4 ms·

It's not that big of a leap. And a text book is actually a poor counter example. Can modern Greeks read ancient Greek? No. Culture degrades language. Gradually,

It's not that big of a leap. And a text book is actually a poor counter example. Can modern Greeks read ancient Greek? No. Culture degrades language. Gradually, words will mean something else. Consider the word "cool". How many people these days actually associate it with temperature first? Or "ass". How many people think "donkey"? Those are simple examples. We could go back to older English, but I think my point has been demonstrated. Admittedly, I keep shortening my responses before posting, so sometimes I don't explain some logic that seems obvious to me. Apologies.

mannykannot 10y ago
No one is disputing the possibility of ambiguity, but a few single-word examples is still a long way from "interpret any way you want." If you need to be precise about temperature or fashion or animal taxonomy or physiology, you can be, and a textbook is a better example than the observation that few people understand a language that is no longer in general use.
- nercht12 10y ago
  Notably, I wasn't talking about precisely-defined textbook words. If you go back, my original comment is directed at the fact that the Constitution can be liberally interpreted because the meanings of words change, which is due to cultural influence. Sure, we could go back and look at the history of America and figure out what "right" probably meant to the founding fathers (or "electricity" or yada yada for that matter), but to Joe Shmoe, the original meaning is either gone or no longer relevant. The only reason certain words' meanings don't change is because people aren't using them. That said, I would still say natural language is, when you try to fully examine it without relation to reality, arbitrary (in a completely different argument), and while it doesn't mean "any which way we want" (initially), we could make a deep philosophical examination of the topic and come to that conclusion, but that's off topic. Though I feel like that's partly what you may have thought I was arguing initially.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    We can only go by what you write, and you are making a more thoughtful point now. I do not think, however, that you can exclude "precisely defined textbook words" when the issue is whether natural language is necessarily imprecise (not that my textbook example is only about word definitions, FWIW.)

mannykannot 10y ago

No one is disputing the possibility of ambiguity, but a few single-word examples is still a long way from "interpret any way you want." If you need to be precise about temperature or fashion or animal taxonomy or physiology, you can be, and a textbook is a better example than the observation that few people understand a language that is no longer in general use.

nercht12 10y ago
Notably, I wasn't talking about precisely-defined textbook words. If you go back, my original comment is directed at the fact that the Constitution can be liberally interpreted because the meanings of words change, which is due to cultural influence. Sure, we could go back and look at the history of America and figure out what "right" probably meant to the founding fathers (or "electricity" or yada yada for that matter), but to Joe Shmoe, the original meaning is either gone or no longer relevant. The only reason certain words' meanings don't change is because people aren't using them. That said, I would still say natural language is, when you try to fully examine it without relation to reality, arbitrary (in a completely different argument), and while it doesn't mean "any which way we want" (initially), we could make a deep philosophical examination of the topic and come to that conclusion, but that's off topic. Though I feel like that's partly what you may have thought I was arguing initially.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  We can only go by what you write, and you are making a more thoughtful point now. I do not think, however, that you can exclude "precisely defined textbook words" when the issue is whether natural language is necessarily imprecise (not that my textbook example is only about word definitions, FWIW.)