I know this may not seem very philosophical but I was thinking the other day of how contradicting our language can be at times.
Why is it called a boxing ring when it is square?
Why is abbreviation such a long word?
Why is the an s in the word lisp and two t’s in the word stutter?
If moths are attracted to the light, why dont we see them during the day?
Just a few thoughts, anyone got any others?
Ok, Phil, it’s like this:
The square is only called a boxing ring in the event of it being used to stage boxing matches.
That abbreviation is a long word is most likely a coincidence. However, to call it a ‘long’ word is a bit unfare. Long is a question of interpretation. Furthermore, to expect the meaning of a word to reflect it’s fysical manifestation would be like expecting words like big or huge to always be spelled with capital letters.
The reason for s in the word lisp or t’s in the word stutter, back to the previous question: why is there a need for a word to satisfy anyone but the need to communicate its meaning? Should we change the words to help the verbally handicapped? The reason it is hard for the lisper to say “lisp” is probably reason why it is called lisping. It makes sense.
And the simple reason why we won’t see moths overpopulating the earth at day making sweet insect love is because they are nocturnal. On a different note, this isn’t a lingual contradiction
I think old phil’s question meant “Why are the moths nocturnal if they chase light?”
Also, many of these can be explained by the fact that language evolves. Words aren’t chosen, they are derived from older words.
lol… those aren’t contradictions in language 
Here’s one.
SIATD, an agnostic says: “All agnostics are liars!”
However this type of condradictions have been solved by using meta-language… i forgot by which philosopher.
That’s ironic, since the notion of a meta-language has been roundly refuted for over 30 years. Convenient, too.
The notion of contradictions in language is debatable, since it’s about fundamentally arbitrary signals somehow going against their intended message. For example, “SIATD, an agnostic says: “All agnostics are liars!””; this isn’t a language contradiction, but either a contradiction of ideas or a different interpretation of signals. SIATD (in the example) could reasonably mean for “liars” to imply a tendency to lie, whereas the listener could think “liar” means the individual always lies. Or maybe SIATD believes that he can tell the truth and be a member of a group that always lies. Either way, language isn’t contradicting itself.
oldphil, you aren’t citing contradictions. Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways? That’s just a silly way of labelling things, not a contradiction. A lot of your examples are also just ties between the word and what it refers to; “lisp” contains the relevent sound, “abbreviation” has enough syllables to explain why the concept exists, “big” has consonants that feel blunt and heavy on your tongue, etc.
But then, this could all be language confusion; maybe you mean “contradiction” in a different way than me.
Wrong, thats not ironic SIATD… you should do a little more research on the matter of meta-language aswell.
Yes it is contradictory and it’s been a huge problem in language until recently.
I don’t know how much clearer you want me to put this… but here:
SIATD(agnostic) says: All agnostics are liars and they lie all the time.
I could add more to the sentance to clear any misconceptions you might have and still it would be self contradictory.
I forget right now who solved the problem… but i’ll try and remember and post here.
Carpathian, I advise you not to push me on this issue. I’m willing to bet my house that I know more information about these arguments than you do.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=148356
Carpathian, I don’t just mean it’s unclear, I mean that the contradictions you’re talking about aren’t language contradictions.
I should get in touch with my philosophy teacher… unfortunately its summer time and i can’t; he explained this matter to me about 7 months ago but i forgot who solved the issue.
there are no other contradicitons than language contradictions…
there is no other basis for contradiction than language of some sort
The meanings contradict, not the language.
How do you pronounce this word: Ghoti?
(Hint: English is absurd!)
Whoever posts the answer, you may as well give credit to the genius who pointed this out.
Fish
Phil, I think the moths are attracted by the heat of the light bulb not the light. I could be wrong but I am not interested enough to find out if I am right. Check it out. I could have given you a worth while piece of information.
LOL Deb, They are attracted to my TV set just when a crucial scene comes on, the more crucial the scene the bigger the moth, or my drink as I pass under a light.
words that have more then one meaning slightly opposing or totally different that can confuse a student learning the language
fit
head
read
trip
pick
slip
mine
feel
these are just a few.
if you put these words in two sentences or paragraphs in the same order and just change the helping words you will have a totally different sentences and paragraphs. The helping words do not even have to be that dissimilar.
What really matters is when the speeker gets his message across.
The concept can have any set of letters to symbolize the meaning.
Example:
(makes up a word)
Quatzipolic.
Something that shifts from reason to reason, for no reason. Random structures. Chaotic order.
If SIATD, as an agnostic, were to say “all agnostics always lie”, you’d have exactly the liar paradox, more easily expressed by “this sentence is false”. If that sentence has to be either true or false, then you can prove that it is both true AND false, which means that the given system (english, in this case) is inconsistent. Thus, either english is inconsistent, or else sentences in english don’t always have to be either true or false - either way, english doesn’t work as neatly as first-order logic. That’s all the liar’s paradox demonstrates.
SIATD, I’m interested in what you meant when you say “the notion of a meta-language has been roundly refuted for over 30 years”. I don’t know very much about the philosophy that’s been done on the subject, but it seems pretty clear to me that, for any language, you can construct a language that talks about the first language. (In fact, for many languages - like english, set theory, second-order logic, etc., the language is its own metalanguage - it can talk about itself.) Do you disagree with this (and if so, why), or do you mean something else by your usage of “metalanguage”?