Linguistics for Objectivists

[Philip Coates]

> I concur wholeheartedly, Phil. You should use that as an inaugural post for a blog, and should publish it on other fora.

Thanks, Ted. Regarding blogging, my problem is finding the "sweet spot". When you swing your racket right through the ball and it smacks dead center and fully and the ball goes zooming off perfectly. I've thought many times over the years of having a web presence, but don't yet have just the right idea. The title and topic would have to be broad enough to hold my interest, yet narrower than just Phil's musing on anything and everything. And it has to be something posted to at least weekly, but not daily which - for me - would distract from my concentration on writing a book.

Regarding publishing on the case for Latin, I'd like to do that. Any ideas on what would be the best fora? [Aside: knowing that fora is the plural of forum, or genera of genus, or minutiae of minutia - is another advantage of all those Latin declensions.]

Edited September 10, 2009 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

> I concur wholeheartedly, Phil. You should use that as an inaugural post for a blog, and should publish it on other fora.

Thanks, Ted. Regarding blogging, my problem is finding the "sweet spot". When you swing your racket right through the ball and it smacks dead center and fully and the ball goes zooming off perfectly. I've thought many times over the years of having a web presence, but don't yet have just the right idea. The title and topic would have to be broad enough to hold my interest, yet narrower than just Phil's musing on anything and everything. And it has to be something posted to at least weekly, but not daily which - for me - would distract from my concentration on writing a book.

Regarding publishing on the case for Latin, I'd like to do that. Any ideas on what would be the best fora? [Aside: knowing that fora is the plural of forum, or genera of genus, or minutiae of minutia - is another advantage of all those Latin declensions.]

I understand the desire to have an appropriate niche/showcase. But keep in mind that you can start a blog for free. You need not necessarily limit yourself and you can blog under a pseudonym. Consider doing it as practice.

As for existing fora, the more the merrier. Anywhere you don't feel that the surroundings are hostile. I'd be quite happy to have you post it at Radicals for Happiness if you could add a sentence on how knowing latin increases your joy in living.

[Xray]

I subjectively value Xray a lot more when she isn't talking about subjectivism.

--Brant

'Subjectively' value is correct.

One could even leave out 'subjectively' as redundant. For value always implies valuer subejctively attributing value.

I often think Rand could have made things far less complicated if she had simply stated "My values are" or "I prefer".

[Philip Coates]

Could you guys please not hijack the thread with a mini-debate (or attempt to get in the last word) on subjectivity, migrating from another very long thread?

[Philip Coates]

Ted, good points. I need to not only figure out the focus but I need to decide whether I want to direct pieces like the one on Latin to a) Oist-leaning or -associated sites, B) education online sites, c) a formal print magazine or newspaper.

I'm hoping some people will engage with the strong claims I made about Latin. If not at the same length, at least with some degree of detail or argument. Certainly that might help me refine my argument, be aware of objections I need to address, before I polish and publish.

[kiaer.ts]

Well, Phil, obviously it could be expanded, and you should give more examples. My only real criticism would be the 65% of words in English come from Latin remark. You should be more clear, and explain the difference between outright borrowing (which is what I assume you mean) and cognates.

One interesting tool is the Swadesh List. In its 207 word variety (there is a 100 word variety) lists what are considered the most basic vocabulary expected to be common to all languages. Almost all of the words in our native list are descended thry Germanic. And of those most will have a cognate in Latin. A few, like "fruit", "animal", and "vomit" are Latinate borrowings. (Can you spot some others?)

