On 7/28/23, Ada Wan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Re your 1st email (dated Jul 27, 2023, 5:01 AM, UTC+277):
> i. Re "no grammar": in reality. It's "made up" of (post-hoc) analyses and
> normative values from language judgment based on (more/less) well-formed
> data. [Of course, most of us who entered the language space didn't see it as
> such in the beginning. Many just took/take it for granted, as some necessary
> part of language. For me, at least, I've always had my reservations about
> e.g. syntax or much from syntactic theories, but it is not until I reflected
> further on my results did things become clearer to me (or did I realize that
> I just had a computational proof for dissolving "words").]
(There can be a weaker formulation to "no grammar" --- that its
existence being in the mind of the beholder, subject to each person's
"belief" in the matter.
There is also the interpretation of "no grammar" as an
imperative/request: that we shouldn't use/endorse grammar (esp. to
judge ourselves and others). For ethical reasons, one may benefit from
the "grammar as style guide / mnemonics"-interpretation in
communication. That is, take it easy with "grammar", in a way, it's
just "recycled peer pressure", a "2nd/3rd/n-th hand emotion" :).)
in the character-by-character way in which I see texts/corpora, you
have clusters of referent, modifiers and links: an rml grammar, which
happens as a way to organize links and frame a bit better the sense of
a phrase. It is some form of graphical user interface, but without it
there are plenty of sentences you couldn't make sense of.
> ii. Re "something 'magical' about language": it depends on one's def of
> "magical" too, I suppose. I just used it in the sense that there isn't that
> much that can't be explained away wrt language. Of course, there is a limit
> to human knowledge and one has to be(come) at peace with some things being
> just the way they are, e.g. our "initial conditions".
But, sure, some people may find some things to be more
"magical"/extraordinary than others. I don't see reason for
disagreement here.
"magical" in the sense that when we go about our intersubjective
business (I am saying something to you, which you can’t help reading
in your own ways; other people may read, mind, as well ...; Alice
bought some veggies from Bob, …). We see more in money ("words", ...)
than just a piece of paper or some transactional electronic ("air"
...) excitations. Another aspect of that "magic" which I think hasn't
been studied enough is that even though your "magic" and mine are
different we are still able to "communicate". How on earth do such
things happen?
> iii. Are the Hegel links supposed to inform me of the concept of "Zeitgeist"?
> Just checking here. :p
No, not just about "Zeitgeist". Sorry! More about "how 'Zeitgeist'
happens" which is what becomes interesting from a corpora research,
semiological point of view, which I actually learned from a Russian
philosopher:
// __ Evald Ilyenkov's philosophy revisited: I was really glad (even
confused in this "post modernistic" age of nonsense and "alternate
facts") ...
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R115QLRWYD52M8/
~
who (re)explained to me what Hegel meant by his Begriff des
„Allegemienes”. Let me forcefully try it with the least amount of
words:
Think of society at large as a corpus (not just texts, but all kinds
of techne/functions as well (the Mayan culture had a God of "the
Verb")). As we all go about our daily business we do so functionally,
step-by-step through engineering and societal devices ("words") we
have created (in a sense we are kind of "reading" as we "mind our
business"). Yet, when someone uses a cell phone she doesn't have to
understand sh!t about the technicalities of such devices, nor does she
need to have a clue about the UVEL physics of the machines used to
make phones ... all she needs is a graphical user interface which is
also another device comprising engineering and societal aspects. In
that sense I don't understand what consciousness studies folks mean
when they talk about the "physical closure of reality" kind of writing
off consciousness. It is not like our semiosis is puncturing
consciousness to any extent.
Something that I find very interesting is that sleep researchers have
ways to gauge when someone goes into REM and its cycles. However, when
they interrupt the subject half way through, s/he always gives a whole
functional narrative of "their dream" (part of which researchers
"objectively" see from their devices). I think that may relate to what
Kant meant when he said that "we are framed by our minds" (my way of
putting it).
Each entity, either objects or conscious subjects, "lives" to a large
extent conditioned by and conditioning/(determined by and
determining?) the confluence and affluence of various aspects relating
to its very self. The degree of interconnectedness of all such paths
is what enriches „das Allegemienes”. This is something I noticed
myself before I understood Hegel from my "best known hells". I was
born and raised in Cuba where most people tend not to mind the screw
holding the handrail to the stair. You would step into the same bus
and notice the screw getting looser ... until you notice no hand rail ...
In Germany (in a sense the opposite of Cuba within the Western
culture) as part of their "deutsche Ordung" thing, you would walk into
a bathroom and notice next to a toilet a sign like: "object
USH!T2:69~47:(long-lat-height):201508 administered by MIN47 and the
product of your act will be USH!T:201508XX:XX:XX:XX" the "XX:XX:XX:XX"
part being updated every time you walked in ;-). THis is how you felt.
> iv. I don't quite understand your point(s)/opinion(s) re the US or your
> experiences described in the last few paragraphs of this email.
A disclaimer: my views and opinions here on this forum / mailing list
are not politically driven or oriented ("politics" here in the sense
of government-related). When I mention "language politics", it usually
has to do with language ideology and identity politics ("politics", as
in, e.g. [from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics]: "[t]he
often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a
society" (American Heritage Dictionary), "any activity concerned with
the acquisition of power, gaining one's own ends" (Collins), or "the
use of strategy or intrigue in obtaining power, control, or status"
(Random House); that is, a more general, vanilla, "stateless"
interpretation of "politics", similar to a more general interpretation
of "language" on which I'd prefer to theorize). Note that "language"
does not have to relate to "nation".
That having been expressed, sure, there can be all kinds of
"propaganda" everywhere and anywhere, I can imagine. The intent behind
my interaction with you all on this thread/forum, however, is to get
people to do better science.
We were talking about "language" and you mentioned how "some people"
use it to abuse others. I wasn't trying to persuade anyone one way or
the other. Not me! I mentioned it because this is the most amazing
thing I have learned about "language": how easily it can be used in
the way you mentioned (the theme of my "lies ..."). I also think that
we, scientists and tech monkeys, think of ourselves as some sort of
aristocracy, "because we can" and that we should talk about our
problems (I'd rather) instead of "Ancient Greece"'s. They minded -their-
problems in thoroughgoing argumentative ways, right? Just my opinion.
Re your 2nd email (dated Jul 27, 2023, 5:34 AM, UTC+2):
Re "Now, if "words don't matter", how could we understand poetry?
figurative meaning?": do you really think that if you understand all
character strings in a poem, you'd understand it?
What do you mean when you say "you understand all character strings".
BTW, I think perhaps we have a hard time with our back and forths
because you are thinking in terms of "character strings" and I am
thinking like a "human" as you guys call us ;-) You don’t read
"strings of characters". Once you learn how to read a language, you
can’t help but parse, try to make sense of those "strings of
characters".
The other day we (all multi-lingual, multi-kulti people) were talking
about languages and cultures. My priest boasts to know well, be
somewhat fluent in 10 languages! I was thoroughly amazed when they
confided to me that they were multi-lingual from their mouth out. My
three languages English, Spanish and German (quite schizophrenically
(some may say)) feel very different to me. Probably, because I could
say I grew up in a music school, I read as if I were reading music,
even the white space doesn’t "feel" the same to me in the three
different languages, not even within the same sentence. When I read it
feels quite a bit as if I were reading music (including the harmony).
I have noticed other people saying similar things.
lbrtchx
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list -- [email protected]
https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
