🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Jan.4.16.56.51.1993.22817@pilot.njin.net> hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:
# Fuzzy concepts have their place in science--especially at the
# verbal stage--but they also have their limits. The brain is
# very good at discerning patterns but natural language is rather
# poor in unambiguously, clearly, precisely and accurately
# describing them.
#
# That's why there's a special language for it. It's called
# mathematics.
#
# All sciences go thru a stage where things are first described
# in a fuzzy and intuitive way then 'recursively' --not
# iteratively-- define the quantities in question. That is; if
# any one of the quantities can be measured, then 'relationships'
# --of the mathematical kind--make it possible to define others
# more clearly.

There are many phenomena in the real world that are susceptible of
scientific study but not reducible to mathematics at this time.

# The problem that I've been hinting at is the ambiguity of terms
# like 'regular corresondance', 'genetic relation', and few
# similar terms.

I don't think these are ambiguous to linguists.

# The word 'paradigm' did wonders for Kuhn's fame but it suffers
# from the same defect.

When linguists talk about paradigms, they're not talking about models
or methodology.  Paradigms are sets of forms sharing a common element.

# I'm going to make it specific. First, let`s ignore the words
# genetic and relation. Instead let's concentrate on a series of
# measurable quantities, say called 'closeness'. Relatedness will
# take care of itself later.

No.  You don't seem to understand what linguists are trying to
determine in comparing languages.  They are not interested in a
mathematical measure of their similarity, but in their history.

# We have to have the same thing in mind when we refer to things.
# Neither the word 'regular' nor the word 'relation' means the
# same thing to both of us.

Perhaps an introductory linguistics textbook would help?

# More to the point, I'm reinterpreting (maybe putting words into
# the mouths of) linguists and their implied methodology. They
# don't have to make up this function. I'm making it up for them
# for indeed, I think they are implying it. However, since they
# don't explicitly use it, some of the inconsistencies and
# implications implicit in the 'method' cannot be shown without
# an explicit reference to this implicitly existing function.

It would be surprising indeed if you came up with a function to
describe a procedure you didn't understand.

# Mr. Alderson, I'm sure that your answers aren't going to change
# but if you`re implying that linguistics has already reached the
# pinnacle or  zenith of its 'scientificity', I'm going to have
# to disagree. It has barely started on its way to becoming a
# science. It's got a loooooooong way to go.

If you're defining science in terms of math, you're absolutely right.
But linguistics may be contributing quite a bit of knowledge in the
realm of understanding natural phenomena which are too complex for or
totally beyond current mathematical concepts.

# >You quote the word "regularity."  Why?  It is one of the
# >defined, principle- based terms of the area of study.
#
# I regularly quote it not because I intend to irritate  anyone
# but simply because for me it's more like the umpteen allophones
# of a vowel; quite simply, it's undefined.

This is an interesting illustration of your lack of knowledge of
linguistic concepts.  "Regular correspondence" is defined in terms of
its use in linguistics.  That the term is used differently from its
use in math is simply irrelevant.  That introductory textbook should
explain what linguists mean when they say language is arbitrary and
conventional.

# The only time I use the word is when I intend to say that some
# kind of mathematically realizable or recognizable pattern
# exists.

Well, you're not a linguist, are you.

# >And we do not necessarily try to show whether words were
# >borrowed or not.  The concern is not with words in and of
# >themselves.
#
# I'm sure you don't mean this literally but in a restricted or
# conditonal sense. Otherwise....
#
# it would be like saying physicists don't study matter and
# energy but symbols on pieces of paper.

You must think words *are* language.


# >>This implies that, in addition to sharing words, languages must
# >>also share other characteristics. In other words, finding lots
# >>of words in common, say between Farsi and Turkish, is no proof
# >>of relatedness since something else in these
# >>languages--something much more important and something at a more
# >>primitive level (fundamental)--is different. What are the
# >>characteristics of these primitive measures ? Is it morphology ?
# >>Is it synax ?
# >Certainly not syntax.  It is too limited in some ways, and too
# >unbounded in others, to suffice.
#
# I guess it has to do with precision and accuracy. 'Relatedness'
# and 'Unrelatedness' are related to one another! If we measure
# 'close' and 'far' (say to NYC) either word will suffice.

Again, you don't understand that linguists are concerned about
different types of "relatedness" -- genetic, due to language contact,
coincidental.

# Back to linguistics

Right.

[A whole lot of text deleted because it's all based on this
misunderstanding of relatedness.]

# The simplest things come to mind first, then the more
# complicated ones are necessary to further fine-tune the
# process.

Not in linguistics.  This whole discussion about Finnish and Turkish
is due to faulty judgments made on the most obvious data.  These
languages are superficially similar, but different in the ways that
would prove genetic relatedness.

# >As has been stated many times by many people, the issue is not
# >with "words."
#
# I assume you don't mean this literally. Please see above.

Ditto.

# >The proper object of study in comparative study is the paradigm,
# >either "inflectional" or "derivational."  However, it is
# >unlikely that in the time- frame you posit anything will have
# >left indisputable traces that could be used.
#
# Yes, we're back to square one again. The paradigm is the method
# and that's the one in question. It's based on an ambigously
# defined concept of regularity, what ever it means.

Again, from here on I won't point out that you do not know what a
paradigm is to linguists.

# Furthermore, there's no need to mix-up or mix-in any concept of
# genetic relationship. If it pleases you and other linguists
# then we can make up  completely value-free measures with
# absolutely no previous baggage or connotation as far as any
# historical ramifications go. 'Distance' is a perfectly good
# English word that has found use in mathematical literature.

What you are doing in effect is pointing out how inadequate
mathematics is for the study of language.

# Numbers, numbers, numbers, give me numbers.

I guess that's why mathematicians are mathematicians and linguists are
linguists.

# I'm not sure if the word paradigm here is used in the sense I
# understand what the word means. I understand it in the sense of
# Kuhn--as in scientific paradigms. Please elaborate.

But it never occurred to you to go back and rethink all the comments
you made based on your misunderstanding?

>"Statistical" is not necessarily co-terminous with "scientific." 

# But science is not a subjective, ambiguous, fuzzy, imprecise
# and maybe inaccurate heap of factoids.

But neither is it a simple-minded application of mathematical
formulas.

# Your opinions and mine vary.

Your knowledge and his as well.

# I can say this; if there's any pattern that a human brain can
# discern, it can be formalized either mathematically or
# algorithmically.

REally?  Can you point me to the formulas/algorithms that determine
the physical and electrical characteristics of all possible alloys?
Or something simpler -- an algorithm that will tell me the next move
an ant will make given a set of environmental conditions.

David Johns