I

you (singular)

he

we

you (plural)

they

this

that

here

there

who

what

where

when

how

not

all

many

some

few

other

one

two

three

four

five

big

long

wide

thick

heavy

small

short

narrow

thin

woman

man (adult male)

Man (human being)

child

wife

husband

mother

father

animal

fish

bird

dog

louse

snake

worm

tree

forest

stick

fruit

seed

leaf

root

bark

flower

grass

rope

skin

meat

blood

bone

fat (n.)

egg

horn

tail

feather

hair

head

ear

eye

nose

mouth

tooth

tongue

fingernail

foot

leg

knee

hand

wing

belly

guts

neck

back

breast

heart

liver

drink

eat

bite

suck

spit

vomit

blow

breathe

laugh

see

hear

know

think

smell

fear

sleep

live

die

kill

fight

hunt

hit

cut

split

stab

scratch

dig

swim

fly (v.)

walk

come

lie

sit

stand

turn

fall

give

hold

squeeze

rub

wash

wipe

pull

push

throw

tie

sew

count

say

sing

play

float

flow

freeze

swell

sun

moon

star

water

rain

river

lake

sea

salt

stone

sand

dust

earth

cloud

fog

sky

wind

snow

ice

smoke

fire

ashes

burn

road

mountain

red

green

yellow

white

black

night

day

year

warm

cold

full

new

old

good

bad

rotten

dirty

straight

round

sharp

dull

smooth

wet

dry

correct

near

far

right

left

at

in

with

and

if

because

name

[jeffrey smith]

Ted, good points. I need to not only figure out the focus but I need to decide whether I want to direct pieces like the one on Latin to a) Oist-leaning or -associated sites, B) education online sites, c) a formal print magazine or newspaper.

I'm hoping some people will engage with the strong claims I made about Latin. If not at the same length, at least with some degree of detail or argument. Certainly that might help me refine my argument, be aware of objections I need to address, before I polish and publish.

The only weak spot I can see is your belief that the study of Latin itself taught you, in effect, how to think.

The problem here is something I learned about in child psychology: that children go through stages in mental development, and that as a result their ability to think abstractly increases as they age. IOW, a toddler thinks only in concretes; a person in their late teen years is able to grapple with almost any abstract problem; and along the way are certain definite stages that can be usually associated with specific years. I've forgotten the details, but IIRC ages 12-15 are associated with a significant increase in abstractive ability--that, essentially, those are the years when the ability to think abstractly actually comes into being. Before that age abstraction is done only to a limited extent from a limited number of concretes, and the child doesn't necessarily follow through on it: abstraction is not done on an adult level. By the midteens the individual is able to abstract fully and thoroughly, with the limits being of course the information and concepts they abstract from. If garbage goes in, garbage comes out. But this explains, for instance, why teenagers begin to challenge ideas they accepted docilely before from teachers and parents: instead of learning the abstraction as an isolated data point--in essence, another concrete--they start to analyze the concepts and do the necessary abstraction for themselves.

So the change you see is something that Mother Nature was doing already, although I'm sure you can make the argument that learning Latin speeded up the process and improved the results. At that age, I studied formal logic as part of mathematics classes and similar results obtained. That's also the age when I studied German and thereby learned English grammar.

And it's also the age, come to think of it, at which I was introduced to Talmud and Rabbinic-style analysis. (Famous example. Where is the doctrine of resurrection taught in the Pentateuch? In the verse, "I [God is doing the talking here] wound and I heal, I kill and make alive.", where it's deduced from the order of the words: since the healing follows the wounding in the first half of the verse, so we may deduce that in the second half of the verse that the making alive follows the killing, and therefore that the concept of resurrection is being referred to here.)

Edited September 10, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Xray]

Could you guys please not hijack the thread with a mini-debate (or attempt to get in the last word) on subjectivity, migrating from another very long thread?

No attempt at hijacking, it was just a short remark, although imo a linguistic discussion on Rand's arbitrary "subjective" application of terms like value, "selflessness", "egoism/egotism", "self-conscious" would be very interesting. But as you said, there are other threads where this is being debated.

[Xray]

Ted, good points. I need to not only figure out the focus but I need to decide whether I want to direct pieces like the one on Latin to a) Oist-leaning or -associated sites, B) education online sites, c) a formal print magazine or newspaper.

