2 edits
Originally posted by royalchickenbbarr, all compliments to my (not all that clever, though you didn't let me get to the clever bit) algorithm aside, YOU are the one failing to understand the use/mention distinction.
lol, hardly. I'm employing the use/mention distinction, Chicken.
''aardvarks'' is not an English word. It is an English metaword, while 'aardvarks' is a word (subtract one pair of punctuators to get what I really mean).
If, by 'metaword' you mean merely a word that refers to another word (this would accord with standard usage of 'meta'😉 then it follows that there are no English words that refer to other English words. But this is false. Consider the following sentence:
This sentence contains a noun
The is a well-formed English sentence, and the word 'noun' in this sentence refers to an English word. Hence, according to the standard usage of 'meta', 'noun' in the sentence above is a metaword. But 'noun' is also found in the OED, and thus by your own metric it is an English word in good standing. Hence, there is no principled reason to thing that a word can't both be an English word and a metaword.
In general, English contains not only an infinite amount of metawords (e.g., ''aardvark'', '''aardvark''', ''''aardvark'''', etc.), it also contains a variety of meta-linguistic expressions. Consider the following sentence:
'Colorless green ideas sleep furiously', although meaningless, is syntactically well-formed.
This sentence contains both a meta-linguistic word ('meaningless'😉 and a meta-linguistics expression ('syntactically well-formed'😉, yet both 'meaningless' and 'syntactically well formed' are English expressions.
Hence, your contention that level-jumping is illigitimate is itself nothing more than ad-hoc stipulation.
The above is a joke.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were actually presenting objections. I didn't know your previous post was intended as a joke.
Originally posted by CribsLet me ask a question. Suppose that we were engaging
in a discourse in the French language, and I said:
Quel mot preferes-tu: 'bonne' ou 'aardvark'?
OK.
Is every word in that sentence French?
Are any words in that sentence English?
Since French and English share the same 26 letter alphabet, ''aardvark'' would qualify as both an English and a French word.
Does 'aardvark' become a French word just because
it is used in a French sentence?
'Aardvark' is an English word that refers to animals. ''Aardvark'' is a word in both English and French that refers to the symbol string 'aardvark'.
Can you really classify it as an English word?
Or is it really more of a meta-lingual word?
I believe it is the latter, and thus not a valid
choice for this competition.
As I made clear in my response to the Chicken, a word can be both a metaword and an English word in good standing (found in the OED, used in everyday written and oral expression, etc.), just as a meta-linguistic expression like 'syntactically well-formed' is an English expression in good standing.
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsYes, it is an expression. No, it is not a word (it is two words, with one word itself a compound word). It is an English expression, and its constituents are English words. Presumably, the fact that there is a space between 'syntactically' and 'well-formed' makes it two words rather than one. Of course, this syntax-based method of individuating words is ambiguous. The best way of individuating words is by relating them to the concepts they express. This just pushes the problem back, however. How are we to individuate concepts? Nobody has an answer to this question, because nobody knows what concepts really are (e.g., mental particulars, prototypes, atomistic entities, fictions constructed from patterns of use, etc.).
You refer to that beast as an expression. Is is also an
English word? If not, what characteristic prevents
it from being one?
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by bbarrIs 'adfjadfjdjfjjoihohohnmnzncvzoy' an English word?
Yes, it is an expression. No, it is not a word (it is two words, with one word itself a compound word). It is an English expression, and its constituents are English words. Presumably, the fact that there is a space between 'syntactically' and 'well-formed' makes it two words rather than one.
Originally posted by CribsIt could become one, under the right circumstances, if we stipulate a reference and it gains common currency. This, however, is an English word: ''adfjadfjdjfjjoihohohnmnzncvzoy'', which refers to the symbol string 'adfjadfjdjfjjoihohohnmnzncvzoy'.
Is 'adfjadfjdjfjjoihohohnmnzncvzoy' an English word?
Originally posted by bbarrSo it seems that by your definition of a word, it suffices
It could become one, under the right circumstances, if we stipulate a reference and it gains common currency. This, however, is an English word: ''adfjadfjdjfjjoihohohnmnzncvzoy'', which refers to the symbol string 'adfjadfjdjfjjoihohohnmnzncvzoy'.
for a finite seqeunce of characters to be enclosed by a
set of possibly-nested quotes in order for that construction
to be called a word of any language L.
It follows that all languages have an infinite number of
words, and further, that any two languages, say English
and Russian, have an infinite number of words in common.
Given so much common ground, it is strage that Americans
who don't speak Russian and Russians who don't speak
English have such a hard time communicating linguisticly.
The only explanation I can think of is that words
without quotes are the essence of language and
they alone deserve to be distinguished as words, while
your words that are expressed using quotes have extremely
limited meaning, namely in the meta-linguistic realm, and
should therefore not be deserving of the same term
used to describe the former kind of words.
