All words are more words, and therefore, all words are silly

[Steve81]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Perhaps so. But then, they (Saussure?) need to clarify that they refer only to verbal symbols.

I think that would apply to the written word as well, since that directly connects to verbalization through phonics.

[joigus]

22 minutes ago, Genady said:

Does not seem so in a sign language, though.

You would think so, but once a symbol has been introduced, it seems to acquire a 'combinatorial' life of its own, so to speak, that would make it very difficult for anyone to try to guess the meaning from just watching the symbol.

In this respect, I found this talk by David Perlmutter very interesting:

It seems to suggest that this direct association between meaning and symbol is but an initial cue, and complicating factors come into play later.

Particularly interesting are his comments on how nearly indistinguishable the two symbols for 'Canada' and 'Jom Kippur' are in ISL. 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

I think that would apply to the written word as well, since that directly connects to verbalization through phonics.

That too would be limited to phonetic alphabets and not necessarily hold for other systems of writing.

[Steve81]

Just now, Genady said:

That too would be limited to phonetic alphabets and not necessarily hold for other systems of writing.

True.

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

You would think so, but once a symbol has been introduced, it seems to acquire a 'combinatorial' life of its own, so to speak, that would make it very difficult for anyone to try to guess the meaning from just watching the symbol.

In this respect, I found this talk by David Perlmutter very interesting:

It seems to suggest that this direct association between meaning and symbol is but an initial cue, and complicating factors come into play later.

Particularly interesting are his comments on how nearly indistinguishable the two symbols for 'Canada' and 'Jom Kippur' are in ISL. 

Yes, the direct association holds only for very basic signs. Most signs have more information in them then just imitation. However, it does not make the signs arbitrary. I'd say to the contrary, it makes them more systematic.

One cannot guess the meaning of a sign by seeing it. But, when one is told the meaning, one often says, Ah, of course. Especially if one already is familiar with the patterns. This is very instrumental when learning sign language.

Also, if one arbitrarily replaced signs then they'd start looking really silly in most cases.

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, Steve81 said:

Addendum: To put it simply, if I say "rock", and point to a rock, you might understand what I'm trying to communicate, even if you have never heard the term rock before. 

Then again, I might think "rock" is your word for index finger.

😀

[Steve81]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Then again, I might think "rock" is your word for index finger.

😀

Indeed! 😆

[joigus]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Then again, I might think "rock" is your word for index finger.

😀

Or said index finger, but only when it's pointing to a rock. I think syntax is necessary very early on.

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think syntax is necessary very early on.

I think context is crucial.

[joigus]

5 hours ago, Genady said:

I think context is crucial.

Sure it is. In fact, given enough context, a complete reference to the terms could become unnecessary, and saying 'I see' or 'I don't think so' could be enough to make clear what one means. If you think about it, we use elipsis most of the time when we are with family or close friends. They know what we mean.

When I said syntax must have been present very early on, I meant that even in the first stages of development of language there must have been a very simple set of rules (subject)+(action)+(object) --or inverse order--, (subject)+(be)+(attribute). I don't think that crude pointing at things and naming could have been going on for much long.

Linguists call this proto-syntax. It is, no doubt, speculation on the part of linguists --as language leaves no fossils--, but a very reasonable one.

So obviously all words are more words couldn't be farther off the mark.

[Genady]

31 minutes ago, joigus said:

Sure it is. In fact, given enough context, a complete reference to the terms could become unnecessary, and saying 'I see' or 'I don't think so' could be enough to make clear what one means. If you think about it, we use elipsis most of the time when we are with family or close friends. They know what we mean.

When I said syntax must have been present very early on, I meant that even in the first stages of development of language there must have been a very simple set of rules (subject)+(action)+(object) --or inverse order--, (subject)+(be)+(attribute). I don't think that crude pointing at things and naming could have been going on for much long.

Linguists call this proto-syntax. It is, no doubt, speculation on the part of linguists --as language leaves no fossils--, but a very reasonable one.

So obviously all words are more words couldn't be farther off the mark.

Well, I've read about proto-syntax, agree with you that it is a speculation, but I don't "buy" it. I think that order and relation between words could very well be acquired from comparing them with the order and relations between actions, without any proto-syntax. Moreover, I think that phrases as whole units could be acquired before words, with words and syntax appearing later from "intersection" of the phrases.

I always try to compare between different languages, the more different the better. In ASL and in Russian, for example, there is no rule for order regarding (subject)/(action)/(object). The same result is achieved by different means. In ASL and in Russian, there is no verb (be) to connect (subject) and (attribute). In English, ASL and Russian, (attribute) comes before (subject), while in Hebrew (and in Spanish, as you know better than me), (attribute) comes after (subject).

Edited August 16, 2023 by Genady

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, Genady said:

I always try to compare between different languages, the more different the better. In ASL and in Russian, for example, there is no rule for order regarding (subject)/(action)/(object).

Just curious how, without a rule for order, Russian would handle dog bites man.  Is the subject noun modified in some way so we know who bit who?

[Sensei]

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Just curious how, without a rule for order, Russian would handle dog bites man.  Is the subject noun modified in some way so we know who bit who?

Dogs are too nice animals..

ps. Genady oversimplified it..

There are prefixes and suffixes that change the meaning of words.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Sensei

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Just curious how, without a rule for order, Russian would handle dog bites man.  Is the subject noun modified in some way so we know who bit who?

Almost. What is modified in Russian in this case is the object noun.

'Man' = 'chelovek'. But 'dog bites man' = 'dog bites cheloveka'. 

All six permutations are grammatically correct and mean the same, with a different emphasis:

'dog bites cheloveka'

'dog cheloveka bites'

'bites dog cheloveka'

'cheloveka dog bites'

'bites cheloveka dog'

'cheloveka bites dog'

[TheVat]

Thanks.  And if the situation were reversed, then the sobaka would be sobaku.  It is interesting that one syntax doesn't become preferred.  This seems to allow shades of meaning that could be useful.

Edited August 17, 2023 by TheVat
more

[Sensei]

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

All six permutations are grammatically correct and mean the same, with a different emphasis:

'dog bites cheloveka'

'dog cheloveka bites'

'bites dog cheloveka'

'cheloveka dog bites'

'bites cheloveka dog'

'cheloveka bites dog'

..but the problem is that in all your examples, the all the time the victim is "chelovek", and the aggressor is the dog.. This is what @TheVat was referring to..

 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..but the problem is that in all your examples, the all the time the victim is "chelovek", and the aggressor is the dog.. This is what @TheVat was referring to..

 

I think that I've answered what @TheVat was referring to, judging by his following up.

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think that I've answered what @TheVat was referring to, judging by his following up.

We wrote in the same seconds, without seeing each other's posts..

 

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Thanks.  And if the situation were reversed, then the sobaka would be sobaku.  It is interesting that one syntax doesn't become preferred.  

Yes, this is right.

One syntax might be preferred over another, depending on a context. For example, to the question, what bites the man? the preferred answer would be, cheloveka bites dog.

 

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This seems to allow shades of meaning that could be useful.

Exactly.