I'm hoping some people will engage with the strong claims I made about Latin. If not at the same length, at least with some degree of detail or argument. Certainly that might help me refine my argument, be aware of objections I need to address, before I polish and publish.

Subject: Why Latin Should Be A Central Part of the Curriculum / How Latin Made Me *Much* Smarter

1. Conceptual thinking is the key to grasping reality on the human level, to being intelligent, to having knowledge. Concepts are grasped in the form of words. 65% of the words in English come from Latin. And its the -harder- two-thirds, not the shorter and simpler germanic words like I, you, and, go, come. It's the higher level abstractions, the multi-syllable words. Learning the Latin 'parts' better enables you to grasp the whole. Basic Latin concepts tend to provide simple ways to "xray" more sophisticated ideas. The example I gave: concept = 'taken together' is only an isolated example out of thousands. Being able to see English words, i.e., concepts, that you already knew or to analyze new ones through the prism of Latin makes you understand your own language many, many times better. That alone makes you smarter in a deeply fundamental way.

2. Another way Latin helps you understand English much better is grammar and syntax. We grew up understanding the structure of our language through imitation. That is one reason we find it boring to consider English grammar, parts of speech, transitive, intransitive, gerunds, appositives, etc. later on. "Hey, I already construct sentences grammatically." But knowing *the logical structure of your language* - propositions, paragraphs, sequences, etc. - is a vital part of being a great communicator...and before that, a powerful and precise thinker. And it is impossible to translate a passage of Latin in the classroom or for homework without more fully learning grammar and syntax - and how English and Latin grammar are both different and similar.

3. Mental skills, discipline, focus: Latin is probably the hardest subject you will take in middle school to high school in the language and humanities half of the curriculum. Math can't be done without learning a certain very precise mental discipline. Latin is the 'math' of the humanities. As we saw in my parsing of those two mottoes of Jeffrey and Ted, you simply can't translate Latin without a very exacting series of mental steps. Latin teaches great precision and a very, very precise series of steps. Otherwise you flunk! You can "BS" your way through history and lit classes in your school days. You can memorize biology. Algebra is pretty easy once you get the basic ideas. But Latin is always a strict mental challenge. Grammar + syntax + vocabulary + shades of meaning + context of the surrounding sentences!! But once you master it, you not only gain a great sense of what I will call "cognitive pride", you have learned a very important set of 'language' and thinking skills.

4. History and culture: The Latin writer and thinker Cicero said that the man who does not know history is forever a child. Latin courses immerse you in a world from which ours came. We are all Romans; we are all Greeks. It allows you to compare and contrast not only ways of thinking from which ours came, but ways which are very different. Someone who reads the Latin writers and sees how Rome developed - and how it fell for philosophical, economic, and other reasons - can see many, many parallels to today, many issues grappled with or not understood.

Those are the four biggest benefits of Latin in school. In each case - vocabulary expansion and command, structural language analysis and understanding, mental discipline and precision, cultural and historic knowledge - you don't get exactly the same benefits from any other courses. You don't get them from English 'language arts' because of the reasons above and because (as in the case of grammar I mentioned) you can function, you can "coast through" in English without them on a basic level. Latin forces you to operate on a more difficult, higher level. There is no coasting to get an A or B (or even a C)in Latin. You fully master your own language best through study of another (well chosen) language. (Even if your own language was not based on that language, some of those benefits apply.)

So why is Latin scorned or unappreciated? People who haven't taken Latin don't know how powerfully it changes your language and thinking skills. That's even true for those who -have- taken this subject! I took Latin in 9th and 10th grade and I was not able to look back at the changes; they were subtle. I stopped after Latin II because it was very hard, tiring, all those declensions and syntax and vocabulary and translations. Hated that! And I simply didn't see how it was helping me.

