OT Where's my royalties?

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > The child doesn't exist. It's all very well postulating
> > situations that don't exist as "thought experiments",
> > but it bore no relationship to reality.
>
> Are you suggesting that the above is impossible?

Casper Hauser is the only recorded remotely comparable case,
and even that is hedged around with a lot of uncertainty.

> Laser is an abbreviation

It's an acronym, not an abbreviation. You don't even
believe it's an abbreviation yourself, as you'd then have
to spell it `LASER' or even `L.A.S.E.R''. Indeed, it's
passed beyond the word of acronyms like NATO and UNSCOM,
and passed into the world of nouns which don't require
upper case. Deal with it.

Here's a question for you. What do you call the electronic
equipment in front of you that you type your postings on?
The rest of us would call it a computer, but you can't,
because you object to common words having their meaning
changed. Computer meant something completely different in,
say, 1930 to what it means now.

What do you call the large metal objects in the countryside
that hold up electricity wires? The rest of us call them
pylons, but you presumably don't, because it has a pre-
existing and well-established meaning which _isn't_ large
metal etc.

ian

 

[Brendan Halpin]

Ian G Batten <[email protected]> writes:

> Here's a question for you. What do you call the electronic
> equipment in front of you that you type your postings on?
> The rest of us would call it a computer, but you can't,
> because you object to common words having their meaning
> changed. Computer meant something completely different in,
> say, 1930 to what it means now.

http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/blog/archive1/People_as_Comp-
uters.html

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of
Limerick, Ireland Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h
+353-61-390476; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

 

[Tony Raven]

Ian G Batten wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven <junk@raven-
> family.com> wrote:
>> can and can't come into the English language.
>> Unfortunately that job is already taken by the OED which
>> documents and decides on the permanancy of the many new
>> words entering the language every day.
>
> Wrong (and although I take Keith's point about appeals to
> authority, I know a _lot_ of dictionary people). OED
> documents the words that are used. It takes no stance on
> permanency. The test is if a word is in sufficiently
> widespread use as to justify inclusion, not some guess as
> to the word's longevity. Indeed, one might half-seriously
> argue that permanent words have _less_ need to be in a
> dictionary --- it's the words that are obsolete in 2104
> which will need to be documented so that people reading
> books written in 2004 can be understood.
>

You are indeed correct about permanancy and I used sloppy
language (always a hazard in this type of discussion). By
permanancy I meant (and I stand to be corrected on this)
that it could be demonstrated to have entered the language
and was not just a one off occurrence.

Tony

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>> No, hang on. The subject is the use of neologisms, not
>> what's on TV. How does the creation of the word 'lasing'
>> indicate 'dumbing down'? Who on Earth is using 'lasing'
>> in a 'dumb' manner?
>
>"Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides
>a continuous tense for a non-existant verb. I do not lase.

I'm sure you don't, but if you _were_ to emit coherent light
as a result of stimulation in a population inverted state,
how else would you describe it succinctly?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?lase

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>, junk@raven-
family.com says...
> I think you are making a basic grammatical mistake of
> thinking PIN is an abbreviation standing for Personal
> Identification Number so that you double up on "number" if
> you say PIN number.

But it is. PIN contains all the meaning of PIN number. So
why add the extra word? Other than because you didn't
understand what PIN meant?

> In fact it is an acronym which is a word in its own right
> formed from the initial letters of other words and
> accepted as a word in the OED.

And what is the definition of the word PIN (As apposed to
"pin") in the OED?

> As an acronym there is no redundancy in PIN number. If
> you broke all acronyms down into the words they were
> derived from then frequently it would create nonsense
> sentences whereas correctly used as a word in its own
> right its fine. For example scuba-dive is fine and
> recognised by the OED whereas self contained underwater
> breathing apparatus dive clearly isn't.

So I can't go on a self contained underwater breathing
apparatus dive? While long-winded (Hence the acronym) it
makes perfect grammatical sense. The expansion elaborates on
the acronym as an explanation of its meaning. And the OED
would have no problem with the above sentence because... its
a sentence!

Jon

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:
> But it is. PIN contains all the meaning of PIN number. So
> why add the extra word?

Because English is neither mathematics nor a
programming language.

> And what is the definition of the word PIN (As apposed to
> "pin") in the OED?

Please. Learn what a dictionary is.

> meaning. And the OED would have no problem with the above
> sentence because... its a sentence!

The OED would have problem with the above sentence, because
it's (note not its) not a grammar, but a dictionary. If you
want a descriptive grammar,.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/000370257X/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-
3717367-5708644 would do nicely, but I suspect that what you
want is a prescriptive grammar. And no one has written one
of those for half a century or more.

ian

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

>Chris Malcolm [email protected] opined the following...

