Okay, at this point, I have to recommend the sequence mentioned in the subject. Here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ Simply put, a human mind have a certain structure, most of which is universally shared among functioning members of a human society (like the expression and recognition of certain emotions). Those aspects are virtually unchanging. It should then be obvious that some languages are better than others at helping our specie communicate —and come up with— thoughts. Which they are may depend in the kind of thought involved. (One can draw a very close analogy with the suitability of programming languages.) Now the question of language decay is a technical one: do recent evolution actually hindered such and such type of thinking, or are we just annoyed at having to constantly learn new terminology? I dare say we have instances of both. > > People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. > > ...I won't comment on that nonsense. I will. You can see this in action in many philosophical debates, especially the everlasting match of Religion vs Atheism. At some point, the one who is losing the debate will often say that truth is relative, is a matter of point of view, or even a matter of faith… Then they reject the law of non-contradiction. Like, "okay, we don't believe the same things, but that doesn't mean one of us is *wrong*." In colloquial language, "Truth" has a simple, precise meaning. "Belief" has another simple, precise meaning. Those meanings are evident to most people who have ever tossed a coin, and waited for a second before they looked at it. When discussing certain subjects such as philosophy, those notions are important enough to warrant the use of short words to refer to them. But if words don't mean anything, the meaning themselves are no longer accessible. I don't care if you believe in God, but I won't forgive you for denying me access to notions that you don't like. Or simply disregard anything you have to say about the subject. Loup. On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:32:47PM +0200, Gath-Gealaich wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kirk Fraser <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong. > > > There's no such thing as "liberal dictionaries". > > > > For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988 > > Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition > > is needed to understand truth. > > > There's no such thing as "pure words". Language is a dynamic, evolving, > feedback-driven entity that grows and adapts to new conditions, with > meanings of words broadening ("dog"), narrowing ("hound"), > shifting("computer") etc. > > > > People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. > > > ...I won't comment on that nonsense. > > > > For example the current political fight on "marriage" demonstrates some > > people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to > > be shared with roommates. > > > "Political fight on marriage"? I don't live in the US, so I have little > understanding what you're talking about, but the word "marriage" seems to > be applied in most cultures over the globe for some sort of binding social > contract between individuals related to nurturing younglings for the next > generation, yielding vastly different rights and obligations from such > union across the different cultures. This makes the meaning of the word > "marriage" highly contextual. (But I admit freely that my understanding of > cultural anthropology is limited to having skimmed through the Encyclopedia > of World Cultures. It was worth it, though - and quite fascinating at that.) > > - Gath _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
