/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality.

These boys be drawing water from the wrong shore of the English Channel

that's a commendable effort but if they wanted to think rationally they should have used a more appropriate language. English is not a precise language.

>>648
Subjective and doesn't know what he's talking about.

English has the most words out of any other language. To me, that implies that you can be as precise as you need to be by choosing the right words.

>>649
or that it's a confuse language that creates words for no good reason…

The problem with English is not the words, it's the structure. It's not rigorous (like Latin) and words change sense very easily (hence the numerous words probably).

You wanna think logically start by using a language with strict grammar and syntax like Latin, German, French, etc. (which are historically languages that brought great thinkers).

In analogy it's like computer programming, you wanna go with low-level languages to perform complicated tasks, I don't think you can argue that Javascript is more powerful than C, but to have a low-level language you need to have a strict(er) syntax.

>>649

Im not convinced having so many words is an advantage. We have a lot of words that are just connotation. For example, I think the word 'stealing' means 'taking' with the connotation of 'wrong to do'. We have the word 'injection' and 'shot' for example.

In some sense, you can be very precise about what you are thinking, but often it gives you license to not elaborate where you ought to. Imagine if we didnt have the word 'steal' and only 'take', and when we wanted to talk about taking we have to elaborate something about it that would convince the listener it was wrong to do. If this were the case we would all have to be more articulate in what we say. Those who are intellectually poor would find expressing themselves somewhat taxing.

>>660

I think english's massive word count has to do with the fact that its the amalgamation of so many languages. Its basically the combination of German and whatever romance language they had in France circa 1300.

Regarding programming, part of my job is programming in Javascript and C, and I dont think what you said makes any sense. How is Javascript 'more powerful'? Its just a different language. They have their own use cases. I dont understand what you mean by saying javascript has a less strict syntax.

>>663
The fact that English words have varying shades of meaning is exactly why it's very good at being precise. You can't fault someone's inability to utilize a tool as a fault of the tool's. Trying to say that the language would be better off if instead of simply using the word "steal" you use the word "take" and try to use verbose and extravagant language to try and persuade the user of something that can be easily conveyed through the use of one word is ridiculous. Are you serious?

>>660
No language creates words for "no good reason". You don't just have a word that means literally nothing and it exists for no reason unless it's archaic. Even then at some point speakers needed it to convey something and it just fell into disuse.

You're obviously a non-native English speaker or some kind of Europhile because having a highly inflected language has nothing to do the readability or logical flow of a language. Trying to equate human speech to computer programming is absolutely ridiculous. They literally are not the same thing. You must be one of those people that equates a double negative in speech to a positive. Just because you like to think of things and understand things in one way doesn't give it an objective leg-up over other ways of conveying and interpreting information.

>>714

No, I'm not really suggesting that without words like 'steal', we would be better off. I do think that heavy use of connotation heavy words like 'steal' can reduce the language to inarticulate barking. The language itself cannot be blamed however.

>>714

Im >>719

Furthermore, Id like to criticize your notion of percision. The speaker doesnt necessarily gain percision with more word options. If by percision we mean, accuracy and content appropriateness, then giving the speaker words whos meaning is not appropriate, but tempting to use, we lose percision. As in, I would like to convince others my least favorite politician is a crook, so I call his taking 'stealing', though there is no real legal or political content that would make my connotation correct.

So perhaps 'dexterity' or 'control' better describes the advantage of english. English speakers can greatly express their sentiment by mere semantics, making english listeners more sensitive to the motivations behind a speakers word choice.

>>720
That makes absolutely no sense. At this point you're criticizing the fact that English the ability to cover a wide variety of topics but some people are unable to use it effectively. It seems akin to criticizing a nail for being too similar to a screw when in reality the two things are used for very different things despite only subtle differences.

Your example doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If a politician takes things which are not his then it's stealing regardless if his influence allows him to escape punishment under the law. In addition, the failure of the law to cover a certain action has nothing to do with the language's ability to describe the action. The "dexterity" and "control" you are saying English has is exactly why it allows it to be precise in its description of things. The fact you describe expression as "mere semantics" is confusing and disingenuous considering the description of anything in any language is just "mere semantics"; considering you're using words to do it.

Have either of you read even an introductory text on Linguistics? Because if you had then you'd see why what you're trying to posit makes absolutely no sense.

>>723

I dont think you understood me at all.

>>726
You're not making any sense so it's a fair assumption that I didn't understand you.

Your logic doesn't flow and your examples to back them up are hamfisted and inelegant. Your stealing example literally stops the flow of your argument in its tracks and makes one scratch their head in wonderment trying to figure out what you're talking about.

>>714
Sorry you are a moron who cannot entertain an analogy to try to explain a point.

Whether I am a non-native English speaker (or some kind of Europhile) or not is just a pitiful attempt at ad hominem attacking me/my idea.

Obviously the language matters in the process of thinking and I didn't say the problem with English was that there are distinctions but that the language easily makes terms shift sense. It has nothing to do with words and everything to do with the structure. That's why throughout european history the learned spoke Latin, because it has structure, and structure implies rigor, rigor of thought.

