From pycyn@aol.com Sun Feb 03 15:14:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 3 Feb 2002 23:14:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 22073 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2002 23:14:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2002 23:14:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2002 23:14:19 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.66.1b752c16 (4588) for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 18:14:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <66.1b752c16.298f1e49@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 18:14:17 EST Subject: Re: Truth Value of UI (was: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bibletra... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_66.1b752c16.298f1e49_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_66.1b752c16.298f1e49_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/2002 12:04:54 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > People sometimes say "Oh, fuck!" and "Ouch!" as utterances in discussions > to communicate their state of emotions. The fact that at other times, the > ingrained communicative habit triggers an ejaculation outside of a > discussion is caused by, and not parallel to, their original communicative > function. As one might expect in a desperate case, this so vague as to be useless and so irrelevant as to be misleading. "People sometimes use ... to communicate the state of their emotions" They sometimes use them and they often do communicate and they may even use them to communicate. But this only works because the expressions have developed for expressing these emotions. That is, the rest of this paragraph has the causal links backwards we don't use communication techniques expressively but expressive forms communicatively. (I can't prove this to xod, of course, since he can't see it and will take any evidence offered as proving the opposite, by twists of logic and vocabulary.) There are many expressive usages which are not used communicatively -- at least by some people. The expressive usage underlies the communicative, though neither is the cause of the other. The effectiveness of the expressive function makes the communicative possible. > > Are you going to try to convince me that there are words that were created > and taught with the intent of private, internal use, and that are never > intended for interpersonal communication? Once you manage to do that, and > then prove that the Book teaches that UI are similarly not intended for > interpersonal communication, then I will agree with you. Good luck. > Aside from constructed languages, words aren't created and taught much at all, they evolve and are learned. And,yes, some words do evolve primarily for expressing "internal states" (though, as Mad Ludwig points out, these states are not really private and every word has to be learned in a social context). So, I learned to say "f**k" to express a particular kind of frustration from seeing others obviously in like states using the word to vent their feelings (I actually learned that I could replace the "drat" that had been so daring when I was a kid with something a bit more powerful -- though the power is virtually all gone now). It is not obvious to me that those from whom I learned it were trying to communicate with me -- in some cases I doubt that they were aware of my presence and, I fear, I passed the habit on to my child without ever meaning to communicate my frustration to her. Of course, saying this does convey some of tha frustration -- as does my twisted purple face, my jerky motions, my ragged breathing, and countless other signs that accompany (or constitute) that frustration. They occur -- as does saying "f**k" -- when there is no one around (at least that I am aware of), and I can use at least some of them -- "f**k" is particularly easy -- to tell others about a frustration now passed. That works because we all remember being in a "f**k"-saying mood and thus understand what I am talking about (even if we don't any longer remember the occasion where we learned the word.) Of course, UI -- like every bit of langauge -- is intended for interpersonal communication. What follows from that? Zip. It does not, in particular, follow that on a given occasion it is intended to communicate anything to anybody. UI -- and language in general, is also intended to express feelings, to create art, to perform magic, and so on, even though on a given occasion most of these will not be going on. When discussing linguistic questions, it seems appropriate to use linguistics as a source for developed observations and theories and thus for terminology. It does happen that "symbol" is a term that different schools have used in different ways, so it become important in a linguistics context (which xod haas apparently quite deliberately avoided ever getting into -- to the detriment of his arguments) to know which school is being used. Now that we know what his definition is, it is possible to proceed (I'm not sure that being a symbol requires a spoken incarnation, but for linguistic ones -- which is all we are about -- it does, so skip that problem.). In isolation, true -- pretty much. We can come up with an open ended list of occasions for saying {mu gleki} when not happy. We can do the same for saying {ui}, of course, and many of the occasions will be the same. So? and say "ui" when not actually happy, but likewise one can carefully > carve a footprint in the ground using a spatula to falsely create > the impression that someone has trodden there. A 'footprint' not made > by treading is a fake footprint, and a "ui" said when not happy is > a fake "ui". Well, you've agreed that UI has a truth value. I wish I had read this part first before I wasted time responding to the rest. I'm glad you've come around!> I don't see it. Nothing in the previous passage suggests that the presenter has admitted that {ui} has a truth value. The analogy suggest quite the opposite, that {ui} is like a natural sign, which can be faked. <> > Is smoke? If > > we're arranged that smoke has a certain meaning, and the signal is sent > > but the condition to which it maps is not met, the smoke is a lie. > > Okay, but I deny that "ui" is a prearranged signal for me to use to > communicate to you that I'm happy. Rather, "ui" is a conventional > part of my behaviour; it's what I say when I'm happy. Is it really? Did the idea come spontaneously forth from your childhood habits? Or did you read about it in a book? Shall we now argue the definition of "pre-arranged"? Selmaho UI was created, not discovered.> Selma'o UI -- like all of Lojban -- was created. In this case it was created to provide normalized means of expressing certain things that were expressed in ordinary language. What these were is largely a matter of "discovery," though we have known about them since we were very young. What was dicovered, perhaps, was which ones needed to be represented in Lojban and which could be ignored or dealt with in some other way. I learned to use {ui} as the Lojban replacement for my English happy-words, just as I learned to use {klama} for much of my English "come" and "go," but the English happy-words, like the English content words, I learned and habituated from a variety of experiences, spontaneously in childhood. --part1_66.1b752c16.298f1e49_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/3/2002 12:04:54 PM Central Standard Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes:


People sometimes say "Oh, fuck!" and "Ouch!" as utterances in discussions
to communicate their state of emotions. The fact that at other times, the
ingrained communicative habit triggers an ejaculation outside of a
discussion is caused by, and not parallel to, their original communicative
function.

