3 ms·
"I think about it like even numbers. There’s an unlimited number of even numbers but obviously they’re limited, right? Because 3s and 7s aren’t in there. Langua
by klunger 6y ago
"I think about it like even numbers. There’s an unlimited number of even numbers but obviously they’re limited, right? Because 3s and 7s aren’t in there. Language is like that. There’s an unlimited number of possible things we can say, of sentence structures, but not anything can be a sentence structure. So you’re absolutely right. Language is unlimited, but it’s unlimited in a limited way."
This is such a tantalizing idea, but there doesn't seem to be anyway to extend it beyond "we don't know what it would be like to think with a different language paradigm, but it would probably be different." I want to know how human thoughts are shaped and constrained by human language.
- 082349872349872 6y agoan attempt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23856845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23856845 or Story of Your Life Formal diagrams (still potentially unbounded combinations of a bounded symbolic repertoire, but connected in more than just a temporal dimension) are as close as I can think of at the moment. Anyone know of more recent work on https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2002/01/UsingTensorDiagrams.pdf https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/... ?
- dorchadas 6y agoThe issue, in my opinion, is separating the fact from the language shaping the thought to the thought shaping the language. It quickly leads into strong linguistic relativity, which has been proven wrong. And even the weak form, in my opinion, isn't very strong proof that it's necessarily a specific language, as opposed to cultural influences, affecting it.