>>747

No actually it isn't. If that was your analogy, which I don't think it was, it's stupid. I read it and understood it and it was stupid. I'm sorry that this opinion of mine hurts your feefees.

Ad hominem? No. You can't objectively prove that any one language is better suited at another at conveying an idea. You have no idea how languages change or evolve. Yeah they learned a dead language that won't change because it has no native speakers and you use that as an example of structure? Are you sound in the head? The fact that Latin is "structured" has nothing to do with its "rigor" and everything to do with the fact that classical Latin went extinct.

>>747

Nice job accusing me of ad hominems but in the same post calling me a moron.

Were you a runner up in the olympics for mental gymnastics?

>>751
I take that the anon makes an emphasis on structure because it is the only thing a laguage has that is truly unambiguous. Having a wide choice of words to fill this structure (that is ideally as rigid as possible while still allowing for expressive liberty) can be viewed both as a blessing, in that nuances can be communicated more directly without relying on complex specifications often left to implication or interpretation, but also as a detriment, in that, through the sheer quantity, it is more likely that the understandings of the words do not overlap as much as in a language with limited vocabulary that requires more explication by default (though Latin wasn't really a language of this kind).

In other words, I have a variety of words that have subtle differences that justify their individual existence. But unless those subtle differences are crystal clear, my percieved nuanced expression is all the more enigmatic or unfree from bias by the recipients.
In everyday language, subtle differences are seldomly crystal clear, thus making the assumption that a language with more rigour in its syntax and less flexibility in its vocabulary is better at conveying ideas reasonably, one that is valid in my opinion.
That, at least, is what I take anon's position to be. Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting.

>>724
Comments like this would be all the more interesting if you would point out the errors or state your arguments.

>>756
Having studied Latin and various other languages including French and German I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of "rigour" or "structure". These seem, to me, to be empty, almost purpleprose tier, words used to describe a personal preference. I require some objective statements about the language and its structure to be able to point out whether or not said statements are wrong. Which is why I asked them if they had read any linguistic material.

Is it because the language is heavily inflected? What does that have to do with conveying an idea clearly? He said that English words "easily make term shifts". What language that is alive and spoken today doesn't shift semantics, especially within its content words? Before answering that why doesn't he give an example of an English word that has "rapidly" underwent a "term shift" which gives way to confusion? He brings up Latin as an example as if that is to be taken with awe when the language is dead. It's like commending a deceased guard outside of Buckingham Palace because his rigour mortis gives him good posture.

I would happily use the science of Linguistics to prove him wrong if he gave me something concrete other than "muh feels" to work with.

>>764
not that anon, but I would say for example that german has a much more stricter sintax/structure than italian. but one could say that in german you can mix easily other two words or more making a new word, while in italian more often than in german only using one word near another could sound really bad, even if it's correct. So basically in german once you learn the grammar (this is not easy) it's easier to not make mistakes. Is this wrong?

>>765
The only reason Italian syntax is more fluid than German is because Italian is more inflected. That is to say the tense and formation of the verb carried more information about the person and mood of the action. You can express in one word what would take three in German.

Does this somehow make Italian more adept at conveying an idea? No. Just different. In my mind it's hard for someone to make a strong objective case as to why one way would be better than the other beyond "I just like it that's why." I think in order for someone to genuinely appreciate what's at work here you need to look at multiple languages. There are recurring patterns that occur cross lingually, especially among the members of the Indo-European family.

But having said all that why in your example is it not fair to say that once you learn the grammar of Italian it's easier not to make mistakes? At the end of it all it's only your familiarity with the language that allows you to make mistakes or not.

>>766
yeah, I wasn't saying one language was more precise than another. Also I didn't express myself correctly, I meant that in italian maybe you don't make mistakes if you know the grammar but still it seems that you have less freedom in the choice of the words to use based on the sound of them, while in german you have to be more careful about the meaning. But maybe that's just my impression.

>>770
I've never studied Italian so I'm not completely sure but my impression of heavily inflected languages is that word order is more free because of all the information contained within the verb inflections. It makes sense that they can't tack together nouns like the Germans do but German isn't the only language that does that not saying you implied this.

>>764
Essentially, the ideal language that still wants to be expressive would be structured in such a way that required explication and elaboration for ambiguous terms. Such a language would be better suited at communicating, because it would be more precice. And the reason for its precicion would not be semantic but based on the unyielding syntax, forcing explication and trying to remove ambiguity through form. That is what I meant by "rigour" and "structure" and though this is more a hypothetical, I consider the terms to be quite useful, and definitely not understoon only as expression of preference.

There is no such language to my understanding though, and I agree that it is a misconception that Latin is a particularly "precice" language. But there is a case to be made for syntax that allows little room to move in, particularly when it comes to linking predicates to subjects. Most languages do this, but some tend to more direct forms of linking content than others. The claim that the prior would be "better" at expressing thoughts thus strikes me as a reasonable one to make, which is why I chimed in.

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with enough languages to have a really good example for this though.