>> There is also a virtue to it. We use these ambiguities to
>> think round corners in situations where logic would lead
>> one either to the wrong conclusion or a sterile dead end.
>> Were language purely logical, that dream of logicians for
>> a language so pure and logical that it would be
>> impossible to form and invalid argument in it, then our
>> language would be seriosuly restricted in its power as a
>> cognitive tool. The vagueness and ambiguity of language
>> is a powerful tool (allied to its underlying logic) which
>> is responsible for the very considerable linguistic
>> augmentation of human mental powers over those of our
>> dumb fellow creatures.

>A fascinating and bizarre take on life (Especially for an
>informatics man!). I would have said that the ambiguity
>allows for beauty in the form of poetry, or the cutting double-
>edged speeches often made. Given that so much of "pure
>thought" comes down to logic, it seems strange to suggest
>that a logical language could lead to the "wrong
>conclusion". Surely that would suggest a failure in either
>the logic, or the language, not the fact that the language
>was logical!

No, what it is usually due to is incorrect assumptions. The
problem that thinking has to grapple with is that we are
often mistaken about what is going on. Logic is wonderful
when we know exactly what is going on, as in mathematics, or
any branch of science in which we already know enough to be
able to use mathematical models. Essentially the problem is
"what do you do next when you're stuck?" The mathematician
Polya has written an excellent book about what
mathematicians do when they're stuck, i.e., logic has
failed. A great deal of human thinking, and a great deal of
scientific hypothesising, is about what you do next when
you're stuck, when logic has failed you.

Another problem is what you do when logic is too successful,
i.e., there are dozens of logical implications leading to
hundreds more, and so on. That's the problem that arises
when playing chess, for example. Nobody (or machine) can
afford to think that perfectly logical and predictable game
through to the end.

One useful human response to getting impaled either by the
sterility or the excessive fruitfulness of logic, is to
brainstorm, an essentially illogical process guided by
chance, analogy, intuition, rhyme, error, guessing, etc..
The point is that it works, as has been shown by the success
of artificial intelligence techniques based on these
illogical methods of escaping from the problems that arise
when people who do not know everything try to be too logical
about what they think they know.

I'm tempted to suggest that if logic worked then
philosophers wouldn't have had to invent science
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Surely that would suggest a failure in either the logic,
> or the language, not the fact that the language was
> logical!

I presume that the Goedel's ``On Formally Undecidable
Propositions'' (1931) isn't something that you know much
about? I suggest you go and read about it ---
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html might be a start ---
and then come back to us.

Summary: in any sufficiently complex (which in this context
means ``not very complex at all'') axiomatic system, there
will be propositions which cannot be proven true or false
within the confines of the system itself.

ian

 

[Jon Senior]

Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the
following...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:
> > But it is. PIN contains all the meaning of PIN number.
> > So why add the extra word?
>
> Because English is neither mathematics nor a programming
> language.

And that means we should add to the complication? It's not
just the sciences that strive for simplicity you know. Try
listening to the local accents in Cambridgeshire and see if
you can find the t's. They don't just avoid them for effect!

> > And what is the definition of the word PIN (As apposed
> > to "pin") in the OED?
>
> Please. Learn what a dictionary is.

"dictionary n. a book that lists and explains the words of a
language or the topics of a subject." - Oxford English
Minidictionary.

Since the previous post was using (quite rightly) the OED as
a reference, and as I do not own a copy, I requested the
"official" definition. The request remains unanswered.

> > meaning. And the OED would have no problem with the
> > above sentence because... its a sentence!
>
> The OED would have problem with the above sentence,
> because it's (note not its)

Yeah yeah. <note to self - when arguing grammar, speeling,
or language, always check posts thoroughly before sending>

> not a grammar, but a dictionary. If you want a descriptive
> grammar,o.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/000370257X/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-
> 3717367-5708644 would do nicely, but I suspect that what
> you want is a prescriptive grammar. And no one has written
> one of those for half a century or more.

Wrong. The OED would have *no* problems with the sentence
since every word in it is correct.

TR: "For example scuba-dive is fine and recognised by the
OED whereas self contained underwater breathing apparatus
dive clearly isn't." JS: "And the OED would have no problem
with the above sentence because... its <sic> a sentence!"

So if you had actually read the thread, you'd have
understood why I posted what I did, and who it was
that suggested that the OED would be having problems
with a sentence.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the
following...
> > Are you suggesting that the above is impossible?
>
> Casper Hauser is the only recorded remotely comparable
> case, and even that is hedged around with a lot of
> uncertainty.

