In a message dated 7/29/12 9:44:04 PM, [email protected] writes:
> Whether math is formerly a language is apparently disputed by > linguists. > Consonant with my position that words use the user, I suspect that the phrase "Whether math is formerly a language" , in particular the word 'is', inclines the user (speaker or hearer) to believe that what's at issue is the "ontic status" of an entity titled 'math'. "IS math a language or ISN'T it?" I claim that's wrong, and all that's at issue is what we should "call" "mathematics". In fact, "language" is in a similar position. "Language" is not an entity, except, in a blurry way, notionally. Here's a controversial position: You cannot "learn a language". The reason is not because Italian or French or Russian is too multiplex, but because there is no determinate, discrete, stable and mind-independent entity that "is" what we call Italian or French or Russian. Don't misconstrue that. You may say, "I learned French during my five years in Paris," and your assertion will be serviceably clear to any audience in the kitchen. And if Ralph came up with an obscure now-obsolete word in an old French dictionary, and you didn't "know" the word, we in the kitchen would all scoff at Ralph if he maintained he'd just proved you haven't learned French. But if (unwisely) we all moved from the kitchen to the university philosophy seminar room, Ralph's case would be irrefutable. Contested, but not refuted. One of the many assumptions lurking underneath the contest would be that 'French' "refers to" something. But words don't "refer". That assertion, however, belongs in another thread.