In fact, it was only in the last few years that I was able to look back. When I was in 8th grade, before my two years of Latin, I was so-so in my thinking skills, in my conceptual ability, in my writing and language facility. By 11th grade, I was a National Merit Scholarship Finalist, an A student, my SAT's were in the 99th percentile, and I was a much better writer (and reader), especially with difficult material. The thing that made me smarter -- it really was like I was a different person between 9th grade and 11th -- was the two years of Latin. And the heavily disciplined, effort-filled understanding of my own language - built largely on Latin in hundreds of ways - that resulted.

In the years since, I have indirectly used that Latin base or what has been built on it (it is often automatized and instant, subconscious or instinctive, operating beneath the surface)tens of thousands of times. Since it seldom realized, that is why people (even those who have benefited enormously) so often don't fully realize how valuable it can be, just like in math they don't realize since they don't ever use it directly - how useful learning algebra was to developing their minds.

Phil, the association of teachers of Latin would probably offer you a life-long honorary membership when reading your laudatio linguae latinae.

Some thoughts on your points:

1) With the many words in the English which are derived from Latin, no doubt knowledge of Latin is useful for someone linguistically interested in the English language.

2) As for grammar and syntax, each language has its effectively working system. Whether you say e. g. my father, pater meus, babam (Turkish, I believe), or whatever.

There is no such thing as a 'superior' language, they all operate by the same principle (effecting communication) although their structure may differ widely. Latin is not one iota more 'logical' than English or any other language.

3) As for becoming a precise thinker, imo every mental effort and applied thinking discipline regarding an issue will promote that goal, whether it is reparing something, cooking a meal, reflecting on a conversation, and much more.

It is true that if you are not precise, you will make mistakes in Latin. But the same goes for every foreign language one is dealing with.

4) Correct, but again - is it necessary to be fluent in Latin for that? For example, probably only very few people know Old Greek, but still one can read Plato etc. in good translations. And frankly, even even those who do know Latin /Old Greek - will they all read it those sources in the original?

As for the Latin primary sources, yes indeed, they do immerse one in a world from which ours came: a world of war, dictatorial rule, slavery, submission, cruel gladiator fights, side by side with awesome technical know-how (strategic planning of the conquests, aquaeducts, establishing a code of law etc.). As a twelve year-old confronted with my first sentences in Latin, I read about "servus" et "ancilla", without really thinking much about what those terms implied. Dominus vocat servum. "Cur non laboras, serve, sed ambulas?" Dominus parat verberare servum. I don't recall what the slave said to appease the master, or if he tried at all, but the world presented was pretty clear.

But again, one can get acquainted with the world of the Old Romans via translated texts also, just as one can get acquainted with the world of other cultures without having studied the language.

So why is Latin scorned or unappreciated? People who haven't taken Latin don't know how powerfully it changes your language and thinking skills. That's even true for those who -have- taken this subject! I took Latin in 9th and 10th grade and I was not able to look back at the changes; they were subtle. I stopped after Latin II because it was very hard, tiring, all those declensions and syntax and vocabulary and translations. Hated that! And I simply didn't see how it was helping me.

In fact, it was only in the last few years that I was able to look back. When I was in 8th grade, before my two years of Latin, I was so-so in my thinking skills, in my conceptual ability, in my writing and language facility. By 11th grade, I was a National Merit Scholarship Finalist, an A student, my SAT's were in the 99th percentile, and I was a much better writer (and reader), especially with difficult material. The thing that made me smarter -- it really was like I was a different person between 9th grade and 11th -- was the two years of Latin. And the heavily disciplined, effort-filled understanding of my own language - built largely on Latin in hundreds of ways - that resulted.

Imo the variable to consider here is that between 9th and 11th grade, due to natural developments effecting the mind of an adolescent, thinking skills will get a boost anyway.

In the years since, I have indirectly used that Latin base or what has been built on it (it is often automatized and instant, subconscious or instinctive, operating beneath the surface)tens of thousands of times. Since it seldom realized, that is why people (even those who have benefited enormously) so often don't fully realize how valuable it can be, just like in math they don't realize since they don't ever use it directly - how useful learning algebra was to developing their minds.

