Up with "UP"...Another reason why English is baffling 5

[tgreer]

xlbo - exactly the opposite. You say the spelling with the extra "e" is not used anymore, whereas I just showed you an example where it is being used. Why was it used? Surely there must be a reason. If the word is obsolete and "town" means EXACTLY the same thing, then of course they would have used "town". They didn't. Why not?

I've given one plausible reason. You've hinted at another - that "towne" is archaic, and so the ad agency that was no doubt consulted on the choice likley wanted to associate the modern, sprawling, suburban mega-mall with "old-fashioned" values. I call that a "meaning" of the word "towne".

So at least in the minds of the mall's owners, the professionals they consulted, myself, BobRodes (who sees pretentiousness in "towne"), and others, "towne" means something that "town" does not. You may find it laughable, but that doesn't alter the fact.



Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

http://www.brownfedora.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting

 

[craigsboyd]

tgreer,

I understand what you're saying, but aren't your arguments red herrings? I mean, if a word can have the exact same meaning as another word to me, and there are many that do, doesn't that effectively render your points moot?

Perhaps the two sides here are talking apples and oranges. I feel like you are talking about every facet of a word and everyone, everywhere. The other side, and I am counted among them, appears to be talking about contextual meaning only and a small focus group, sometimes just a single individual.

Cannot the apples and oranges co-exist?

SweetPotato Software Website
My Blog

 

[tgreer]

I'm saying that "contextual meaning only" is impossible, in an absolute sense. I've already conceded that the differences in some cases are minute, and that in practical everyday speech, we usually have no problem making ourselves understood.

Even in a one-on-one conversation, among just two people who've known each other for ever, such as an old married couple, one person can say one thing and the other hears (understands, perceives) something totally different. You simply cannot escape from that, it's part of the nature of language and the human condition.

If it weren't true, then words would never change their meaning, and there'd be only one language, forever.

The very fact that you must provide a "contextual meaning only" in a "small focus group" to try to narrow down the possible scope of meaning proves the point, I think.

Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

http://www.brownfedora.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting

 

[craigsboyd]

Even in a one-on-one conversation, among just two people who've known each other for ever, such as an old married couple, one person can say one thing and the other hears (understands, perceives) something totally different.

However, I believe we were talking about two words possessing the same meaning for a single person, were we not? Such as, pail and bucket producing the exact same imagery in my minds eye.

The very fact that you must provide a "contextual meaning only" in a "small focus group" to try to narrow down the possible scope of meaning proves the point, I think.

Given the fact that you have clarified your point of view with "I'm saying that 'contextual meaning only' is impossible, in an absolute sense", I need only show that it is not true for a single individual.

Again, I understand what you are saying, but I still submit that we are speaking of apples and oranges. I concede that two words (even a single word for that matter) cannot have the same meaning when we are talking about every facet of a word, including it's diverse meanings from one person to the next. However, whether you say, "Tom is carrying a bucket" or "Tom is carrying a pail", I see Tom carrying the exact same object. There are no minute differences in meaning or even in the way I feel about Tom and his bucket/pail.

SweetPotato Software Website
My Blog

 

[tgreer]

However, whether you say, "Tom is carrying a bucket" or "Tom is carrying a pail", I see Tom carrying the exact same object.

And I do not. A bucket could be a variety of things, including a leather bucket, or one made of wood. For "pail", I picture a child's plastic pail. The two words do not produce the same imagery, for me. The two words do not mean the same thing. They can't, because they aren't the same word.

Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

http://www.brownfedora.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> For "pail", I picture a child's plastic pail.

If you knew that Tom was a farmer and had just completely his morning milking of the cows, would you still picture a child's plastic pail?

These last few posts have reminded me of a great essay on default assumptions by Douglas Hofstadter, as printed in his book Metamagical Themas. I too believe that context is everything, and whether we realize it or not, when context is unknown, we all apply a default context to everything we see and hear, and our interpretation is shaped by that context.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[tgreer]

That would alter my initial perception of "pail", yes. In fact, whether or not Tom is a farmer or a child on a beach, each informs the meaning of "pail" to greater or lesser extent, always.