Somewhere in this thread, more than one 'joke' has ocurred.
The above is a 'joke'.
The above is a joke.
'ABC' easy as '123',
Dr. Cribs
Uncommon Knowledge about a needle
Can it affect you(cause an effect to you)? I say Yes.
Is it used to make jewelry? I say Probably.
Does it involve contact with other humans? I say Probably.
Can you see through it? I say Yes.
Is it an article of clothing? I say Yes.
Have you seen one in real life? I say Doubtful.
Does it live in salt-water? I say Probably.
Is it a predator? I say Yes.
Can it discharge waste? I say Yes.
Is it delicious? I say Probably.
Do you need batteries to use it? I say Yes.
Is it green? I say Probably.
Is it a specific type? I say Probably.
Is it larger than a country? I say Probably.
Is it commonly harvested? I say Probably.
Is it independent? I say Probably.
Needle Power !
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsSo it seems that by your definition of a word, it suffices
for a finite seqeunce of characters to be enclosed by a
set of possibly-nested quotes in order for that construction
to be called a word of any language L.
No. The following is not an English word: 'zigrit'
This, however, is an English word: ''zigrit'', which refers to the symbol string 'zigrit'.
It follows that all languages have an infinite number of
words...
Yes, but this is hardly surprising.
...and further, that any two languages, say English
and Russian, have an infinite number of words in common.
This doesn't follow. What does follow is that if two languages have one word in common, then they will have an infinte number of words in common, as there is no limit to the number of elipses within which some root word can be nested.
Given so much common ground, it is strage that Americans
who don't speak Russian and Russians who don't speak
English have such a hard time communicating linguisticly.
I can only assume this is a joke. Surely you recognize that communicating requires more than a set of shared words, even if such a set is infinite. Not all infinite sets are exhaustive, after all. The shared set of infinite words includes no words that refer to objects other than symbol strings (e.g.. tables, chairs, bathrooms, etc.), no words that refer to actions (e.g. running, reading, writing). Further, the mere sharing of an infinte set of words, even if such a set was exhaustive, would still be insufficient for communication, as such a set fails to specify any syntax, and without a syntax, you can't form propositions. By your logic, if a Russian fellow learns how to count from zero on up in English (hence having at his disposal an infinite number of English expressions), he should be able to communicate with English speakers. Since this conclusion is false, so is your argument above.
The only explanation I can think of is that words
without quotes are the essence of language and
they alone deserve to be distinguished as words, while
your words that are expressed using quotes have extremely
limited meaning, namely in the meta-linguistic realm, and
should therefore not be deserving of the same term
used to describe the former kind of words.
Well, since this conclusion relies upon the flawed argument presented above, I see no reason to accept it. I'll remark upon it, however. While it is true that we most commonly use words to refer to objects, actions, events, etc., we also use words to refer to language itself (as I pointed out above). I can talk both about aardvarks and the word 'aardvarks'. There is no essential difference here, just two different things, an animal and a word, both of which can be discussed meaningfully in English. To privilege the former, claiming the later illegitimate for present purposes, is hopelessly ad hoc. You also claim that these metawords have "extremely limited meaning". I hope this isn't itself supposed to be an argument aimed at establishing the illegitimacy of metawords, as most root words have extremely limited meanings (i.e., 'aardvark' refers only to aardvarks, and not to lions, tigers or bears. Similarly, ''aardvark'' refers only to 'aardvark', and not to 'lion' 'tiger' or 'bear'😉.
Originally posted by bbarrI'm done arguing because I don't want to get banned.
[b]So it seems that by your definition of a word, it suffices
for a finite seqeunce of characters to be enclosed by a
set of possibly-nested quotes in order for that construction
to be called a word of any language L.
No. The following is not an English word: 'zigrit'
This, however, is an English word: ''zigrit'', which refers to the sym ...[text shortened]... rly, ''aardvark'' refers only to 'aardvark', and not to 'lion' 'tiger' or 'bear'😉. [/b]
Otherwise, I'm sure I could have outsmarted you.
Well done, you cunning linguist, you win.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by CribsI don't want you to get banned, either. The forums are more interesting and fun (for me, at least), when you are posting.
I'm done arguing because I don't want to get banned.
Otherwise, I'm sure I could have outsmarted you.
Well done, you cunning linguist, you win.
Dr. Cribs
Cunning linguist indeed; these skills were instrumental in convincing my wife to marry me.
Always a pleasure, good Doctor.
Originally posted by bbarrLikewise, kind sir. I see that logic is not
I don't want you to get banned, either. The forums are more interesting and fun (for me, at least), when you are posting.
Cunning linguist indeed; these skills were instrumental in convincing my wife to marry me.
Always a pleasure, good Doctor.
the only skill we share in common, know
what I'm sayin?
Dr. Cribs