Imo the importance of learning Latin as a school subject is overestimated. It is true that it was for a very long time, the language the scholars and erudites, playing a huge role as communicaton tool between them, but tempora mutantur, so does this still justify nowadays years of learning tedious grammar rules, lists of irregular verbs etc, of this 'dead" language? jmpo

Edited September 11, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

The vowels are a little more complex, there are ten basic sounds and three diphthonɡs or compound sounds. I'll attack that later.

What about glottal stops and clicks. In English we have almost no glottal stops. In Arabic, many. In the language of the Kalahari Bushmen clicks are a major feature.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

In fact, it was only in the last few years that I was able to look back. When I was in 8th grade, before my two years of Latin, I was so-so in my thinking skills, in my conceptual ability, in my writing and language facility. By 11th grade, I was a National Merit Scholarship Finalist, an A student, my SAT's were in the 99th percentile, and I was a much better writer (and reader), especially with difficult material. The thing that made me smarter -- it really was like I was a different person between 9th grade and 11th -- was the two years of Latin. And the heavily disciplined, effort-filled understanding of my own language - built largely on Latin in hundreds of ways - that resulted.

Abstract mathematics will do much more for one's thinking. Particularly getting in depth with first and second order predicate logic. Ever since I taught myself calculus when I was 13, I became remarkably more intelligent. As a result ordinary mortals began to shun me.

As far as grammatical analysis goes, I have not found anything more powerful than Chomsky type transformation grammars. They can handle any language. If we ever meet up with extraterrestrial dudes my guess is that Chomsky type grammars will give us the key to their languages.

I think a study of Greek will do just as much for one's intelligence as studying Latin. The greatest classical works in mathematics and philosophy were written in Greek before they were translated into Latin.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

The vowels are a little more complex, there are ten basic sounds and three diphthonɡs or compound sounds. I'll attack that later.

What about glottal stops and clicks. In English we have almost no glottal stops. In Arabic, many. In the language of the Kalahari Bushmen clicks are a major feature.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, what about them? They are interesting, but the context was the Aryan mother tongue, which is not believed to have had clicks. But do check out this article of mine. As for glottal stops, American English has plenty, they are in "un unh" and "uh huh" and /t/ after a stressed vowel becomes a glottal stop, as in the informal pronunciation of nitpick and nutjob. There are also complex theories about the likelihood that PIE deid have a glottal stop (see laryngeal theory) and glottalized instead of voiced stops. But this is all upper level stuff, not Linguitics 101.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

> Ever since I taught myself calculus when I was 13, I became remarkably more intelligent. As a result ordinary mortals began to shun me. [baal]

Now that's funny

[Philip Coates]

Lots of really great, thorough-going reaction (agreement, disagreement, arguments) from Ted, Jeffrey, Xray, and Baal about my 'case for Latin' in the curriculum and in improving the mind.

I often complain/feel invisible/feel like an alien when I make a detailed series of posts and people use superficial one-liners or don't respond in detail. I certainly can't say that here!!! I -greatly- appreciate all the very thoughtful and even learned or well-educated posts. But, as I only came back to this thread a short while ago, it's a lot to carefully think through tonight.

So I'll have to have a stiff root beer float and some sardines and carrots and try to respond tomorrow. And, no, I don't know which of those food words came from Latin.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

Yes, integrating the area under the curve is pure bliss. Deriving the gas laws is an unequalled ecstasy. The proof that for any A and any B, (A &~A) > (B & ~ B) is sublime. But there is no higher enlightenment than learning a classical Indo-European language. If to know English is to be a child than to learn Latin or Greek is to know what it is to have a child. You <i>cannot</i> know what a language is if you speak only one. One must integrate at least two units to form a concept. Merely speaking English alone is like operating on the perceptual level. Once you have learned another language, especially Latin or Greek (also, to a lesser extent Russian or German, then French, Hebrew, Spanish or another non-Indo-European language) you will have gone a step beyond, like going from addition to integration. Learning calculus is wonderful. But we don't speak in calculus. We speak using language. and all forms of math are simply formal languages. All calculus can be transcribed in english words without special symbols.

