There are 5 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: OT: Middle Egyptian dictionary/grammar in Russian
From: MorphemeAddict
2a. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: Matthew George
2b. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: George Corley
2c. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: Alex Fink
2d. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: Matthew George
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: OT: Middle Egyptian dictionary/grammar in Russian
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:40 am ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Demian Terentev <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.egyptology.ru/petrovskij.htm
>
> That's a good book online, but is there a good physical book available?
stevo
>
> 2013/2/26 MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>
>
> > Does anyone know of a decent Middle Egyptian dictionary and grammar book
> in
> > Russian?
> >
> > stevo
> >
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:03 pm ((PST))
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:25 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are technical frameworks for determining whether two sentences mean
> the same thing, stating that if they have the same truth conditions they
> are therefore equivalent. Of course, that often ignores extra pragmatic
> phenomena, which leads to a whole other argument on whether pragmatic
> considerations are part of the language system or not (I think that some of
> them may be, contrary to what my semantics professor is teaching me, but
> not all).
>
That seems like a very strange way of looking at things. Surely, if two
sentences have the same implications (pragmatic details and all) they are
identical in meaning, and if not then not. Separating out the pragmatics
is both counterproductive and unnecessary.
Any language of sufficient complexity (and a very low threshold it is) can
convey any meaning another can. It can't necessarily do so usefully, or
even just efficiently.
How would the following be translated into Russian? "You're George
Corley? *The* George Corley?" For the life of me, I can see how you can
manage without definite/indefinite indication, I just can't see why you'd
want to.
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:02 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:25 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There are technical frameworks for determining whether two sentences mean
> > the same thing, stating that if they have the same truth conditions they
> > are therefore equivalent. Of course, that often ignores extra pragmatic
> > phenomena, which leads to a whole other argument on whether pragmatic
> > considerations are part of the language system or not (I think that some
> of
> > them may be, contrary to what my semantics professor is teaching me, but
> > not all).
> >
>
> That seems like a very strange way of looking at things. Surely, if two
> sentences have the same implications (pragmatic details and all) they are
> identical in meaning, and if not then not. Separating out the pragmatics
> is both counterproductive and unnecessary.
>
It's hard to say. A good deal of how we interpret language depends on our
knowledge of the universe, but is that knowledge part of the linguistic
system? Some linguists say no -- you have the grammar and the lexicon in
boxes and the outside world is only connected after our grammar has
interpreted the sentence. In part it's a definitional issue -- do you
define 'language' in a broad way to include various cultural and acquired
knowledge that gets applied to linguistic meaning, or do you define it as
the grammar itself and only that? Is there room in-between? I think that
some pragmatic associations might be useful to include as information
content in the language, but I worry that if you include EVERY implication
of a sentence in the language, you end up with sentences with infinite
amounts of information -- which is just silly.
> Any language of sufficient complexity (and a very low threshold it is) can
> convey any meaning another can. It can't necessarily do so usefully, or
> even just efficiently.
>
In what way? There is an incredibly efficient way for any language to
convey any concept it doesn't have a word for -- you just borrow a goddamn
word. You can borrow more than words -- you can borrow entire numeral
systems, huge segments of grammar.
Now, if you pull back from that, any language, without changing, can still
convey an infinite number of sentences. It may take quite a long time, but
you should be able to describe just about anything in any language.
> How would the following be translated into Russian? "You're George
> Corley? *The* George Corley?" For the life of me, I can see how you can
> manage without definite/indefinite indication, I just can't see why you'd
> want to.
>
I don't know how it works in Russian, but I think I can translate it into
Mandarin quite easily :
柯乔治？你就是柯乔治马？
George Corley? You JIU be George Corley Q?
I'm not sure how to translate 就 jiu4 itself. Here it is reinforcing the
sentence in the same way that "really" would in English.
Come to think of it, I don't think that in Spanish, a language that
certainly has definite articles, you would even say it that way. Perhaps
something like "Eres George Corley? Realmente que sí?" These translations
really are pragmatic translations, since I'm not really giving any meaning
of the interlocutor being a specific George Corley of a set.
