https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_wars
Your opinion and why? Is there a synthesis and if so what does it look like? What personality types favor which sides?
I am still formulating my thoughts, so I will be back soon.
The Linguistic Wars
Re: The Linguistic Wars
Chomsky - INFJ - generative grammar - language and thought universals exist and dominate
Lakoff - ENTP - generative semantics - cognitive linguistics - language and thought are dependent on their embodiment
This is more clear-cut than I initially thought. Mainly just Ni versus Ne methodology. Both have seemed to acknowledge and loosen up over time to the opposing side.
Lakoff - ENTP - generative semantics - cognitive linguistics - language and thought are dependent on their embodiment
This is more clear-cut than I initially thought. Mainly just Ni versus Ne methodology. Both have seemed to acknowledge and loosen up over time to the opposing side.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
This is a distraction from the questions that really matter like: Are verbs rooted from nouns or are nouns stemmed from verbs?
A syllable and not a word is the basic building block containing meaning.
A syllable and not a word is the basic building block containing meaning.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
There goes that universalization again. Meaning is many things to many people, so why not try to entertain multiple possible meanings at any given time.
Se-Ni: verb -> noun
Ne-Si: noun -> verb
Alternative: verb=noun -> What words, ideas, philosophies are similar?
Se-Ni: verb -> noun
Ne-Si: noun -> verb
Alternative: verb=noun -> What words, ideas, philosophies are similar?
Re: The Linguistic Wars
How they may be different:
Universalization happens with or without evidence.
Universalization dismisses entire levels of objects or entire orders of reference.
Empiricism attempts to entertain all objective levels and reference orders even though this is hopeless(*)
How they may be the same:
Both are attempting to discover/construct a single worldview.
Both are common for human agents to adopt/exercise.
(*) Objects are objective in the sense that agents can point to them, identify them in the 'wild', and agree on their movement/change across time. This allows data to be collected and correlations to be calculated across data-sets. Problem is that human attention is hopelessly finite relative to how many combinations of objects there are.
Hence, universalization is a short-cut that can potentially backfire due to our inability to consider all level and orders simultaneously.
Universalization happens with or without evidence.
Universalization dismisses entire levels of objects or entire orders of reference.
Empiricism attempts to entertain all objective levels and reference orders even though this is hopeless(*)
How they may be the same:
Both are attempting to discover/construct a single worldview.
Both are common for human agents to adopt/exercise.
(*) Objects are objective in the sense that agents can point to them, identify them in the 'wild', and agree on their movement/change across time. This allows data to be collected and correlations to be calculated across data-sets. Problem is that human attention is hopelessly finite relative to how many combinations of objects there are.
Hence, universalization is a short-cut that can potentially backfire due to our inability to consider all level and orders simultaneously.
-
Jason
Re: The Linguistic Wars
From a philosophical standpoint, the opposite of empiricism is not universalism, but rationalism. So it becomes an "a priori" vs. an "a posteriori debate". I'm not a linguist. But I sensed somewhere in that wiki article that this issue was in play i.e. is meaning imposed by the mind through experience or embedded in the external and then rationally deduced. This obviously affects textual criticism when it comes to "meaning" - is it in the text or is it imposed by the reader.
I'm not a linguist. I think its a fascinating topic but I don't think I have the ability. Even on acid. I knew a couple of linguists and my feeling is although it its an interesting topic if someone went around shooting linguists I could understand why. Malcolm X wrote in his autobiography that if he could study one topic it would be linguistics and he was shot but I don't think it was because of his interest in linguistics.
I'm not a linguist. I think its a fascinating topic but I don't think I have the ability. Even on acid. I knew a couple of linguists and my feeling is although it its an interesting topic if someone went around shooting linguists I could understand why. Malcolm X wrote in his autobiography that if he could study one topic it would be linguistics and he was shot but I don't think it was because of his interest in linguistics.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
@Jason Yeah, I think you have a good point in relation to Chomsky's position. Rationalism seems to fit better than universalism. I can see a bit of both in his theory and approach.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
What type was Poincare? Unless, I read him wrong, he was very much in the "math is embodied" camp. Chomsky was the milieu in which most of us were educated (because computers), but as soon as I read Lakoff I switched camps, because biology. Some things are constructed and some things are grown.
My DS31 (INTp)has been fascinated with linguistics since childhood. He actually edited the Wikipedia article on the topic when he was 12, after completing the Ohio State University coursework independently (It happened to be in the book inventory I was storing in our house at the time.) His Si is developed or linked in a manner that does not allow him to ever misspell a word or verbalize a poorly formed sentence. IOW, very much unlike his mother, he is compelled to think before he speaks.
My DS31 (INTp)has been fascinated with linguistics since childhood. He actually edited the Wikipedia article on the topic when he was 12, after completing the Ohio State University coursework independently (It happened to be in the book inventory I was storing in our house at the time.) His Si is developed or linked in a manner that does not allow him to ever misspell a word or verbalize a poorly formed sentence. IOW, very much unlike his mother, he is compelled to think before he speaks.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
@7w5 Poincare was almost certainly an INTJ. Here is the evidence:
"The mathematician Darboux claimed he was un intuitif (intuitive), arguing that this is demonstrated by the fact that he worked so often by visual representation. He did not care about being rigorous and disliked logic.[64] (Despite this opinion, Jacques Hadamard wrote that Poincaré's research demonstrated marvelous clarity[65] and Poincaré himself wrote that he believed that logic was not a way to invent but a way to structure ideas and that logic limits ideas.)"
-> Ni and Te
"He worked during the same times each day in short periods of time. He undertook mathematical research for four hours a day, between 10 a.m. and noon then again from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.. He would read articles in journals later in the evening."
-> Reminds me of John Nash who was an INTJ. Usually associated with Si, but INTP's are never this strict. I think this is Ni constraining Te.
"His normal work habit was to solve a problem completely in his head, then commit the completed problem to paper."
-> Ni and Te
"His ability to visualize what he heard proved particularly useful when he attended lectures, since his eyesight was so poor that he could not see properly what the lecturer wrote on the blackboard."
-> Ni
"He was physically clumsy and artistically inept."
-> INTP, INFP, or an INTJ in a rush. Typically, INTP's are artistically inclined and INFP's are very artsy.
"He was always in a rush and disliked going back for changes or corrections."
-> Ni, Te, Fi, and Se! Low Si.
"He never spent a long time on a problem since he believed that the subconscious would continue working on the problem while he consciously worked on another problem."
-> Ni
All this indicates INTJ. He basically takes an N-struct as prior to T-structs, indicating that the body or observation of it is prior to all maths/logics (embodied math). Chomsky is interesting in that his Ni-Ti loop desires that an N-struct = a T-struct. So, he attempts to identify the most important level of reality and rationalize it into a universal system that fits all observations. Whereas a Te user would not really care about the rationalization part and just uses rationality for communication or as a means to an end (i.e. universal understanding for INTJ's).
-----------------
That Ti-Si loop can be a hassle to break. For ENTP's, Ne will disallow this loop to become too OCD, but for an INTP this requires some maturity. In the past there have been times where I got stuck for hours revisiting something I wrote years before. There are also times when I will edit a simple post 15 times in pursuit of perfection.
"The mathematician Darboux claimed he was un intuitif (intuitive), arguing that this is demonstrated by the fact that he worked so often by visual representation. He did not care about being rigorous and disliked logic.[64] (Despite this opinion, Jacques Hadamard wrote that Poincaré's research demonstrated marvelous clarity[65] and Poincaré himself wrote that he believed that logic was not a way to invent but a way to structure ideas and that logic limits ideas.)"
-> Ni and Te
"He worked during the same times each day in short periods of time. He undertook mathematical research for four hours a day, between 10 a.m. and noon then again from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.. He would read articles in journals later in the evening."
-> Reminds me of John Nash who was an INTJ. Usually associated with Si, but INTP's are never this strict. I think this is Ni constraining Te.
"His normal work habit was to solve a problem completely in his head, then commit the completed problem to paper."
-> Ni and Te
"His ability to visualize what he heard proved particularly useful when he attended lectures, since his eyesight was so poor that he could not see properly what the lecturer wrote on the blackboard."
-> Ni
"He was physically clumsy and artistically inept."
-> INTP, INFP, or an INTJ in a rush. Typically, INTP's are artistically inclined and INFP's are very artsy.
"He was always in a rush and disliked going back for changes or corrections."
-> Ni, Te, Fi, and Se! Low Si.
"He never spent a long time on a problem since he believed that the subconscious would continue working on the problem while he consciously worked on another problem."
-> Ni
All this indicates INTJ. He basically takes an N-struct as prior to T-structs, indicating that the body or observation of it is prior to all maths/logics (embodied math). Chomsky is interesting in that his Ni-Ti loop desires that an N-struct = a T-struct. So, he attempts to identify the most important level of reality and rationalize it into a universal system that fits all observations. Whereas a Te user would not really care about the rationalization part and just uses rationality for communication or as a means to an end (i.e. universal understanding for INTJ's).
-----------------
That Ti-Si loop can be a hassle to break. For ENTP's, Ne will disallow this loop to become too OCD, but for an INTP this requires some maturity. In the past there have been times where I got stuck for hours revisiting something I wrote years before. There are also times when I will edit a simple post 15 times in pursuit of perfection.