As for Chomsky, he's a buffoon and a one-trick pony, as well as a coward and a bigot. (To this day the sissy has nightmares of the Irish-Catholic boys who taunted him in the upscale Philly neighborhood where he went to grade school. Like Toohey he never learned to defend himself from bullies, just to get even with carefully crafted innuendo.) His critique of historical linguistics is that Germans did it. His transformational grammar is a mere expression of very simple truths in obfuscating jargon. Chomsky only thinks he has done something profound in "discovering" a language organ because he starts off with the premise that men are not conscious, that they do not have logic, and that they cannot induce rules. He has all the Humean/Kantian bullshit and the further handicap that he is a materialist marxist. Chomsky makes the obvious obscure, and a fashion of that obscurity. It's no wonder for the last 40 years he has done nothing whatsoever in linguistics, and has switched over to politics in the paranoid style.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Ted Keer

[jeffrey smith]

> Ever since I taught myself calculus when I was 13, I became remarkably more intelligent. As a result ordinary mortals began to shun me. [baal]

Now that's funny

Well, I delayed teaching myself calculus until I was fifteen. I guess I was a slowpoke. But ordinary mortals were shunning me well before then...

Jeffrey

[Philip Coates]

On a serious note: this is odd because when I was an average student, I was unpopular, but when I started to win math contests and awards and became viewed as a 'brain', it was actually admired at my public high school...and my best academic years 10th, 11th, 12th were exactly when I became one of the 'popular' students at school. Oddly, the only 'clique' I didn't fit into, was not popular with was that of the top students.

I wasn't a member of any particular clique, but pretty much got along with and associated with everyone in my school - jocks, art majors, shop class dudes, the college-bound, whatever. High school for me was the best time until then of my life. I know for many it is a lonely, angst-ridden time. But that wasn't true for me.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Yes, integrating the area under the curve is pure bliss. Deriving the gas laws is an unequalled ecstasy. The proof that for any A and any B, (A &~A) > (B & ~ B) is sublime. But there is no higher enlightenment than learning a classical Indo-European language. If to know English is to be a child than to learn Latin or Greek is to know what it is to have a child. You <i>cannot</i> know what a language is if you speak only one. One must integrate at least two units to form a concept.

But of course one can know what a language is if one only speaks one. Based on your premise, everybody speaking only one language would not understand the term "language", since they would not have been able to form a "concept" of it, which is clearly not the case.

"Concept" btw simply means 'conceived idea of'.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

But of course one can know what a language is if one only speaks one. Based on your premise, everybody speaking only one language would not understand the term "language", since they would not have been able to form a "concept" of it, which is clearly not the case.

"Concept" btw simply means 'conceived idea of'.

First, please quote me correctly. I did not say that if "a" and "not a" then "b" and "not smiley face."

Second, do you truly not understand my point, or are you just nitpicking?

On the assumption that my point is not clear, why don't we change it to the claim that "unless you have studied bodies, you do not know what a body is"? Someone paralleling your objection could say, well, I have a body, of course I know what bodies are. Sorry. Until you've cut one open and looked inside your knowledge is superficial and non-scientific. Your untutored knowledge of your own language before you study others is about as sophisticated as your knowledge of the working of your own internal organs based on your experience shitting and showering. One gains conceptual knowledge of one's own language once one studies a second language and some introductory linguistics (of which comparative grammar is a central part). Only then does language truly become a genus instead of just a proper noun.

[Xray]

But of course one can know what a language is if one only speaks one. Based on your premise, everybody speaking only one language would not understand the term "language", since they would not have been able to form a "concept" of it, which is clearly not the case.

