Re: A Bit of a Flame

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.


> 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, but then
I've no interest in politics, so I don't even know if they're the same
Chomsky. And neither do I care. Also, I'm not even a linguist. And as
for structure... have you seen the Ferochromon? :-P </shameless plug>


> 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>


> Accept the truth.  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...


[...]
> 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.  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.  They will not die and will
> not be placed under arrest and the planets will even remain in the
> heavens.  I know, I know.  You disciples of structure are saying “but no
> one will be able to understand such work.  There must be a common way of
> describing.”  To you, I say NONSENSE!  Ever read Dr. Seuss?  My-three-
> years-old son doesn’t even pause when he reads Seuss’ verbal creations.
> The whole universe does not have to be variations of noun-and-verb-based
> SVO  "grammatical"sentences.
To which I must ask again, have you seen Ebisédian? ;-)

But to address your other point, there's a difference between using
terms with your own definition however you like it, and communicating
your ideas clearly to others. Nothing stops me from, for example,
defining "dog" to mean the "cat" appended to the end of a "lion"  in
order to indicate the "wolfness" of the "pig". But if I want the other
party to understand what I'm trying to say, I'd better try to find
common terminology that they can understand, and use that terminology
to define what I mean. This is not the same is being "forced" to use
"limited terms" within a limited definition; the point is to start
from terms that everyone understands, and use that to get them to what
you mean, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater and
demanding that they understand what "wolfness" is without offering any
explanation in terms they can understand.

Of course, whether you do so is entirely up to you---if you prefer to
create something that only you understand, nobody has a problem with
that. I can continue dogging my cats and lioning my wolfnesses all I
want.  But if you wish to communicate it to others, you'll
unfortunately have to come down to their level and use terms they are
familiar with, to assist them to get to where you are.  Otherwise, you
can't blame them for not understanding (or misunderstanding) what
you're trying to say.


[...]
> Stop asking for their permission to construct and describe language unless
> you really want it.
[...]

You mean permission must be asked before a conlang is made??? How did
I not know this before??  Where is this approval committee?  Please
tell me immediately, so that my conlangs can be officially sanctioned!
I don't want to be squided for lioning my wolves and pigging if my
dog cats the ursine elephants! I mean, equine rhinoceroses elephanting
canine hawks would not be a lacertilian simian, and avicularly not
squaloidal!


T

--
"I'm running Windows '98." "Yes." "My computer isn't working now." "Yes, you
already said that." -- User-Friendly

Replies