-
Jason
Re: The Linguistic Wars
To consider the amount of time I have spent deliberating over the employment of "douche" vs. "douchebag".
Thomas Hume, the Godfather of empiricism, gave exception to mathematics which he believed was embedded. However, I think he made a distinction between "mathematics" and "geometry", the former being something to which one could reach epistemological perfection.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
Some universal rules that are defined for Sanskrit speech which are also applicable to other Indo-European language that I can think of:
i+a=y
a+i=e
u+a=v
1 Nasal sound followed by k-group k, kh, g, gh is voiced ṅ
2 Nasal sound followed by c-group c, ch, j, jh is voiced ñ
3 Nasal sound followed by p-group p, ph, b, bh is voiced m
4 Nasal sound followed by t-group t, th, d, dh is voiced n
...
1 as in english, 2 danger avenger stranger 3 revamp camp, 4 ground, and, ant, ontology, inter, pant, dent ...
These are the ones I can remember from the grammar by Pāṇini. Exception is made for vowels when used as stop words, to express surprise or for thinking . Examples, aa..., Um, uh etc.
i+a=y
a+i=e
u+a=v
1 Nasal sound followed by k-group k, kh, g, gh is voiced ṅ
2 Nasal sound followed by c-group c, ch, j, jh is voiced ñ
3 Nasal sound followed by p-group p, ph, b, bh is voiced m
4 Nasal sound followed by t-group t, th, d, dh is voiced n
...
1 as in english, 2 danger avenger stranger 3 revamp camp, 4 ground, and, ant, ontology, inter, pant, dent ...
These are the ones I can remember from the grammar by Pāṇini. Exception is made for vowels when used as stop words, to express surprise or for thinking . Examples, aa..., Um, uh etc.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
The limitation with descriptive grammar is it's not backwards compatible. Exception handling could be a drawback of generative grammar.
We had the Wren and Martin book from seventh standard but it won't help me in understanding English that's just five centuries old. It was also an adapted edition so it cannot be said to be a standard in both time and place.
Metalanguage: for the descriptive part, he uses terms that have parlance in day to day life which have a specific meaning in a grammatical context. The definitions are given in the text itself.
Structural efficiency: Eight chapters are divided into four quarters each. All letters are grouped into strings such that no letter repeats itself. These strings are in order. Whenever he wants to refer to the letters, he mentions the first and last syntactical marker for that string. Only the consonants in the syllables in the string are operated upon. With the markers that are used to denote the string are dropped if they are only vowel or only consonant.
Commentaries: this lead to a slew of explanations. These were commented upon by yet others.
Backwards compatibility: even by Pāṇini's time the Vedas were archaic. Now the Vedas are a 12 year course and grammar is 1 of the 6 prerequisites. He uses chandasi when referring to forms preserved in the Vedas but fallen out of common usage since then.
Exception handling/ alternative forms:
Imagine a square of 8×3 where nominative, vocative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genetive, locative are the cases and singular, dual, plural. Now there are n such tables for n= noun ending × gender.
Noun ending in a, i, u, ... Genders masculine, feminine, neuter.
But where did this base form of the noun come from? It comes from the root/dhatu (lit. metal) which is first inflected then conjugated. For verbs imagine a 3×3×10 cube. First person, second person, third person × singular, dual, plural × 10 tenses +/-1 (-1 used only in the Vedas, +1 alternative form) past perfect, past continuous, present perfect, present continuous, immediate future (action completed by same time tomorrow), future tense,... This part is similar to the perfective and imperfective verbal aspect in Russian.
Example: if we were given rāmeṇa and we had to write
Rāma, masculine gender ending in 'a' instrumental case singular number, meaning 'by Rāma' to get 1 mark. Now that we know better we can also add verbal root √ram inflected form rām 'to engross' but that wouldn't fetch us any extra marks.
We had the Wren and Martin book from seventh standard but it won't help me in understanding English that's just five centuries old. It was also an adapted edition so it cannot be said to be a standard in both time and place.
Pāṇini uses both. He mentions ten grammarians who came before him, their work does not survive to our present time. Speculation on why his work survives:Is there a synthesis and if so what does it look like?
Metalanguage: for the descriptive part, he uses terms that have parlance in day to day life which have a specific meaning in a grammatical context. The definitions are given in the text itself.
Structural efficiency: Eight chapters are divided into four quarters each. All letters are grouped into strings such that no letter repeats itself. These strings are in order. Whenever he wants to refer to the letters, he mentions the first and last syntactical marker for that string. Only the consonants in the syllables in the string are operated upon. With the markers that are used to denote the string are dropped if they are only vowel or only consonant.
Commentaries: this lead to a slew of explanations. These were commented upon by yet others.