"Concept" btw simply means 'conceived idea of'.

First, please quote me correctly. I did not say that if "a" and "not a" then "b" and "not smiley face."

Second, do you truly not understand my point, or are you just nitpicking?

On the assumption that my point is not clear, why don't we change it to the claim that "unless you have studied bodies, you do not know what a body is"? Someone paralleling your objection could say, well, I have a body, of course I know what bodies are. Sorry. Until you've cut one open and looked inside your knowledge is superficial and non-scientific. Your untutored knowledge of your own language before you study others is about as sophisticated as your knowledge of the working of your own internal organs based on your experience shitting and showering. One gains conceptual knowledge of one's own language once one studies a second language and some introductory linguistics (of which comparative grammar is a central part). Only then does language truly become a genus instead of just a proper noun.

Of course it it true that more you study a subject, the more you know about it. No one disputes this.

You have tried to apply Rand's percept/concept theory to the term "language":

"You <i>cannot</i> know what a language is if you speak only one. One must integrate at least two units to form a concept." (Ted)

So my linguistic focus is on the so-called "concept forming".

But to a person who speaks only one language, the term "language" is by non means "just a proper noun". For people do have a concept of what language means, whether they speak one or seven.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

He has all the Humean/Kantian bullshit and the further handicap that he is a materialist marxist.

I don't know about Kant, but Hume was right on the mark. He is the best philosopher who wrote in the English language. And you can actually understand him. Hobbes runs a close second.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

But to a person who speaks only one language, the term "language" is by non means "just a proper noun". For people do have a concept of what language means, whether they speak one or seven.

There are very few people who have no familiarity with another language. Even my four-year-old nephew recognizes Japanese which he hears and identifies when we watch my Ultraman collection. It is dubbed into English, but some portions of the dubbed tapes were lost, and the audio then reverts to the Japanese. (He also said "he's Japanese" when a local Vietnamese boy came selling door-to-door.)

So yes, most people "know" there is a difference bewteen English and Spanish, for example. But the word "know" is equivocal in English. It could mean "recognize" and it could mean "understand." These are two different things. In many other languages the distinction between senses is mandatory. In Spanish one can saber and one can conocer. They are not the same. If one does not really know the basics of comparative grammar, one doesn't understand one's language as a language. One simply recognizes one's language. In this way one knows English as a proper noun. One recognizes a language but one does not understand "language." For such a person, language is a complex automated physical gesture, like riding a bike. You can do it, perhaps quite well, but you sure don't know how.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Multiple Concepts under one Word; the Need to Define and Illustrate One's Terms

> the word "know" is equivocal in English. It could mean "recognize" and it could mean "understand." These are two different things. In many other languages the distinction between senses is mandatory. In Spanish one can saber and one can conocer. [Ted]

It's similar in French. A basic linguistic misunderstanding -- often in my experience between, for example, the often too literal-minded math/tech major or specialist and the humanities major -- is that the former often doesn't have well-integrated the fact that words objectively -do- and -must have- multiple meanings even though those meanings may be allied [example: Rand's use of selfishness vs. the common use]. "Too messy, too imprecise, too subjective." Or he's annoyed and obstinate about people very reasonably having different usages. Or about the request to define his terms. Or about the demand, after a long chain of floating abstractions which he thought was brilliant and crystal-clear: "Concretize, please! Give me an example."

The reason for multiple meanings is that there are in -reality- many levels and ways in which one knows. So each needs a concept. And (1) languages evolve from simple to complex. Starting with a simple concept such as someone saying "I know" when someone says "there is an apple tree over there" or "I know how" to build a fire. And (2), it is easier to extend an already known word to more abstract, more metaphorical, more distant meanings than to come up with a new, entirely unrelated set of symbols.

My French dictionary [no i'm not going to try to figure out how to type accents on this keyboard, so just deal with it ] has a pretty good conceptual breakdown of this basic concept of consciousness:

know (verb):

<>to be in the know - etre au courant, etre a la page"

<>know - by reasoning or learning - savoir

<>know - by the senses or perception, through acquaintance or recognition - connaitre

<>know about - etre informe de, savoir

<>know how to - savoir + infinitive

(I'm not trying to be pedantic here - doing 'dictionary dump overkill'. This is such a key concept that seeing how it develops in different languages is enormously helpful in epistemology / one's own thinking and clarity.)

Edited September 12, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: Multiple Concepts under one Word; the Need to Define and Illustrate One's Terms

> the word "know" is equivocal in English. It could mean "recognize" and it could mean "understand." These are two different things. In many other languages the distinction between senses is mandatory. In Spanish one can saber and one can conocer. [Ted]

It's similar in French. A basic linguistic misunderstanding -- often in my experience between, for example, the often too literal-minded math/tech major or specialist and the humanities major -- is that the former often doesn't have well-integrated the fact that words objectively -do- and -must have- multiple meanings even though those meanings may be allied [example: Rand's use of selfishness vs. the common use]. "Too messy, too imprecise, too subjective." Or he's annoyed and obstinate about people very reasonably having different usages. Or about the request to define his terms. Or about the demand, after a long chain of floating abstractions which he thought was brilliant and crystal-clear: "Concretize, please! Give me an example."

The reason for multiple meanings is that there are in -reality- many levels and ways in which one knows. So each needs a concept. And (1) languages evolve from simple to complex. Starting with a simple concept such as someone saying "I know" when someone says "there is an apple tree over there" or "I know how" to build a fire. And (2), it is easier to extend an already known word to more abstract, more metaphorical, more distant meanings than to come up with a new, entirely unrelated set of symbols.

My French dictionary [no i'm not going to try to figure out how to type accents on this keyboard, so just deal with it ] has a pretty good conceptual breakdown of this basic concept of consciousness:

know (verb):

<>to be in the know - etre au courant, etre a la page"

<>know - by reasoning or learning - savoir

<>know - by the senses or perception, through acquaintance or recognition - connaitre

<>know about - etre informe de, savoir

<>know how to - savoir + infinitive

(I'm not trying to be pedantic here - doing 'dictionary dump overkill'. This is such a key concept that seeing how it develops in different languages is enormously helpful in epistemology / one's own thinking and clarity.)

And also in German: wissen and kennen. A trace of the latter remains in English, but is rapidly becoming obsolete (if it is not already obsolete), as the word "ken".

And some languages don't make this distinction, or even confuse it further. In Hebrew, "yodeah" translates as any of the standard English meanings for "know", plus another meaning famous because it's the preferred Biblical term for sexual intercourse.

But I don't think that being monolingual means that someone can only know (kennen, connaitre) their own language and and never know (wissen, savoir) it. The concept of language can be derived simply by knowing that the system of sounds can be intelligible communication, without knowing any details of that system, (In fact, the inability to understand that seems to be the main reason that certain "low functioning" autistics remain completely non-verbal, in contrast to those that communicate through some form of assisted speech.

Edited September 12, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[BaalChatzaf]

And some languages don't make this distinction, or even confuse it further. In Hebrew, "yodeah" translates as any of the standard English meanings for "know", plus another meaning famous because it's the preferred Biblical term for sexual intercourse.

Nay, nay. In the ben Yahudah dictionary for Modern Hebrew there are the following words for "know"

yodeyah, heeckeer, and hayveen. Which correspond to knowing the externals, recognizing and understanding. That latter is knowing at the conceptual level. There is the famous hebrew/yiddish word "maven" which is derived from hayveen. One who understands, grasps and comprehends in the deeper sense. Yodeyah as a word for having intercourse is a biblical euphimism. There are coarser words, but the people who put the bible together Way Back When preferred the euphimism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 12, 2009 by BaalChatzaf