To a rare orchid collector, "bucket" refers to a type of orchid. His "primary" meaning of the word bucket is this flower. Even when I point to someone carrying a bucket of nails, and say "look at that bucket", I can't stop the image of a flower entering his mind. Even though he understands that I'm not referring to a flower, I can't remove that meaning from the word. There was no mis-perception, the context made it clear, but the fact remains that "bucket" meant more than the context provides, and "pail" would have meant something different.

Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

http://www.brownfedora.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting

 

[craigsboyd]

CajunCenturion,

Just as an aside: Your signature is a good example of how something changes given context. "Good Luck" has made me laugh more than once when read in conjunction with whatever you posted above it.

SweetPotato Software Website
My Blog

 

[CajunCenturion]

It's funny that you should say child on a beach because when I read your initial comment, "For "pail", I picture a child's plastic pail.", I not only put that child on the beach, I filled the pail with sand with a tiny red shovel sticking out of it.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[CajunCenturion]

I can believe that.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rosieb]

Hang on - if words can only be defined by their context and have specific meaning to individuals - how do we communicate?

You say "color", I interpret that as "colour"; because I'm a Brit. If the two words have different meanings, we aren't communicating and neither word has any real meaning, except in our own heads.

Communication requires a two-way path - I always thought that the whole purpose of language was to communicate with others.

Rosie
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think" (Niels Bohr)

 

[BobRodes]

I'm saying that "contextual meaning only" is impossible, in an absolute sense

I guess that's because, in an absolute sense, there is no context.

I agree with rosieb. There are words that are more, and less, universal. "Ma" would be understood to be mother by a great deal of the world. My brothers and I, when very young, would say "gih-gih" when we wanted to call attention to something amusing that we'd done, as in "gih-gih, I took the clug out of the wall and the light went out."

The point, then, is that words that have meaning to only one individual have nothing to communicate, which would seem to defeat their purpose.

On the other side of that argument, we have "Finnigans Wake", of course.

 

[craigsboyd]

tgreer,

I will grant you that words being defined by all the associations in one's mind is interesting. It has taken me a bit to fully grasp what you meant when you said that contextual meaning only was impossible. I am far from being completely convinced, and I still disagree with a number of your assertions, but as an argument, there are some strengths to this one that I did not see at first.

Though H[sub]2[/sub]O and Water can bring forth the exact same image given the same context, it still does not allow me to disassociate the given words from the myriad of dissimilar lines/connections that exist within my mind for those words. Thus, even if there is only one minute difference on the whole, which there will always be when dealing with two words, it is still a difference and impacts the meaning of that word whether I realize it or not. I guess one could argue that meaning is confined to a conscious level of thought, but that argument doesn't hold water. So, I agree with that apple and see how it relates to the corresponding orange.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your view, which allowed me to see this from a different perspective.

SweetPotato Software Website
My Blog

 

[xlbo]

Going to have to agree to disagree tgreer - to me, "town" and "towne" mean exactly the same thing - there is no difference in meaning - it tells me far more about the inhabitants of that town than the place itself !

Rgds, Geoff

Three things are certain. Death, taxes and lost data. DPlank is to blame

Please read FAQ222-2244 before you ask a question

 

[tsdragon]

it tells me far more about the inhabitants of that town than the place itself !

If the use of one of those words over another tells you something about the inhabitants of the town, then the two words do not "mean exactly the same thing". If they did, then using one of the words over another wouldn't tell you anything at all.

Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[tgreer]

Let's imagine a seafaring culture that discovers and settles two islands, island A and island B. Two indentical twin brothers are out fishing. They notice that the water between the two islands is a startlilng color they've never seen before. It's between blue and green. Brother A, who lives on island A, decides to call it "bleen". Brother B, from island B, thinks that word is ugly and suggests "grue" instead. They can't agree, and each resolve to use their own word.

