On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Steven Brust wrote: > "Language is subjective, like all things." Well, in the first place, we're > simply going to have to disagree about all things being subjective. In > fact, I believe that there is an objective reality, and that we will never > understand it fully does not relieve us of the responsibility to try. There may be currently an objective reality, but it started subjectively. > But let us pass on to language. Can it simply be dismissed as > "subjective?" I'm not sure. My inclination is to say no. Language has at > least two important uses--first, it is how we think, second, it is how we > communicate our thoughts. Language has BECOME objective, but it began as subjective. Some random person saw a tree and said "I'm going to call that a 'tree'." and he told his friends and they believed him until it became "commonly known". This can also be illustrated in naming drugs. The name for new drugs is created by the creator of the drug. Even in the case of a community or group deciding collectively or voting on a word, SOMEONE had to suggest it. And the rules for coming up with new words and such were decided by SOMEONE. > Let us consider the second. The easiest two examples to illustrate my > point would be mathematics and music. Let us consider mathematics. It is > obviously a language--that is, a coherent system of symbols. Is there any > objective truth to the proposition that 2+3=5? Well, sure, at least > insofar as if I pile up two books, add another three to the pile, I will > have five books in the pile. Now, two individuals can agree that, amongst > themselves, they will use the symbol "4" to represent three. Among the two > of them, that would work, so I guess in that sense language could be > considered subjective. But if they want to communicate with the rest of > the world, they really ought to agree about what symbols mean what. I think that memo needs to go out to the rest of the world... In studying language, I was just shocked in some systems where 1 word can mean several different things, depending on the context. Then I look at English and realize it's universal. The problem is just that: people decide on a different definition, get their friends to use it, and soon there are double-meanings. Take, for example, the word "nauseous". Following the "rules" of grammar and language construction and such, it ORIGINALLY was created to mean "causing nausea or disgust; nauseating". But, due to popular MIS-usage, it now is accepted by the world (and Merriam-Webster OnLine) to mean "affected with nausea or disgust". The PROPER word for that condition is "nauseated", but since so many people started using "nauseous" in the same context, it has now been accepted. All it takes is a properly influential group to mis-use words on a regular basis, and in some amount of years, it can be assimilated into language. Even slang has been accepted into the dictionary, like "dude", and "gnarly". > It seems to me that language, while often subjective, has an objective > element insofar as it is shared. I'll agree to that, while amending that it was originally subjective, using the definition "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind". Someone perceived that that object that fell from the sky when it got dark was "rain". And since there was no name previously, people accepted it willingly. Hell, if I had been alive when language was being created, and I thought that a rock should be called an "ouch" or an "aclob", and I could come up with the word before anyone else, things would be different. > As for English, well, consider that you and I pretty much agree, at least > in general, on what "subjective" means, and that, if we didn't, we'd be > unable to have this delightful discussion. While it is clear that not all > words in English have exact, precise meanings in which all nuances are > completely understood and agreed upon by everyone, there are two things I > believe-- > 1) The more any given group agrees on the meaning of a word, the better > they are able to exchange ideas. > 2) The more we have words available that make clear, nice distinctions, the > more precisely, elegantly, and, ultimately, creatively we are able to think. Exactly...of course slang, also, detracts from these objectives...but *shrug* Whatcha gonna do? ****** NyteMuse "Call her life unnatural, feel her undead breath. Color her black for sorcery, color her gray for death." AIM: NyteMuse139 / ICQ: #21966269 (NyteMuse) MSN: NyteMuse / Yahoo!ID: NyteMuse http://www.crowfire.com