And again... Are you suggesting that the experiment is
impossible? Yes or no? Please provide a justification.

> It's an acronym, not an abbreviation. You don't even
> believe it's an abbreviation yourself, as you'd then have
> to spell it `LASER' or even `L.A.S.E.R''. Indeed, it's
> passed beyond the word of acronyms like NATO and UNSCOM,
> and passed into the world of nouns which don't require
> upper case. Deal with it.

Accepted. Several times. "Deal with it".

> Here's a question for you. What do you call the electronic
> equipment in front of you that you type your postings on?
> The rest of us would call it a computer, but you can't,
> because you object to common words having their meaning
> changed. Computer meant something completely different in,
> say, 1930 to what it means now.

I believe that it meant a computational device. Something
that computed things. It may be a smaller box, but it
still computes.

> What do you call the large metal objects in the
> countryside that hold up electricity wires? The rest of us
> call them pylons, but you presumably don't, because it has
> a pre-existing and well-established meaning which _isn't_
> large metal etc.

If you define a pylon as a pyramidal shaped tower then its
meaning is unchanged. If you specifically refer to an
electricity pylon (Compound noun or adjective!) then
obviously it is not synonymous with an Egyptian gateway.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the
following...
> Not everything that precedes a noun is an adjective. Do
> you object to ``petrol engine'' and ``bike rack'' on
> the same basis? Neither petrol nor bike is an
> adjective. I think the concept you're reaching for is
> ``compound noun''.

While you are correct, in both of your examples there is a
case for the preceding word being treated as an adjective,
on the grounds that it adds description to the noun.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Chris Malcolm [email protected] opined the following...
> No, what it is usually due to is incorrect assumptions.
> The problem that thinking has to grapple with is that we
> are often mistaken about what is going on.

This is not a problem with a logical language however. This
is the problem of "defining the problem".

> Logic is wonderful when we know exactly what is going on,
> as in mathematics, or any branch of science in which we
> already know enough to be able to use mathematical models.
> Essentially the problem is "what do you do next when
> you're stuck?" The mathematician Polya has written an
> excellent book about what mathematicians do when they're
> stuck, i.e., logic has failed. A great deal of human
> thinking, and a great deal of scientific hypothesising, is
> about what you do next when you're stuck, when logic has
> failed you.
>
> Another problem is what you do when logic is too
> successful, i.e., there are dozens of logical implications
> leading to hundreds more, and so on. That's the problem
> that arises when playing chess, for example. Nobody (or
> machine) can afford to think that perfectly logical and
> predictable game through to the end.

You use heuristics as a general rule. ;-)

> One useful human response to getting impaled either by the
> sterility or the excessive fruitfulness of logic, is to
> brainstorm, an essentially illogical process guided by
> chance, analogy, intuition, rhyme, error, guessing, etc..
> The point is that it works, as has been shown by the
> success of artificial intelligence techniques based on
> these illogical methods of escaping from the problems that
> arise when people who do not know everything try to be too
> logical about what they think they know.

These are problems of definition again. "when people who do
not know everything try to be too logical about what they
think they know." - The problem is not that logic has
failed, but that they do not have all the information.

> I'm tempted to suggest that if logic worked then
> philosophers wouldn't have had to invent science

Philosophers never "invented" science. Some of them just got
so involved that they decided to use a new name. ;-)

Jon

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>
>> Here's a question for you. What do you call the
>> electronic equipment in front of you that you type your
>> postings on? The rest of us would call it a computer, but
>> you can't, because you object to common words having
>> their meaning changed. Computer meant something
>> completely different in, say, 1930 to what it means now.
>
>I believe that it meant a computational device. Something
>that computed things. It may be a smaller box, but it still
>computes.

It meant a _person_ who computed things.

 

[Jon Senior]

Alan Braggins [email protected] opined the
following...
> It meant a _person_ who computed things.

By all accounts I've seen it mean't either a person /
machine that computed things. The key point being the
presence of a computational process, not the thing doing it.
With the aid of some particularly perverse chemistry, I can
"compute" things using DNA. This would be a computer. But it
still wouldn't resemble the thing on my desk.

Jon

 

[Tim Hall]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:43:08 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:

>So I can't go on a self contained underwater breathing
>apparatus dive? While long-winded

But being long winded should't matter if the tanks are full.

Tim

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > Because English is neither mathematics nor a programming
> > language.
>
> And that means we should add to the complication? It's not
> just the sciences that strive for simplicity you know. Try
> listening to the local

Languages don't strive for simplicity. If you believe they
do, you're simply wrong. Attempting to impose order on the
disordered world around you? You really _should_ look at the
Autistic Spectrum, you know.

