My apologies for the typo. That was meant to be "formally", not "formerly". But I think the half acre response illustrates my point.
Cheers; Chris On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
