But would that ‘other’ not entail that the linguistic forum stay ‘experimental’ for ever since it will never be used so often so as to warrant a forum of its own?
About obscurity:
Is it not the case that too many forums obscure things and that too few forums with too many subforums obscures things as well? Should a re-evaluation take place for the layout of ILP?
We have chatted about layout in the past, and will in the future; it’s part of running one of these places.
We make changes over time as needed.
To the Linguistic bit.
I think it’s worth bringing up to the staff to weigh in for now.
If it get’s an in-favor of “yes” then placement can be worried about.
OK look at me as a partner in crime with objet. I think that it could have some real interesting possibilities. To edit my original post:
This is very much an international forum, even though English is spoken here, it is not the first language of some and English is not always the same in all countries… I think that we could learn from different languages and gain greater understanding of each other if we explore language. Correct or near correct interpretation is crucial in discussions. How many times has a thread been locked or gone to pot because of misunderstanding? A subforum can answer questions and explore interpretations of language. I think our friend has a very good idea.
I thought that might be the case, but I think it best to say such things. One never knows when it is needed to point out the obvious. We all are human after all.
If I may, having just signed up here, the field of Linguistics as it is understood in academia today is primarily concerned with theoretical linguistics: formal, even mathematical, analyses of the structure of syntax, phonology, neurolinguistics, etc. It’s really the study of language, as opposed to languages (etymology included in this… exclusion). Of course, it’s not that it’s not those others topics, too. However, when someone speaks of linguistics (in the context of a forum such as this, for example), they mean synchronic, structural, theoretical linguistics; not diachronic, etymological, or applied linguistics.
Why am I saying all that? Oh, yeah, because with that broader–and more contemporary–characterization of the field, it may help name and promote the subforum and its threads.
For what it’s worth, I think that a linguistics forum could be very interesting. Even if the subject can be interpreted as part of philosophy, psychology and social sciences, it’s a solid subject by itself (especially if would include philology) and could draw some intelligent posters over time.
Formal logic has its own languages, distinct from natural language.
I think its commonly held that most natural language use is a-logical.
Some philosophers (e.g. Donald Davidson) may hold that all meaning is held in propositional logic, but to be honest they really have a long way to go before they show how this is possible (imperitive sentences, for example, don’t seem to be either true or false and therefore don’t seem to be readily transcribable in to logic).