4 ms·

There is an interesting phenomenon in some (many?) philosophical schools where words are given too much power. It is as if they "are" the things that they descr

There is an interesting phenomenon in some (many?) philosophical schools where words are given too much power. It is as if they "are" the things that they describe. And yet, with all that magical power granted to words by academic philosophers, words are really just slippery labels that can be distorted on a mass scale quite quickly these days. And yet we still treat words like magic spells. We live in a world where saying that the meaning of a word has changed, somehow means that you have "changed reality", and everybody seems to march along saying the mantras. They forget that words are used in legal documents and in "common knowledge" inside our heads. I really wish that human language was strongly typed. You shouldn't be allowed to hijack a word for your own political ends. But to even suggest that the original concept or article deserves it's own distinct word puts you at risk of being accused of some thought crime. Why? Because that makes the incoming bait-and-switch easier to spot. The warping of the word is a magic spell, designed to manipulate reality. Edit: misspellings and ramblings

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I really wish that human language was strongly typed. I don’t think “strongly typed” even makes sense in reference to human language, except in the sense of grammar where words can only be used in the place where a the particular part of speech they are is called for, in which case formal writing is pretty close (though it responds to linguistic drift that results from informal language not being “strongly typed”.) What I think you mean is you wish that definitions of words were precise and fixed and that adherence to strict and literal use according to those precise, fixed definitions was universal and compulsory. Which, well, would be convenient for some things but really bad for others, and in any case is irrelevant because there is no way for it to happen. > But to even suggest that the original concept or article deserves it’s own distinct word puts you at risk of being accused of some thought crime. Does it? People make suggestions like that all the time, and while they are often disputed, its rarely about anything like “thought crime”.
Terr_ 3y ago
> I really wish that human language was strongly typed. You shouldn't be allowed to hijack a word According to my one true definition of "strongly typed" it already is--how dare you try to hijack those words. /s
staplers 3y ago
Free language is free speech. You can imagine why attempting to tame it would lead to problems.
mock-possum 3y ago
Do you have a specific example of this in mind? It sounds like a really interesting phenomenon.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 3y ago
"Behold a man!" brings in chicken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes
- verisimi 3y ago
  a plucked chicken - cos it meets the definition of a man that 'walks on two legs, without feathers'.
Tade0 3y ago
> I really wish that human language was strongly typed. I've seen the term "strongly typed" refer to so many different features that it lost any meaning to me. Wikipedia seems to agree, saying that's it's more of a marketing term.
dmarchand90 3y ago
Yeah they tried this in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem (actually very similar to real strongly typed languages) is everything gets very verbose and impractical for ordinary people. Actually you could argue that we have indeed created a strongly typed dialect of English which is legalese. So a version that is very precise but to complex and verbose for most people and most spheres in life
- raffraffraff 3y ago
  You say that legalese is strongly typed, but it is not. We have clashing legislation. As complex and verbose as legalese is, it is still interpreted by humans: lawyers, judges, politicians, the attorney general. My argument is that while we cannot enforce strong typing in regular speech (conversations, social media, news) we should enforce it in legalese and policy. In other words, we need a compiler. I would love to run the statute book through the equivalent of the Rust compiler just to see how many instances we have of clashing rights, circular dependencies, due to there being wildly different definitions for words. Imagine if new policy had to be compiled with current statute book monorepo? It would get a hard "nope" in many cases. Not only could it prevent bad legislation, it could be used to point at existing "bad policy" that blocks good legislation. Imagine if each country had a laundry list of known bugs in it's laws? I mean, you'd want to know, wouldn't you? At the moment we need to wait until somebody tests a law before we realize it's unenforceable or unfair
jiggawatts 3y ago
Radiation. Natural. Communist. Chemicals. Fascist. Quantum.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I really wish that human language was strongly typed. I don’t think “strongly typed” even makes sense in reference to human language, except in the sense of grammar where words can only be used in the place where a the particular part of speech they are is called for, in which case formal writing is pretty close (though it responds to linguistic drift that results from informal language not being “strongly typed”.) What I think you mean is you wish that definitions of words were precise and fixed and that adherence to strict and literal use according to those precise, fixed definitions was universal and compulsory. Which, well, would be convenient for some things but really bad for others, and in any case is irrelevant because there is no way for it to happen. > But to even suggest that the original concept or article deserves it’s own distinct word puts you at risk of being accused of some thought crime. Does it? People make suggestions like that all the time, and while they are often disputed, its rarely about anything like “thought crime”.

Terr_ 3y ago

> I really wish that human language was strongly typed. You shouldn't be allowed to hijack a word According to my one true definition of "strongly typed" it already is--how dare you try to hijack those words. /s

staplers 3y ago

Free language is free speech. You can imagine why attempting to tame it would lead to problems.

mock-possum 3y ago

Do you have a specific example of this in mind? It sounds like a really interesting phenomenon.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pjc50 3y ago

"Behold a man!" brings in chicken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes

verisimi 3y ago
a plucked chicken - cos it meets the definition of a man that 'walks on two legs, without feathers'.

Tade0 3y ago

> I really wish that human language was strongly typed. I've seen the term "strongly typed" refer to so many different features that it lost any meaning to me. Wikipedia seems to agree, saying that's it's more of a marketing term.

dmarchand90 3y ago

Yeah they tried this in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem (actually very similar to real strongly typed languages) is everything gets very verbose and impractical for ordinary people. Actually you could argue that we have indeed created a strongly typed dialect of English which is legalese. So a version that is very precise but to complex and verbose for most people and most spheres in life

raffraffraff 3y ago
You say that legalese is strongly typed, but it is not. We have clashing legislation. As complex and verbose as legalese is, it is still interpreted by humans: lawyers, judges, politicians, the attorney general. My argument is that while we cannot enforce strong typing in regular speech (conversations, social media, news) we should enforce it in legalese and policy. In other words, we need a compiler. I would love to run the statute book through the equivalent of the Rust compiler just to see how many instances we have of clashing rights, circular dependencies, due to there being wildly different definitions for words. Imagine if new policy had to be compiled with current statute book monorepo? It would get a hard "nope" in many cases. Not only could it prevent bad legislation, it could be used to point at existing "bad policy" that blocks good legislation. Imagine if each country had a laundry list of known bugs in it's laws? I mean, you'd want to know, wouldn't you? At the moment we need to wait until somebody tests a law before we realize it's unenforceable or unfair

jiggawatts 3y ago

Radiation. Natural. Communist. Chemicals. Fascist. Quantum.