Backwards compatibility: even by Pāṇini's time the Vedas were archaic. Now the Vedas are a 12 year course and grammar is 1 of the 6 prerequisites. He uses chandasi when referring to forms preserved in the Vedas but fallen out of common usage since then.
Exception handling/ alternative forms:
Imagine a square of 8×3 where nominative, vocative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genetive, locative are the cases and singular, dual, plural. Now there are n such tables for n= noun ending × gender.
Noun ending in a, i, u, ... Genders masculine, feminine, neuter.
But where did this base form of the noun come from? It comes from the root/dhatu (lit. metal) which is first inflected then conjugated. For verbs imagine a 3×3×10 cube. First person, second person, third person × singular, dual, plural × 10 tenses +/-1 (-1 used only in the Vedas, +1 alternative form) past perfect, past continuous, present perfect, present continuous, immediate future (action completed by same time tomorrow), future tense,... This part is similar to the perfective and imperfective verbal aspect in Russian.
Example: if we were given rāmeṇa and we had to write
Rāma, masculine gender ending in 'a' instrumental case singular number, meaning 'by Rāma' to get 1 mark. Now that we know better we can also add verbal root √ram inflected form rām 'to engross' but that wouldn't fetch us any extra marks.
-
mistatwista
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:04 am
Re: The Linguistic Wars
I think that discussion is always good. If the new theory is more consistent than the old, then the old must be abandoned. And if the new theory cannot defeat the old, then the old will only become stronger. It happens that a new theory strikes a symbiosis of the new and the old and thus connects them. So, I'm for it. Although I have not studied the issue itself, but judging by Wikipedia, this is all normal.daylen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:01 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_wars
Your opinion and why? Is there a synthesis and if so what does it look like? What personality types favor which sides?
I am still formulating my thoughts, so I will be back soon.
Re: The Linguistic Wars
I can't fall asleep so we'll see how to generate say 'Jason cooks' using both types of grammar. Minimum input required is a nominal stem for a noun and and root for a verb. Sanskrit has free word order so we can take any of the two first.
√pac (pach) is the verbal root which is in the controlling domain -> bhUvayado... 1.3.1
3.1.91 sends it to obligatory domain after making sure it is a 'root' (dhAtoH)
pac + LAT
we go to 3.1.123 because we want the action to take place 'in the present tense' (vartamAne) so it is assigned LAT where LA is the starting and T is the ending syntactic marker with the string embedded within
3.4.69 the audio got turned off at his end, laH karmaNi and bhave between the akarmaka-s
vide 3.4.77 we create 3* 3 * 3 (number into person into present perfect or continuous or perfect alternate form) matrix and populate it with the elements from 3.4.78 that give -endings
1.4.99-102 sets the criteria of selection for which of the above generated we want to keep (atmanepada or parasmaipada) and sends back to...
pac + tiP -> pactiP
...the controlling domain
1.3.3 'that which ends without a vowel...' (syntactic marker P in our case)
1.3.9 '...it is terminated.'
pactiP - P -> pacati
So we are left with pacati (pachati without the diacritics) which means third person singular 'he cooks.'
Fun fact: The pac when inflected becomes pAk in Pakistan which comes from 'well cooked', 'made fit for consumption',ie: pure
There is a method for reverse scanning, retracting one's steps which requires knowledge of the 6th chapter of which I'm devoid of.
I'm feeling sleepy, we'll operate on the noun later.
√pac (pach) is the verbal root which is in the controlling domain -> bhUvayado... 1.3.1
3.1.91 sends it to obligatory domain after making sure it is a 'root' (dhAtoH)
pac + LAT
we go to 3.1.123 because we want the action to take place 'in the present tense' (vartamAne) so it is assigned LAT where LA is the starting and T is the ending syntactic marker with the string embedded within
3.4.69 the audio got turned off at his end, laH karmaNi and bhave between the akarmaka-s
vide 3.4.77 we create 3* 3 * 3 (number into person into present perfect or continuous or perfect alternate form) matrix and populate it with the elements from 3.4.78 that give -endings
1.4.99-102 sets the criteria of selection for which of the above generated we want to keep (atmanepada or parasmaipada) and sends back to...
pac + tiP -> pactiP
...the controlling domain
1.3.3 'that which ends without a vowel...' (syntactic marker P in our case)
1.3.9 '...it is terminated.'
pactiP - P -> pacati
So we are left with pacati (pachati without the diacritics) which means third person singular 'he cooks.'
Fun fact: The pac when inflected becomes pAk in Pakistan which comes from 'well cooked', 'made fit for consumption',ie: pure
There is a method for reverse scanning, retracting one's steps which requires knowledge of the 6th chapter of which I'm devoid of.
I'm feeling sleepy, we'll operate on the noun later.