Linguistics

[tapu]

Detour: I think of questions as having no truth value either. Or is there an opposing argument in logic that I can’t recall concerning that? They seem, intuitively, not to have truth value, as with imperatives, but you’ve got me wondering now.

[objet_petit_a]

It may not be transferable into proposition logic…

Apart from that I disagree with you on account that Language is logic.

[brevel_monkey]

Ok, well evidently this isn’t the place for this discussion!

Start a thread in the linguistics forum on it, though, and I’ll be sure to respond…

[Carleas]

Language has an internal logic, and logic has its own language, but I don’t think that means that logic is language. Logic entails a certain rigor, but language doesn’t. Logic’s meaning changes drastically if any symbol changes; language can be butchered to death and still get most of its point across.

Language can be almost anything, from simple ad hoc sign language to complex, multifaceted languages like English. The standards for what passes as language are significantly lower for language than for logic. Look at something like Chomsky’s sentence. It is certainly language (albeit poorly used), but it’s noteworthy because its totally devoid of logic.

I’ll give you that language is a logical system, but it is not one and the same with logic.

As to where to put threads, it’s totally a judgment call. If it were me, I would put very math-like (lots of symbols, solving using formal logic) logic threads in the Science section, and more texty threads in Philosophy. But depending no the specific topic, I could easily see a formal logic thread being best placed in Linguistics.

[EDIT]: damnit, brevel_monkey.

[jonquil]

@Carleas

Language has an internal logic, and logic has its own language, but I don’t think that means that logic is language. Logic entails a certain rigor, but language doesn’t. Logic’s meaning changes drastically if any symbol changes; language can be butchered to death and still get most of its point across.

Language can be almost anything, from simple ad hoc sign language to complex, multifaceted languages like English. The standards for what passes as language are significantly lower for language than for logic. Look at something like Chomsky’s sentence. It is certainly language (albeit poorly used), but it’s noteworthy because its totally devoid of logic.

I’ll give you that language is a logical system, but it is not one and the same with logic.

This makes me think of Lewis Carroll’s poem Jabberwocky and the way nonsense words and sentences can make sense or contain meaning.

[Jayson]

Yep, illogical conveyance of meaning is one of my favorite word games.
From one of my recent posts in creative writing that does this:

@The Mechanical Thrust Force Motivated Bidirectional Nominative Trend Itinerator Engineer

To experience the force motivated revert potential of the bidirectional nominative trend itinerator, engage the mechanical thrust matrix energy converter.

This inlets dormant energy stimulation facilitant from the pressurized energy potential containment chamber for thermal radiant energy exchange.

This then creates a relative energy potential ratio that is accessed by the horizontal thrust matrix controller after first determining the appropriate delimited apex force pressure release selector phasing position to compensate for natural inertial conditions - dependent on the valued rate for the cause of positional shift.

The lateral dynamic adjustment control is employed for linear manual trajectory control along with augmentations to the relative energy potential ratio by manipulation of both the horizontal thrust matrix controller and the impulse respondent force resistance accelerator (both should be engaged in graduated response to avoid frictional conflict disadvantage).

All mechanical thrust force motivated revert potential bidirectional nominative trend itinerator’s should contain adequate efficiency maintainers for their energy production byproduct.

As always, please remember to keep the personal kinetic force resistor in the locking position while the mechanical thrust matrix energy converter is engaged in active transmission.

[objet_petit_a]

@Carleas

Language has an internal logic, and logic has its own language, but I don’t think that means that logic is language. Logic entails a certain rigor, but language doesn’t. Logic’s meaning changes drastically if any symbol changes; language can be butchered to death and still get most of its point across.

Language can be almost anything, from simple ad hoc sign language to complex, multifaceted languages like English. The standards for what passes as language are significantly lower for language than for logic. Look at something like Chomsky’s sentence. It is certainly language (albeit poorly used), but it’s noteworthy because its totally devoid of logic.

I’ll give you that language is a logical system, but it is not one and the same with logic.

As to where to put threads, it’s totally a judgment call. If it were me, I would put very math-like (lots of symbols, solving using formal logic) logic threads in the Science section, and more texty threads in Philosophy. But depending no the specific topic, I could easily see a formal logic thread being best placed in Linguistics.

[EDIT]: damnit, brevel_monkey.

I would like to stipulate that I said Language and not language. It is what is called thought in many works in psycho-analysis (and philosophy of language I might add).