Charles 3781 Posted September 14, 2020 Share Posted September 14, 2020 On 9/7/2020 at 3:30 PM, Area54 said: Context. You're correct that "context" can resolve ambiguity. This is exhibited strikingly in modern English phrasal verbs - such as "go off". Suppose one asks the question - what does "go off" mean? There are many possible answers: 1. "Leave", as in: "I'll go off on holiday"; 2. "Explode", as in: "The bomb will go off"; 3. "Start working"; as in: "Your alarm-clock will go off in the morning"; 4. "Stop working"; as in: "Your computer will go off if you unplug it"; 5. "Become putrid"; as in: "Your milk will go off if you leave it for a month outside the refrigerator"; 6. "Stop liking something"; as in: "People like this forum, but if they keep getting hostile responses, they might go off it." Multiple meanings, distinguished only by context. In everyday life, the contextual distinctions are obvious. But is that necessarily so in Science? I mean, suppose an Ancient Greek scientist is trying to write a description of his newly-invented steam-turbine, in Greek. And that language doesn't distinguish between "pneuma = steam" and "pneuma = wind". How will his readers comprehend the significance of the invention? They might think he's only talking about a wind-mill. He could say something like: "hot pneuma arising from boiling water". But doesn't such a periphrase confuse thought. Or, is it actually more analytical? I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molbol2000 Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 I think the number of words is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of the language. Simply put, the worse the language, the more words it contains, because word formation is inflexible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, molbol2000 said: I think the number of words is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of the language. Simply put, the worse the language, the more words it contains, because word formation is inflexible I think the number of posts is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of your posts... 😵 Edited October 19, 2020 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molbol2000 Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 18 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I think the number of posts is roughly inversely proportional to the expressiveness of your posts if all of them explain one thing or fixed set of things All languages describe a fixed number of phenomena, and if more words are required to describe them, then the language is less expressive. Although this is partly due to the clutter of the tongue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 Just now, molbol2000 said: if all of them explain one thing I edited out the subtlety in my last post, just so you'd get it... 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molbol2000 Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I edited out the subtlety in my last post, just so you'd get it. I realized. This is not a valid comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 Just now, molbol2000 said: I realized. This is not a valid comparison. There you go again, more word's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molbol2000 Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 another example: synonyms, that mainly due to borrowing and mixing of languages, in fact they are superfluous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 Just now, molbol2000 said: another example: synonyms, that mainly due to borrowing and mixing of languages, in fact they are superfluous OK then... 🖖 It's funny, you can't even understand your own sentence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molbol2000 Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, dimreepr said: OK then... 🖖 It's funny, you can't even understand your own sentence . This example is easy to understand in the counter-example of polysemy. One word in different contexts means different things, respectively, expressiveness increases and vocabulary decreases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: This example is easy to understand in the counter-example of polysemy. One word in different contexts means different things, respectively, expressiveness increases and vocabulary decreases Rito... Which word didn't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molbol2000 Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 25 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Which word didn't you understand? For those who do not understand, I will explain it for the last time. If with the help of a small lexicon it is possible to express the same as with the help of a large one, then a language with a small lexicon is more expressive than one that has a large I think this is clear enough -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, molbol2000 said: I think this is clear enough Imagine that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dord Posted October 19, 2020 Share Posted October 19, 2020 Syme, a Minitrue lexicologist, has this to say about reducing the size of a vocabulary... Quote By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of The Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like Freedom is Slavery when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. (Editorial, Newspeak Dictionary) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#:~:text=Newspeak is the fictional language,1949)%2C by George Orwell. Careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now