Over time, the words spread. The A islanders use bleen, the B islanders use grue. The context is always the same. The words are used in exactly the same manner, in spoken speech and literature. Dictionaries on A give the exact same definition for bleen as dictionaries on B give for grue.

Are the words, then, exactly equal? Do they mean exactly the same thing? Of course! They have the same definition, they refer to the same color, they are always used in the same contexts... by every measure then, they are equal.

Now imagine that a family from A moves to B. They have a little girl who on the first day of school, sitting in the cafeteria, in an attempt to make friends, compliments a little boy on his pretty bleen shirt.

Knowing the cruelty so often displayed by children, what do you think would happen? Did "bleen" mean exactly the same thing as "grue"? If not, then did it EVER?

Or, imagine an outsider coming to the islands, and trying to learn the language. As he voyages from island to island, he notices that A islanders speak of the beautiful bleen waters, while B islanders ask him if he's ever seen such a lovely shade of grue. He looks up the terms in dictionaries, and discovers they mean the same thing. But do they? Hasn't he just learned that when someone says "bleen", it MEANS they are an A islander, and that when they say "grue", they are from B?



Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

http://www.brownfedora.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting

 

[ESquared]

tgreer, you keep saying that no two words can mean exactly the same thing. But you haven't replied at all to the logical extension of this concept that I've mentioned twice so far.

Meaning does not rest in words. It is created by people. There is one meaning per person. You insist, insist, insist that "two different words can't mean the same thing" but you're acting as though this meaning is intrinsic. Meaning is always and only extrinsic--applied by the listener or user in the moment of use. I say, instead, "two different people can't understand the same thing." And if you disagree, then you have to explain why people can indeed understand the same thing sometimes, be it different words or the "same" word.

Why cut apart meaning into different groups along lines of words, when meaning does not lie in words? Instead, cut apart meaning into different groups along lines of listeners, one meaning per customer. There's no compelling reason to do anything else.

Erik

 

[CajunCenturion]

What I'm getting from tgreer, is that two words can in fact have the same meaning, but that naturally, words bring along with them implied contexts. The differences come not from the word, but from the implied context and impressions associated with the word.

Words have baggage.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[tgreer]

ESquared,

I haven't responded because I think I agree with you to a very large extent. Words are generated and used by people, and it's the people who imbue the words with their meaning. And the reason no two words can mean exactly the same thing is because no two people are identical.

I tried to show that with the story of bleen and grue. The difference in meaning was there at the very genesis of the words, because each word originated with a different PERSON. The meaning then was in the minds of the brothers. Perhaps brother B was in love with a green-eyed girl, and so gave precedence to green. Or maybe their positions in the boat gave a slightly bluer cast to the water to brother A.

It's the fact that language is produced and consumed by people that gives each word a unique meaning.

In another message, I showed how removing people could negate this: a computer language interpreter could see one word as always meaning the same thing, or even two or more words as meaning exactly the same thing.

However, I'm not willing to go so far as to say that words have no intrinsic meaning whatsoever. I do believe that they acquire meaning through usage. Rather than meaning lying completely in the word vs. completely in the mind, I think it is a two-way process.

I have a concept, a "meaning" in my mind. I package it into a word, and aim the word at you. The word then is, in a sense, a "carrier" of meaning. That word enters your mind. You compare it to the meaning that was already in your mind. From the context I used, you discover a slight difference, and so now add that additional shade of meaning to your own internal understanding of the word. We call that "communication".

Where was that additional shade of understanding in between the time I spoke it and the time you heard it? I suggest that it was within the word.


Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

http://www.brownfedora.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting

 

[tgreer]

CajunCenturion:

Almost... I would say that words don't "have" baggage, but that they ARE baggage. I believe you cannot separate the "implied context and associations" from the word. I would go sor far as to state, that's what words are, a collection of all their contexts and associations. With this viewpoint, then, two words can't mean the same thing.

Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

http://www.brownfedora.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting