|
Grex > Cyberpunk > #138: Computer references changing written language? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
birdy
|
|
response 78 of 151:
| 
Nov 21 22:31 UTC 2000 |
What? It's a common expression. =)
|
other
|
|
response 79 of 151:
|
Nov 22 02:14 UTC 2000 |
Common yes. Correct, not by a long shot.
"To each his own." or "to each her own."
Glass houses and all that...
|
mdw
|
|
response 80 of 151:
|
Nov 22 02:24 UTC 2000 |
Actually, "language immersion" is how practically all of us learned
English. This "formal school" idea is a fad of a mere few centuries in
length; before that, most people spent more time thinking about shit
than they did about their letters. Shit was, after all, an everyday
product of farming and livestock, while letters were merely a curious
affectation of the priesthood. Larry's response regarding grammar
sounds a lot lot like how many engineers responded to the idea of
science and mathematics in the 19th century. I confess, though, I
wonder how he decides when to use a semicolon instead of a comma.
|
brighn
|
|
response 81 of 151:
|
Nov 22 03:30 UTC 2000 |
#79> check your style manuals. "Their" and "they" have been accepted as
singular gender-neutral pronouns for a while now.
|
gull
|
|
response 82 of 151:
|
Nov 22 03:37 UTC 2000 |
Re #74: Exactly. We had some of that formal stuff about the arcane names
for the parts of sentances. We even had to diagram sentances for a while.
I don't think I learned anything from it. I certainly couldn't diagram a
sentance now.
I get the impression that all the formal terms for different parts of speech
are extremely useful if you're researching language, but not very useful if
all you're doing is writing it.
|
katie
|
|
response 83 of 151:
|
Nov 22 04:16 UTC 2000 |
..."us English majors"... ;-)
|
birdy
|
|
response 84 of 151:
|
Nov 22 04:56 UTC 2000 |
We English majors... and "their" was my gender-neutral version of that phrase.
<birdy is speaking through heavy cold medication so Back Off> ;-)
(Thanks, Katie).
|
polygon
|
|
response 85 of 151:
|
Nov 22 09:43 UTC 2000 |
Re 80. I use a semicolon where it is appropriate to do so. Have you
ever seen me misuse a semicolon?
I think the chess metaphor may be useful here.
Beyond the rules of the game of chess itself, there are certain rules of
play which, in general, you violate at your peril. I'm sure that someone
has written up and codified all these rules. If you're a beginning
player, you could learn from studying them. However, as an experienced
player, if you stick to following all those rules, all the time, then you
are playing terrible chess.
I suppose you could take that a step further to describe the computers
which will soon be defeating even the world's greatest human chess
players. Presumably the software for computer chess is full of formulas
and probabilities and thousands of complex rules of play. In the end,
computing power wins out, sure, just as a computer can calculate the
stresses in a bridge design better than a human can intuit them. In those
kinds of endeavors, resistance to mathematics is silly, and the rules
expand the possibilities for ever greater human accomplishments.
By contrast, applying ever more complex rules to human writing and speech
is a dead end, useful only in learning. Fluency in a langage, or at any
task, consists in part of forgetting the rules; it becomes an automatic,
left-brain activity requiring little conscious intervention. When you
drive, you can shift gears, change lanes, adjust speed, etc., without even
breaking your unrelated train of thought. When you read, you do not have
to focus on each letter individually, or consciously notice punctuation
marks. When you speak, you don't have to consider where to place your
tongue to make the "T" sound.
Similarly, when I write, I do not have to focus on rules to decide when a
semicolon is correct. As I type, my finger taps that key, and the
character ends up in the right place. When I started this response, I
wanted to give an example of a sentence containing a semicolon, but
couldn't think of one and gave up. Now I see that I used a semicolon
in the previous paragraph. Obviously, it didn't take any conscious
thought. I didn't even notice that I was doing it.
I remember a discussion of Artificial Intelligence and houseflies some
time back. A fly buzzes around the room, controlling its altitude,
avoiding obstacles, seeking goals, etc., and it does all this with
remarkably little hardware in real time. An AI fly would have to solve
equations to calculate its position and velocity and appropriate wing
flapping speed, etc.; the real fly does not seem to find this necessary.
|
mdw
|
|
response 86 of 151:
|
Nov 22 10:51 UTC 2000 |
It would probably be more correct to say the real fly *is* those
calculations than to say it's making them. You are making a similar set
of calculations when you reach out to pick up a glass of lemonade -- if
you weren't, the lemonade wouldn't still be in the glass when it got to
your mouth, if indeed you actually manage to pick up the glass at all,
or succeed in not clubbing yourself with the glass. Very small kids can
be seen learning this, and most mothers take steps (such as plastic
cups, tarps, etc.) to limit the amount of blood lost and other secondary
damage. Sometimes older people lose the ability to perform those
calculations.
What is interesting to watch is somebody who may be a perfectly
competent driver, user of the english language, etc., but who doesn't
really understand what he's actually doing, teach someone else how to
drive a car, the use of proper punctuation, etc. Sometimes, the results
can be quite comical, and sometimes quite sobering.
|
polygon
|
|
response 87 of 151:
|
Nov 22 17:57 UTC 2000 |
Re 86. No, that's not it. The fly makes its decisions about speed and
direction and wing flap rate and so on without any outside intervention,
and it doesn't have the hardware to solve any equations. Reaching for
a glass of lemonade is the same thing. Nothing in my head is calculating
the square root of the estimated distance, or doing any math at all.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 88 of 151:
|
Nov 22 18:23 UTC 2000 |
It is obtaining the same result as solving the mathematics of the situation,
but doing so through feedback loops, comparison of sensory input with
previous algorithms ("skills", which are memories of previous attempts
processed to optimize consequences), and adjustments as the process occurs.
An automatic control system with learned "skills" is just a machine, but
there is a mathematical way to describe its behavior in totality. The
mathematics in any case is always just a model, not the real system.
|
polygon
|
|
response 89 of 151:
|
Nov 22 19:10 UTC 2000 |
Re 88. Ah! Well said. The mathematics is not the real system. The
grammar rules are a description only, not the real communication.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 90 of 151:
|
Nov 22 22:17 UTC 2000 |
Re: #81: I don't give a crap what some "style guide" says is acceptable.
There is no third person sigular neuter pronoun beyond his (him). Their is
not an option. That nasty little noun-verb-pronoun agreement biz. If you
feel so put upon that "To each his own" somehow bothers your PC sensibilities,
then knock yourself out and write "To each his/her own". But don't try to
trot out "To each their own" as acceptable English grammar.
|
other
|
|
response 91 of 151:
|
Nov 22 22:22 UTC 2000 |
The rules of grammar serve as a framework for passing on the means of
communication to the next generation. The goal is to preserve the ability
to communicate between people with different experiences of socialization
-- primarily due to inevitable changes in the ways of the world as
generations go by.
The rules have to adapt in order to maintain relevance to the experiences
of each generation, but they are necessary to slow the rate of change in
the language to that which allows three generations of people living
simultaneously to communicate successfully at at least rudimentary levels.
Under ordinary circumstances, the older generation(s) will protest the
changes, while the younger generation(s) will proclaim the framework
insufficiently flexible to maintain relevance.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 92 of 151:
|
Nov 22 22:32 UTC 2000 |
That's a nice definition of "dumbing down".
|
other
|
|
response 93 of 151:
|
Nov 22 22:40 UTC 2000 |
That's a cynical interpretation. Dumbing down is only one way of looking at
it, and I'm sure that most older generations would apply it to the process
undertaken by subsequent generations to modify the grammatical structure of
our language.
That doesn't mean it is the exclusive interpretation.
|
brighn
|
|
response 94 of 151:
|
Nov 23 00:31 UTC 2000 |
#90> Sorry. Forgot you were the final source of information on this topic.
|
birdy
|
|
response 95 of 151:
|
Nov 23 02:27 UTC 2000 |
Re #90 - I'm hardly PC. It was a fucking typo.
|
remmers
|
|
response 96 of 151:
|
Nov 23 03:00 UTC 2000 |
Re #90: I have no problem with using "they" or "their" in both
a singular and plural sense. No more than with using "you" in
both a singular and plural sense. "To each their own" is fine.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 97 of 151:
|
Nov 23 03:12 UTC 2000 |
actually, third person singular neuter is its, not his.
|
carson
|
|
response 98 of 151:
|
Nov 23 05:03 UTC 2000 |
(anyone else remember the movement to make "ne" the gender neutral
pronoun of choice?)
|
birdy
|
|
response 99 of 151:
|
Nov 23 05:48 UTC 2000 |
Yup. Icky.
|
other
|
|
response 100 of 151:
|
Nov 23 06:27 UTC 2000 |
ne,nis, or ne,ner?
|
gull
|
|
response 101 of 151:
|
Nov 23 07:17 UTC 2000 |
Yeah, but for some reason people object to using the pronoun 'it' to refer
to other people. ;>
|
drew
|
|
response 102 of 151:
|
Nov 23 07:26 UTC 2000 |
Paol Anderson, in his novel _Starfarers_, coined pronouns _en_ (subject and
object) and _ens_ (possessive) as third person non-gendered.
BTW: Polygon: Where did you goto school?
|