Dear Ibrtchx
*I. The "grammar"* I was referring to is not exactly the heuristic you
wrote about. *
One can certainly read and analyze texts/corpora/literature, I don't
disagree with that.
That having been expressed, here are a couple of points re RML that one
should pay heed:
i. to what extent and in what context is this a technology relevant?
ii. one can certainly dissect/decompose texts (for e.g. for GUI in HCI ---
categories for which depend on the task, not on the "form" of language**),
so it'd be a misnomer to call it "grammar"*.
* Note that "grammar" (in context of much of what's been passed down to us
in Computational Linguistics (CL), Linguistics, Text Technologies and/or
Natural Language Processing (NLP)) has been intermingled with many
philological/historical pursuits and leveraged many less scientific terms
(e.g. parts of speech).
** Btw, this is a difference not clear to many.
Re "without it there are plenty of sentences you couldn't make sense of":
this is an ethical aspect in pedagogy that I am hoping will improve with
the lessening of one's dependence of "grammar", i.e. prototypical
wellformedness.
(Also, do try this at home yourself: many lexical items we see in
dictionaries are in their "canonical form", yet many of us are often able
to survive what many others will consider to be "misspelled" strings,
typographical "errors" (in scare quotes here because these are rather
biased/punitive formulations from our less accommodating practices in our
pedagogical and research perspectives.
*II. Re ""magical" in the sense that when we go about our intersubjective
business": *
some intersubjectivity can be further clarified. I don't see much of your
examples as being "magical".
E.g. i. "I am saying something to you, which you can’t help reading in your
own ways": right, classic. We never know if we really understand each
other. You being you, me being me. It's an approximation. Most of the time,
we agree by agreement/confirmation on intent, most of the time implicitly,
sometimes explicitly.
ii. "other people may read, mind, as well ...;": so?
iii. "Alice bought some veggies from Bob, …)": this I don't understand.
iv. "We see more in money ("words", ...) than just a piece of paper":
"[l]egal tender is a form of money that courts of law are required to
recognize as satisfactory payment for any monetary debt" (from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender and
https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/
).
v. "some transactional electronic ("air"...) excitations": I don't get this.
vi. "your 'magic' and mine are different we are still able to
'communicate'. How on earth do such things happen?":
a disclaimer: I am not using any magic in my attempts to communicate with
you here. I try my best to place myself in your shoes to guesstimate the
points that you are trying to get across. But many (as you can see above)
didn't quite reach me.
*III. Re the Hegel links: *
right, I forgot the Ding an sich debate etc., from "The Phenomenology of
Spirit". That is also relevant for the "no 'word' etc."-initiative. (Please
pardon my not entertaining much of the/your p-language/culture discussion
here, for the sake of time and priority. I think there are more urgent
issues to solve atm.)
*IV. Re language politics/ideology: *
btw, the fact that you could describe to me a meta-view about a discrepancy
between "it is not a lie anymore if you believe it" and potential
dissenting perspectives --- "it is / can still be a lie if you believe it"
(as in, e.g. one could just be or want to be fooled) or "it is / can still
be a lie regardless of whether you believe it" etc. --- already suffices as
an argument against "it is not a lie anymore if you believe it" (and that
there is some truth possible, so long is one smart enough to not
inappropriately go into an infinite regress about things).
Re "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.":
historically, it has not been uncommon for scholars or learned persons to
demonstrate their intellectual prowess by "acquiring" useless skills.
(That's not to state that I am for/against such practice, here.)
*V. Re poetry and others: *
"What do you mean when you say "you understand all character strings"":
right, it's all a terminology issue, much with much of academic
debates/misunderstandings.
"You don’t read "strings of characters"": yes, you do. E.g. in our email
exchanges here, all you have been reading/seeing are strings of characters.
What you take in from these may not be what you'd continue to regard as
"strings of characters", but then again, it's all a matter of
naming/terminology. We can continue our de dicto conversation, but I think
I understand your position (and I might even surmise that you understand
mine as well).
"Once you learn how to read a language, you can’t help but parse": uh, no,
that's just a habit of some.
"even the white space doesn’t "feel" the same to me in the three different
languages, not even within the same sentence": congrats! I am glad!
De-pedanticization has not been an easy task for many.
*@Hugh: *
Please adapt "character in text" to other context/modality accordingly
(could be signs, segments of text passages, documents etc.). My formulation
should NOT be read by the "word".
Best
Ada
https://sites.google.com/view/adawan
(Follow me on Twitter @adawan919 for <daily rants on language-no-language,
my journey to out bad research, and on the "no 'word'"-initiative :P. Tons
of cyber intimidation might follow you ;), do so only if you're not 🐣.)
On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 11:41 PM Hugh Paterson III <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It seems to me that in some way the character-by-character analysis of
> language over-specifies the input and at the same time misses the meaning
> of the term "language". It makes the assumption that language is bound up
> in character strings, and at the same time these character strings
> represent all of the communicative message. Such assumptions hardly work
> with a corpus of signed languages.
>
> > 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. ....
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 3:42 AM Albretch Mueller via Corpora <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "It is not like our semiosis is puncturing 'the closure of physical
>> reality' to any extent".
>> I meant to say. Sorry, that happens when you type fast.
>> 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]
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list -- [email protected]
https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