This example is useful for another reason, though. I think that if someone
actually did come up to me and ask if I was "THE George Corley", I think I
would be somewhat tempted to punch them in the face. Are you going to
include that as part of the meaning? I don't think it would -- it's just
my idiosyncratic reaction to the idea, not a fact about English. Once
again, if we try to include everything someone could possibly interpret
from a sentence, we may find sentences with infinite information density.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:29 pm ((PST))
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:02:06 -0600, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How would the following be translated into Russian? "You're George
>> Corley? *The* George Corley?" For the life of me, I can see how you can
>> manage without definite/indefinite indication, I just can't see why you'd
>> want to.
That's not a very conlangerly sentiment; we folk are supposed to love getting
by with unusual sets of morphosyntactic options :-p
>I don't know how it works in Russian, but I think I can translate it into
>Mandarin quite easily :
>
[Chinese text, which my mail program botches]
>George Corley? You JIU be George Corley Q?
>
>I'm not sure how to translate jiu4 itself. Here it is reinforcing the
>sentence in the same way that "really" would in English.
>
>Come to think of it, I don't think that in Spanish, a language that
>certainly has definite articles, you would even say it that way. Perhaps
>something like "Eres George Corley? Realmente que sí?" These translations
>really are pragmatic translations, since I'm not really giving any meaning
>of the interlocutor being a specific George Corley of a set.
I have no knowledge of what's felicitious any of the particular languages in
question, but in a generic language without morphosyntactic definiteness, you
could get closer than that. The definite in "*the* George Corley" has a pretty
close approximation to its usual function, "the George Corley that was already
foregrounded into the context" -- well, there's no context but common cultural
context, and there's presumably some reason that you're in the common cultural
context: "the conlanger George Corley", "the George Corley who created Aeruyo",
whatever it is. Well, substitute _that_ in. Could you not do "You're George
Corley? the conlanger?" or whatnot in these languages?
Alex
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:58 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:02 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> but I worry that if you include EVERY implication
> of a sentence in the language, you end up with sentences with infinite
> amounts of information -- which is just silly.
>
That's why we reason in categories and not in statements. Thank goodness.
In what way? There is an incredibly efficient way for any language to
> convey any concept it doesn't have a word for -- you just borrow a goddamn
> word. You can borrow more than words -- you can borrow entire numeral
> systems, huge segments of grammar.
>
It's not quite that simple. We don't have separate words for each idea we
wish to convey. There are quite serious limits to the number of basic
symbols available, always. We use simple representations for the stuff we
want to talk about the most. If we went around coining new words every
time we wanted to convey a particular concept, we'd run out - of memory, of
time, of possible combinations within certain restrictions.
Now, if you pull back from that, any language, without changing, can still
> convey an infinite number of sentences. It may take quite a long time, but
> you should be able to describe just about anything in any language.
>
Yeah, but there are pragmatic limits. If the necessary description becomes
too long or too complex, people won't be able to deal with it. More to the
point, a major purpose of language is to make it possible to manipulate
concepts in a short form, without having to reference the concept itself
all the time. Like pronouns for proper nouns, only for everything. We can
think without words, but in a very limited way.
> I'm not sure how to translate 就 jiu4 itself. Here it is reinforcing the
> sentence in the same way that "really" would in English.
>
If you ask that literally in English, it means something very different.
Lots of people can be named 'George Corley'; a given person might be a
member of that set. But *the* George Corley, he of the podcast, is a
particular and noteworthy member of that set. It is also possible for a
person to possess that identifier falsely, or in a limited sense - they're
not truly 'George Corley'. How does Mandarin ask whether a person is a
genuine George Corley, as opposed to a particular genuine George Corley?
I've been trying to understand (along with everything else!) how ambiguity
is used in language. As an instrumental factor, I think it may be very
important, and possibly part of why ambiguity-banishing languages have
never really caught on. I suspect that successful languages will have ways
to state precisely or ambiguously on important matters, with less important
ones having fewer options.
This example is useful for another reason, though. I think that if someone
> actually did come up to me and ask if I was "THE George Corley", I think I
> would be somewhat tempted to punch them in the face.
*shelves intention to ask whether you're the podcast guy*
*backs away slowly*
Messages in this topic (24)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