>>775
I fail to see how rigid syntactic structure would allow for more precision in communication. Perhaps for someone who is unfamiliar with the structure of the language that would allow for them to understand.

Give me some kind of example comparing two types of constructions, perhaps in German and English if you speak both of those, and explain why one formation is better than another.

From all that I've seen and studied in language and syntax, I've been around the block a bit having studied French, Latin, German, English and Korean, at the end of the day the only "superiority" I can see in different syntactic structures falls under personal preference and ease of understanding on an individual basis. You are hard pressed to champion any one singular syntactic structure as "superior" especially on such a flimsy notion as a rigid one. If one is familiar with the way a fluid syntax is formed then suddenly it doesn't seem so confusing any more. As I said before, you can't fault someone's inability to use a tool effectively on the tool. Any ambiguity I can see arising out of the syntactic structure of any language would arise out of the inability of the speaker/writer to effectively wield it or the inability of the audience to understand it.

>>752
that's not an ad hom that's simply me observing you are a moron who cannot understand analogies and accepting it.

However you are doing ad hom, pointing out that I'd be a non-native English speaker TO PROVE ME WRONG.

>>779
>As I said before, you can't fault someone's inability to use a tool effectively on the tool.
Why can't you? If a tool is not designed so it can be used easily enough by those who utilize it, why can't you blame the tool? That's like saying I'm trying to open a tin can with a spoon, I cannot blame the spoon for being the wrong instrument, it is my fault for not knowing how to use a spoon properly. I could simply use a can opener.

>Any ambiguity I can see arising out of the syntactic structure of any language would arise out of the inability of the speaker/writer to effectively wield it or the inability of the audience to understand it.
Then this language is not a really efficient way of conveying ideas is it? I mean you don't mean to say that everyone (except you of course)is too stupid to understand the language correctly, right?

>>819
Are you an idiot? We're talking about language. Whether or not you speak the language natively HUGELY influences your perceptions of it. We're not discussing physics and I'm trying to talk down to you because of your bad grammar or something equally frivolous. You're drawing false positives and bitching and moaning about things that are entirely relevant to the conversation. Your apparent non-native English speaking status directly impacts your ease of use of the language and your perceptions of it. Calling me a moron is attempting to diminish my opinions based on mental acuity. But with all that aside you have no idea what you're talking about other than "muh feels" so please shut the fuck up while grown folks are trying to talk.

>>820
"ease of use" in terms of language is extremely relative and subjective. You can't even begin to rank syntactic systems based on "ease of use". A speaker of Japanese is going to have a harder time with English than Korean in the same way that an Italian speaker is going to have a harder time with Japanese than French. Your analogy is hamfisted. Yes indeed it is your fault for not knowing how to use a spoon properly just in the same way it's your fault for not knowing how to use grammar effectively when conveying ideas.

As for your second point it's too infantile to even address. I mean really, from all that I've said you've decided to take that I'm attempting to elevate myself as some sort of intellectual superior? Give me a break.

>>830
obviously "ease of use" can be quantified. What your saying about the relative difficulty of a language though not false is unrelated. Obviously languages often share common roots and therefore are more easily learned by groups that share similar patterns of syntax and grammar. However it doesn't mean a language difficulty cannot be objectively quantify, you just need to isolate the different aspects that make a statistical difference. For instance some arabic or russian sounds are very difficult to pronounce regardless of origins, a language that would both of these elements would be objectively harder to understand.

But anyways what I was saying to begin with was not that a language had to be easy to use it's that it had to be constructed in such a way that it has syntactic rigor, because I said that syntactic rigor and grammatical rigor makes that process of reflecting upon a given subject more rigorous. There a site that wants to appeal to many people like FB and that doesn't really care what kind of people or for what purpose (basically a site - or something else - that needs direct manpower) should use a language that is accessible like English, but a place of reason should use a more rigorous approach and therefore should use a more rigorous language. I proposed Latin (or German, or French) but there are plenty of other languages out there with a rigorous structure, English is just not one of them. There are other languages that I wouldn't use either, like Spanish (for the same reason).

>>833
>obviously "ease of use" can be quantified.

Then do it.

>For instance some arabic or russian sounds are very difficult to pronounce regardless of origins

[citation needed]

> I said that syntactic rigor and grammatical rigor makes that process of reflecting upon a given subject more rigorous

This literally means nothing.

Define "rigorous" as I've asked if not you someone else to do more than once. Sitting there continually using the word "rigour" and saying nonsensical bullshit like "IT NEEDS RIGOUR SO YOU CAN RIGOUROUSLY DESCRIBE A SUBJECT" doesn't mean a single thing. You sound like those idiots in the 18th and 19th century who forced everyone to write in Latin because of "rigour" but really it was because of their hardon for the Roman empire. Honestly I have severe doubts you can even explain what you mean without using the word "rigour".

So uhhhh... I don't know how this thread got so derailed. Anyway, I think LessWrong is low-quality shitposts, dumbed-down philosophy, and the wretched zombie of the enlightenment, brought back to eat brains with bad arguments and shitty clickbait.