Re: A Bit of a Flame

On Monday, November 15, 2004, at 06:09 , H. S. Teoh wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:15:50AM -0500, Trent Pehrson wrote:
>> Be warned: this is a bit of a flame.
>
> Ahh, another chance to make use of my good ole flamesuit.
I put mine away after leaving Auxlang a few years back. I am not sure
where it is at the moment. Looks as tho I might have to get it out again
*sigh*.

>
>> You Chomsky-loving, structure-worshiping linguists are so brainwashed.
>
> Interesting. I don't even know who Chomsky is, except that he's some
> guy who is credited for inventing a way to describe grammar. I seem to
> recall hearing something about his political involvement,
Yes - Trent's second sentence contains some ambiguities. I know who
Chomsky is. I have seen him and even heard him speaking - about East Timor
in the time when it was under Indonesian occupation. I was in agreement
with what he said.

However, I assume from the context that Trent is speaking of "Chomsky the
linguist" rather than "Chomsky the politician". Thus I assume his diatribe
was not aimed at me since, as many know, I am not a Chomskyite.

Nor do I worship structure.

What I objected to from Trent's mail was that he seemed to be tarring all
linguists on this list with the same brush.

>  but then
> I've no interest in politics, so I don't even know if they're the same
> Chomsky.
They are one and the the same person.

> And neither do I care. Also, I'm not even a linguist. And as
> for structure... have you seen the Ferochromon? :-P </shameless plug>
I doubt it. He seems to have seen precious few actual conlangs.

>
>> Language structure is as arbitrary and as variable as individual thought.
>> It is a totally malleable convention that never remains constant for more
>> than a few years. The only way you people can justify your rigid ideas is
>> by creating an extremely narrow definition of language both in time and
>> in
>> the scope of usage, and by then chopping your narrowly defined “language”
>> into convenient-to-your-model compartments.  For every category you
>> create, though, examples can be found that break you models.
>
> Have you seen Ebisédian? ;-) </shameless plug>
   :-D     :-D    :-D

Has this guy actually seen the very _wide_ variety of conlangs that have
been constructed over the years by members of this list? I mean "rigid
ideas ...creating an extremely narrow definition of language both in time
and in the scope of usage...."

Hey, what list is he talking about?

>> Accept the truth.
I have always endeavored to do so - but I am a mere non-Chomskyite mortal
who still continues, even in his 66th year, to try to understand language
and who joined this list for the *fun* of conlanging. I have not been
granted infallibility in these matters.

>>  Linguistic models are useful only within a declared
>> domain of language exploration.  They are not universal and none of them
>> are all inclusive—especially when you consider the possibility of non-
>> human language in the universe and even in the animal kingdom of our own
>> little planet.
>
> No one claims they are universal. And if somebody did, I don't think
> their view represents most of ours. I mean, my conlangs have defied
> all categorization so far, and they're human languages...
Yes, I agree - it seems to me that Trent is, as we say, "teaching his
grandmother to suck eggs" here.

>
> [...]
>> Which perfectly leads to my next point.  This is a *CONLANG* site—a site
>> where people share and discuss *CON-STRUC-TED* languages—which are
>> *CREATIVE* endeavors.
Duh!! That has, er, sort of been noticed before. Look in the archives.

>> If people want to use linguistics jargan in a new
>> way (or by your narrow vision, a “wrong” way)—or even create their own
>> taxonomy for describing their work, they can.
In fact people have done just that - many times in the past. The point is
very simple, however: if linguistic jargon is used and not otherwise
qualified then we have this tendency - which no doubt Trent thinks
unreasonable - of understanding it in the way it is generally used in
linguistics (whether Chomskyan or not). If linguistic jargon is being used
differently for some reason or other, it is just a tad useful to make it
clear - it saves unnecessary misunderstanding!

As for creating their own jargon - take a look at Lojban, for example.

[snip]
>> The whole universe does not have to be variations of noun-and-verb-based
>> SVO  "grammatical"sentences.
What the hell is this guy talking about? Certainly *not* this list. How
many of conlangs are 'variations of noun-and-verb-based SVO  "grammatical"
  sentences"'????

>
> To which I must ask again, have you seen Ebisédian? ;-)
....or very many of the other conlangs created by people here.
==============================================

On Monday, November 15, 2004, at 05:33 , Rodlox wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Theiling" <theiling@...>
> To: <CONLANG@...>
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:10 PM
> Subject: Re: A Bit of a Flame
[snip]

>>> are so brainwashed.
>> Maybe, how can I decide this?
>
>  if we were brainwashed, wouldn't we be programmed to deny being
> programmed
> or brainwashed?
Of course - and we'd be programmed to believe anyone who told us we were
brainwashed had in fact been themselves brainwashed to tell us falsehoods
    :)

[snip]
>>> especially when you consider the possibility of non-
>>> human language in the universe and even in the animal kingdom of our
>>> own little planet.
>>
>> Correct.
Indeed - which is precisely why people on this list or who have been on
this list _have created_ languages for various non-human terrestrials as
well as for aliens on other planets in other parts of our vast universe.

>  absolutely...just the other day, a woodchuck was telling me the real
> answer
> to the old "how much wood" riddle...
Oh, so just how much wood would those darn woodchucks chuck if they would
chuck wood? Seems to me a mighty important question - I think you ought to
let us know. After all, we have been told to accept the truth!

======================================================

On Monday, November 15, 2004, at 04:28 , Joe wrote:

> Trent Pehrson wrote:
>
>> Be warned: this is a bit of a flame.
>
> Yes it is.  Was there a reason for it, or are you just being rude?
Later on Monday, November 15, 2004, at 04:49 , Joe wrote:

> Trent Pehrson wrote:
[snip]
>> The reason for the message is in the message.
>
> Well, no-one provoked you.
I agree. IMO Trent's answer to Joe is as rude as the original message. I
am no Chomsky-lover in matters linguistic, but I have seen nothing here to
provoke me to make an attack against those linguists who have Chomskyite
ideas - still less to let loose a lot of flames that seem to be directed
fairly generally at the list, even if Henrik is correct when on Monday,
November 15, 2004, at 05:11 , he wrote:
[snip]
> Nono, read it, he agrees with us, he just does not notice! :-)
Having managed to read Trent's mail through to the end, I think Henrik is
correct - which makes the unfounded vitriol of the first part rather
pointless.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply