[lojban-beginners] Re: language useful?

[Bruce Webber <bruce@brucewebber.com>]

MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2005-02-14 5:23:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bruce 
> Webber
> bruce@brucewebber.com via ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:
 >> For a language to be useful, it's structure must match the structure of
> > the world being described. 
>
> That's simply the most amazingly false statement I've seen in a long time.
> *No* language structure matches or *can* match the structure of the 
> world being described.  It's comparing apples and oranges; they're 
> totally different, incompatible structures.  
>
> Having said that though, can you support it with examples?

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have written "match". I don't mean that a 
language will be exactly like what it describes - you are correct; that 
is impossible. "Similar" is a better word.

If the structure of the language (in a particular area) is similar to 
the structure of the world (in the corresponding area) then the language 
will be useful. One will be able to make reasonably accurate 
predictions, for example.

For example, a language describing human health in terms of four bodily 
humours (blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile) will not be as 
useful as a language that includes microbes, immune responses, etc.

Of course, similarity of structure, in terms of accuracy and 
completeness, is a matter of degree. Sometimes we want many details; 
other times we want to leave out details. The usefulness of the map 
(language) depends on our purpose. This is where levels of abstraction 
come into play. At higher levels of abstraction, more detail is left 
out, and the language utterances become more general.

Sometimes the language structure can be misleading. Because "heat" is a 
noun, it was natural to think that heat is some sort of substance 
("caloric"). Because we have the words "body" and "mind", it is tempting 
to think there are two separate entities, when there aren't. These are 
still useful words; the key is being aware of the limitations and role 
of language.

Hopefully this clarifies my statements. :)

Bruce