As one might expect in a desperate case, this so vague as to be useless and so irrelevant as to be misleading. "People sometimes use ... to communicate the state of their emotions"  They sometimes use them and they often do communicate and they may even use them to communicate.  But this only works because the expressions have developed for expressing these emotions.  That is, the rest of this paragraph has the causal links backwards we don't use communication techniques expressively but expressive forms communicatively. (I can't prove this to xod, of course, since he can't see it and will take any evidence offered as proving the opposite, by twists of logic and vocabulary.) There are many expressive usages which are not used communicatively -- at least by some people.  The expressive usage underlies the communicative, though neither is the cause of the other.  The effectiveness of the expressive function makes the communicative possible.




Are you going to try to convince me that there are words that were created
and taught with the intent of private, internal use, and that are never
intended for interpersonal communication? Once you manage to do that, and
then prove that the Book teaches that UI are similarly not intended for
interpersonal communication, then I will agree with you. Good luck.


Aside from constructed languages, words aren't created and taught much at all, they evolve and are learned. And,yes, some words do evolve primarily for expressing "internal states" (though, as Mad Ludwig points out, these states are not really private and every word has to be learned in a social context).  So, I learned to say "f**k" to express a particular kind of frustration from seeing others obviously in like states using the word to vent their feelings (I actually learned that I could replace the "drat" that had been so daring when I was a kid with something a bit more powerful -- though the power is virtually all gone now).  It is not obvious to me that those from whom I learned it were trying to communicate with me -- in some cases I doubt that they were aware of my presence and, I fear, I passed the habit on to my child without ever meaning to communicate my frustration to her.  Of course, saying this does convey some of tha frustration -- as does my twisted purple face, my jerky motions, my ragged breathing, and countless other signs that accompany (or constitute) that frustration.  They occur -- as does saying "f**k" -- when there is no one around (at least that I am aware of), and I can use at least some of them -- "f**k" is particularly easy -- to tell others about a frustration now passed.  That works because we all remember being in a "f**k"-saying mood and thus understand what I am talking about (even if we don't any longer remember the occasion where we learned the word.)

Of course, UI -- like every bit of langauge -- is intended for interpersonal communication.  What follows from that?  Zip.  It does not, in particular, follow that on a given occasion it is intended to communicate anything to anybody.  UI -- and language in general, is also intended to express feelings, to create art, to perform magic, and so on, even though on a given occasion most of these will not be going on.

<Only if you intend to derail this discussion with a bizarre definition of
"symbol" which, as previous distortions, judiciously sketches its
conceptual boundary to exclude my case. If you insist upon destroying the
useful meaning of the term "symbol" with such antics, I'll migrate to
another word, because I'm not really discussing word definitions but
rather the ideas and relationships behind them.

There are a sufficient number of people that will agree that an entity
with spoken and written incarnations and a socially agreed meaning is a
"symbol".>

When discussing linguistic questions, it seems appropriate to use linguistics as a source for developed observations and theories and thus for terminology.  It does happen that "symbol" is a term that different schools have used in different ways, so it become important in a linguistics context (which xod haas apparently quite deliberately avoided ever getting into  -- to the detriment of his arguments) to know which school is being used.  Now that we know what his definition is, it is possible to proceed (I'm not sure that being a symbol requires a spoken incarnation, but for linguistic ones -- which is all we are about -- it does, so skip that problem.).

<Well, only a liar (or actor, etc) would say "mi gleki" if they weren't
actually le gleki.>
In isolation, true -- pretty much.  We can come up with an open ended list of occasions for saying {mu gleki} when not happy.  We can do the same for saying {ui}, of course, and many of the occasions will be the same.  So?

<Of course, a speaker can dissemble
> and say "ui" when not actually happy, but likewise one can carefully
> carve a footprint in the ground using a spatula to falsely create
> the impression that someone has trodden there. A 'footprint' not made
> by treading is a fake footprint, and a "ui" said when not happy is
> a fake "ui".



Well, you've agreed that UI has a truth value. I wish I had read this part
first before I wasted time responding to the rest. I'm glad you've come
around!>

I don't see it.  Nothing in the previous passage suggests that the presenter has admitted that {ui} has a truth value.  The analogy suggest quite the opposite, that {ui} is like a natural sign, which can be faked.

<> > Is smoke? If
> > we're arranged that smoke has a certain meaning, and the signal is sent
> > but the condition to which it maps is not met, the smoke is a lie.
>
> Okay, but I deny that "ui" is a prearranged signal for me to use to
> communicate to you that I'm happy. Rather, "ui" is a conventional
> part of my behaviour; it's what I say when I'm happy.



Is it really? Did the idea come spontaneously forth from your childhood
habits?  Or did you read about it in a book? Shall we now argue the
definition of "pre-arranged"? Selmaho UI was created, not discovered.>

Selma'o UI -- like all of Lojban -- was created.  In this case it was created to provide normalized means of expressing certain things that were expressed in ordinary language.  What these were is largely a matter of "discovery," though we have known about them since we were very young.  What was dicovered, perhaps, was which ones needed to be represented in Lojban and which could be ignored or dealt with in some other way.  I learned to use {ui} as the Lojban replacement for my English  happy-words, just as I learned to use {klama} for much of my English "come" and "go," but the English happy-words, like the English content words, I learned and habituated from a variety of experiences, spontaneously in childhood.






 --part1_66.1b752c16.298f1e49_boundary--