the concept of grammar (link).  

[Eccentric Iconoclast]

Rimbaum, you missed the point of the article. Obviously, the author has never heard people use these phrases, but you assume that he would discount them as wrong if he had. But the point he was trying to make was that language is how people speak it instead of some arbitrary notions of linguistic morality.

And Fogwolf, sorry to be so hostile but that's racist bullshit. There is nothing wrong with African American Vernacular English. It's just not how you talk, does that make it bad?

Xeigrich, how would it be a fallacy to argue otherwise? My dear sir, the idea of "correct" grammar was only invented in the eighteenth century, when people decided that English was "derived from" Latin and was bad because it didn't have Latin grammar. No, you can't prove a negative here, but I damn well bet you can't prove the positive either.

The question in all of these is WHY THE HELL DO YOU CONSIDER IT WRONG.  

[WaffleBat]

English teachers. They tell you a myth about "Standard American English".

(We'll, we're never getting back on topic. rolleyes )

Also, you're comment to Fogwolf? Was that actually directed at me? How is that even racist? Are you saying it is racist for insisting that there is indeed a different vernacular that is presumed nonstandard by english professors and that it was dirrived from uneducated people imported to do free labor?

Well sorry.  

[Goddess Rukus]

This. Is. Complicated. Oh. My. God.

Geez! I can't keep up with this conversation at all! xD

Then again, I'm reading this so late my mind can't absorb anything. =P

Oh well. I try. Really I do. xD  

[Xeigrich]

@ EI:

First off, it's fallacy to argue that anything Doesn't Exist. NOTHING can be proven to not exist, because you can't provide proof about something that simply isn't there. I can argue that Monkeybats don't exist, but what proof can I provide other than "Well, we haven't found one yet, so they don't exist."

"Correct grammar" is mostly a matter of opinion. It depends on what rules you follow, or what rules you decide don't matter (some cases, all of the rules :b ).

It exists, because someone indeed sat down and said "This is correct English grammar." Just because REAL English doesn't adhere to that, doesn't mean that the concept of "correct grammar" along with a list of rules and exceptions don't exist. To say it doesn't exist is to say that English textbooks and whatnot are all figments of our imagination.

However, and I'm fairly sure you would agree with this, true "correct grammar" is just whatever is understandable and comprehensible by the greater majority of (native?) speakers at the time. If you argue the point of what "correct grammar" is too far, you may realize that there really is no such thing as a solid grammar itself. You can't say "this is English grammar" if English grammar changes every decade, since that statement would be inaccurate just a few years later.

Now I know you are all for the Death To Linguistic Prescriptivism stuff... I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying that a "correct grammar" has been created, even if it's grossly outdated, obsolete, basically useless and full of lies.


And now, "Why do I consider it wrong?" ?

I never said I considered anything wrong (well, other than the whole "fallacy" bit I already explained). I'm all for changes in our language, and while there are definitely some common utterances I don't prefer to hear being spoken, that doesn't mean I think they're "wrong" or that English should just stop in its metaphorical tracks and run the other direction.


(What's with the hostile tone, there, EI? Yeesh! eek )