Linguistics webcomics--just what I was waiting for!

[glenniebun]

Dinosaur Comics examines the finer points of linguisticsThe (serious) problem implied is a large one; you obviously can't completely formalize living languages because they're continually changing based on the whims of individual speakers at the end of the day. "Language is in a constant state of change," my first linguistics professor would intone

Comments

[conrad_zaar]

I really need to go to bed, but I can't pass this up. I'll try to keep it brief, and as coherent as possible

[glenniebun]

(I say "what I need to do" rather than "what I need to convey," because there are any number of things you can do with language other than conveying information: soothing, wooing, distracting, entertaining, etc.)

When I said "convey" that included conveying emotions and such; we're basically saying the same thing.

But (perhaps due to my weary state) I don't understand how there is a moral question. What is the moral obligation? To fellow language-users?

On a basic level every decision is a moral one, since when faced with options the question becomes "Which one should I use?" Most everyday moral decisions aren't made consciously--that is, a person makes a decision and the principle that led him there goes unexamined--but I like examining that sort of process (for myself, personally, so that I can be confident that my subconscious processes are also pretty good ones), so I try to make as many things explicit as I can. In my thesis, since I was concentrating on moral theory in grammar, I was threading my way between the

[conrad_zaar]

When I said "convey" that included conveying emotions and such; we're basically saying the same thing.

We might be, but I'm not sure. I'm not talking necessarily about conveying anything, but achieving desired effects. Sometimes, for instance, we deliberately use language so as not to convey anything, but to obfuscate, confuse, or conceal. It's a tangential point though, and perhaps a trivial one as well. I ought to make a proper entry about it some time.

On a basic level every decision is a moral one, since when faced with options the question becomes "Which one should I use?"If that's how you're defining "moral" then your earlier statement makes a lot more sense to me. But isn't this a remarkably broad (and therefore empty) definition of "moral"? Are you really saying that I'm making a moral decision when I have a pink popsicle rather than a purple one, or when I decide that I'd rather use a Robertson screwdriver than a Phillips? I don't have a background in philosophy, so if you tell me that this is how the word is being

[glenniebun]

I'm not talking necessarily about conveying anything, but achieving desired effects. Sometimes, for instance, we deliberately use language so as not to convey anything, but to obfuscate, confuse, or conceal.

I see your point, and agree with it actually. Perhaps my language wasn't clear enough earlier.

But isn't this a remarkably broad (and therefore empty) definition of "moral"? Are you really saying that I'm making a moral decision when I have a pink popsicle rather than a purple one, or when I decide that I'd rather use a Robertson screwdriver than a Phillips?I'm saying that moral principles of whatever sort figure into almost every decision we make, and usually go unstated. (Also, a lot of people's unstated principles are pragmatic--more often than not you use the Robertson screwdriver because you have a Robertson screw and have already decided it'd be a good thing to screw it in, right?) As for your popsicles, I suppose I could go into special and unlikely contexts, or even the morality of following personal preferences in

[nonbeing]

T-Rex raises a compelling objection to rigorously defined language

[glenniebun]

I propose a rigorously defined language without syntactic or lexical ambiguity!

We have one, sort of; how many legal decisions are semantic?

Of course, try to get people to speak the way you want them to and they simply won't. It's more of an invisible-hand kind of thing than an iron fist.

[conrad_zaar]

This reminds me of how Cassius and his fellow conspirators tell Mark Antony what he is allowed to say and what he is not allowed to say. And Antony riles the crowd into a murderous frenzy against the conspirators by being ironic but technically (i.e. formally) staying within the rules.

Rigrorously Defined Language - 0
Rhetoricity - 1