> > > And what is the definition of the word PIN (As apposed
> > > to "pin") in the OED?
> >
> > Please. Learn what a dictionary is.
>
> "dictionary n. a book that lists and explains the words of
> a language or the topics of a subject." - Oxford English
> Minidictionary.

Oh God: A meta-dictionary-flame. Dictionaries _describe_
language, they do not _prescribe_ it. See the word
``lists''? Listing does not imply approving: I can _list_
serial killers without advocating them, can I not?

> Since the previous post was using (quite rightly) the
> OED as a

What do you mean ``quite rightly?'' The OED has no official
status in the language: it's the leading historical
dictionary, that's all. If your purpose is to write or read
the language as it is today, it's utterly the wrong choice.
Chambers has lots of words, hence its place close to the
heart of crossword setters, I would advocate Collins Cobuild
even for native speakers, but lexicographers speak highly of
the main Collins dictionary. There's a Oxford not-OED
dictionary that some friends worked on that's said to be
very good, but I can't recall the title.

If you happen to meet some real lexicographers, and I'm
guessing you've not done so yet, get them to explain the
words ``citation slip'' and ``corpus'', and why the OED uses
the former while every reputable dictionary of the last ten
or twenty years uses the latter.

> reference, and as I do not own a copy, I requested the
> "official" definition. The request remains unanswered.

What on earth makes you believe the OED is in any way
``official''? Another lucky gullible victim of the OUP
subliminal ``don't buy Chambers, don't buy Collins, they're
not _official_'' myth.

ian

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Alan Braggins [email protected] opined the
> following...
> > It meant a _person_ who computed things.
>
> By all accounts I've seen it mean't either a person /
> machine that

Mean't? And we're arguing grammar with this man. Don't claim
it's ``just a typo'' --- you don't mistakes like that
because you've got chubby fingers.

ian

 

[Chris Malcolm]

[email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:

>In article <[email protected]>, Jon
>Senior wrote:

>>> Here's a question for you. What do you call the
>>> electronic equipment in front of you that you type your
>>> postings on? The rest of us would call it a computer,
>>> but you can't, because you object to common words having
>>> their meaning changed. Computer meant something
>>> completely different in, say, 1930 to what it means now.

>>I believe that it meant a computational device. Something
>>that computed things. It may be a smaller box, but it
>>still computes.

>It meant a _person_ who computed things.

In the days when only people computed. Presumably you also
object to the modern use of the words "calculator" and
"printer"?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

>Chris Malcolm [email protected] opined the following...
>> No, what it is usually due to is incorrect assumptions.
>> The problem that thinking has to grapple with is that we
>> are often mistaken about what is going on.

>This is not a problem with a logical language however. This
>is the problem of "defining the problem".

Of course. But the context of my reply was someone objecting
to the illogicalities of English. From the point of view of
a somewhat logical but less than perfectly informed creature
trying to think about the world, the illogicalities of
English are a virtue.

>> One useful human response to getting impaled either by
>> the sterility or the excessive fruitfulness of logic, is
>> to brainstorm, an essentially illogical process guided by
>> chance, analogy, intuition, rhyme, error, guessing, etc..
>> The point is that it works, as has been shown by the
>> success of artificial intelligence techniques based on
>> these illogical methods of escaping from the problems
>> that arise when people who do not know everything try to
>> be too logical about what they think they know.

>These are problems of definition again. "when people who do
>not know everything try to be too logical about what they
>think they know." - The problem is not that logic has
>failed, but that they do not have all the information.

I did not mean to imply that logic could not do its proper
logical job, but that it is sometimes called upon to do a
job it cannot do, just as the best knife in the world may
fail when called upon to do the job of a screwdriver.

>> I'm tempted to suggest that if logic worked then
>> philosophers wouldn't have had to invent science

>Philosophers never "invented" science. Some of them just
>got so involved that they decided to use a new name. ;-)

It wasn't degree of involvement that separated scientists
from philosophers, it was the realisation that finding out
more by means of experiment was sometimes a more profitable
method of disovery than logical argument.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Jon Senior]

Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the
following...
> Mean't? And we're arguing grammar with this man. Don't
> claim it's ``just a typo'' --- you don't mistakes like
> that because you've got chubby fingers.

No you make mistakes like that because your brain is
switched off. But thank you for picking up on the mistake
and not on the content. And <pedant> "mean't" is a spelling
error, not a grammatical one </pedant>.

Jon