Re: THEORY: SV: THEORY: What IS language anyway?

Kalle Bergman wrote:
> Hi there! New on the list!
Welcome aboard!

> I reckon one obvious thing must be added to the model.
> If brains just executed any old language-command that
> reached them through the ears, their world-simulation
> would pretty soon start to appear pretty messy.
Yes, indeed.

I read Gary's off-the-cuff theory with interest. I am sure Gary himself
would not claim an off-the-cuff theory will be sufficient. It seemed to
me that Gary's ideas are more related to machine 'understanding' of
human language. This is something I did a _very_ modest amount of work
on several years ago, and is in itself a fascinating area of study.

But IMO human to human communication is likely to be more complex. I
have on my bookshelves a book with the title "What _is_ Language?" If an
author can devote a whole book to the subject, it suggests that it's not
something that we are likely to cover fully in via emails.

Not that I am saying that "What IS language anyway" is not something we
shouldn't discuss, but that we must realize it's a big subject and we'll
be unlikely, I think, to come to consensus definitive definition.
Nevertheless, it might help clarify some ideas.

One thing I did notice about Gary's model is that it clearly involves
verbalization. It does seem to me that the concepts of 'word' and
'language' are bound up together.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760