Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes: > "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. Reality is what causes our nose to hurt when we attempt to treat a wall as subjective. > 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. Aspects of language take place outside any one individual, and in that sense are not completely subjective. (Like the *other* individuals you wish to communicate with.) > 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. The symbol "5" is arbitrarily chosen to represent the mathematical concept of 5. That concept is pretty "objective", as such things go, even though it's completely intangible. > Obviously, if I write down some sheet music that an F# occurs here for > four bars, and one of the musicians decides that, for his purposes, > "F#" means the chord that rest of us call "C" and that "four bars" > means "six bars" the music will not come out the way I had intended it. > > It seems to me that language, while often subjective, has an objective > element insofar as it is shared. I'm groping after something here. There are at least two kinds (or perhaps a continuum) of "subjective". If you have read some books, and considered them carefully, and discussed them with friends, and decided you don't like them very much (i.e. reached a carefully considered judgement on them), do you much care (in the sense of it being likely to change your opinion) to know that 86.3% of the American population likes those books? On the other hand, if you discovered that 86.3% of people disagreed with you on what chord was "C", would *that* be likely to cause you to change your opinion? In the first case, personal opinion, there's not that much relevance to what other people think. In the other case, consensus reality, it's useful to be in step with other people, particularly as to word usage. And yet both are pretty subjective. We can watch words change their meanings just because people decide they have. > 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. > > > Okay, we're off. > > *Now* we're having fun. <grin> Yup. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info