4 ms·

I don't buy this at all. Maybe "can't express as concisely".

bluepizza 3y ago
Exactly. Japanese _mostly_ doesn't have plurals in the English sense (it actually does have a few plural words), but you do use counters to specify quantities, which is just another way to express plurality. I understand some folks might find the Japanese exotic ways gripping, but I find the realities of the language much more interesting. I find the thought "there are many ways to express plurality" much more fascinating than "wow, these people can build very reliable cars without expressing if a car has a wheel or many wheels."
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  車は車輪がよぅつあります。 Car has 4 wheels. You can say many, few, a number, etc so the lack of plurality is overstated I suspect. You can use context to derive the plurality when none is given.
ropejumper 3y ago
My favorite simple example of this is exclusive "we". It's not a thing in most languages, but it allows a level of passive aggressiveness that you can't achieve without it. Saying "we're going without you" isn't nearly as impactful as "_we_ are going", using a hypothetical exclusive we. As another example, Romanian has a relatively unique "presumptive" verb mood, which has a certain connotation that's hard to achieve without it. It can show curiosity and resignment at the same time (besides other things.) The conciseness is the whole point. Using words to explicitly describe things can ruin the effect.
- eszed 3y ago
  I'd push back on that, because you do get that passive-voice exclusive "we" in English, just as concisely - except it's expressed through stress pattern (as you indicate with your underlines), not vocabulary / grammar. I think that's exciting, because it gives English (as written) a lot of poetic ambiguity and (as spoken) a lot of performative - if you will - flexibility.
  - ropejumper 3y ago
    Fair point! I think it's just a different way of expression, and both are valuable in their own way.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Why not "unable to express at all"? Maybe you prefer the "languages are like Turing complete" argument? You've heard of Russell's paradox and Godel's incompleteness, I am sure. Wouldn't a concept that escaped our capacity, be by definition unthinkable? Someone literally can't think of an example. So maybe we should approach it a different way - is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? If concepts exist only in the mind, that are more than literal depictions of physical reality, surely here must be conceits thinkable in some systems but not in others. (I am probably just replaying Douglas Hofstadter here) The alternative is that every language is kinda "complete" and I could spend three hours trying to explain what a Alpha-Centurion has one word for. Edit: sorry our discussion is getting down-voted for bizarre reasons. Is there a kind of racist/anti-pluralist thing here on HN?
- hnfong 3y ago
  Russell's paradox speaks of logical contradictions. Language is full of logical contradictions, but it's fine to us (not to logicians though). Similarly Gödel speaks of consistent proofs in logical systems. His incompleteness theorem talks about either a system has statements it cannot prove (but they can expressed!), or is inconsistent. Since natural language is probably not that consistent, the whole issue is moot. It should be possible to show under some loose conditions that all natural languages are "Turing complete". Even the halting problem does not impose a problem -- we're really not interested in telling whether long-running computation halts in natural language. The expressivity is guaranteed by not insisting on strict consistency in language. (PS: the situation changes where there is a mandate to only speak things that are "correct", for example, censorship. Now you get into the realm where something might be technically "correct" but the decision algorithm is imperfect and does not allow you to speak that truth) > is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? I don't think so as long as the concept is constructed from physical objects or shared emotions/feelings. There is a problem with something that can only be subjectively felt though. Let's say some alien can see the X-ray spectrum. How does the alien communicate to humans what the colors look and feel like? But this is kinda off-topic.

Exactly. Japanese _mostly_ doesn't have plurals in the English sense (it actually does have a few plural words), but you do use counters to specify quantities, which is just another way to express plurality. I understand some folks might find the Japanese exotic ways gripping, but I find the realities of the language much more interesting. I find the thought "there are many ways to express plurality" much more fascinating than "wow, these people can build very reliable cars without expressing if a car has a wheel or many wheels."

geraldwhen 3y ago
車は車輪がよぅつあります。 Car has 4 wheels. You can say many, few, a number, etc so the lack of plurality is overstated I suspect. You can use context to derive the plurality when none is given.

ropejumper 3y ago

My favorite simple example of this is exclusive "we". It's not a thing in most languages, but it allows a level of passive aggressiveness that you can't achieve without it. Saying "we're going without you" isn't nearly as impactful as "_we_ are going", using a hypothetical exclusive we. As another example, Romanian has a relatively unique "presumptive" verb mood, which has a certain connotation that's hard to achieve without it. It can show curiosity and resignment at the same time (besides other things.) The conciseness is the whole point. Using words to explicitly describe things can ruin the effect.

eszed 3y ago
I'd push back on that, because you do get that passive-voice exclusive "we" in English, just as concisely - except it's expressed through stress pattern (as you indicate with your underlines), not vocabulary / grammar. I think that's exciting, because it gives English (as written) a lot of poetic ambiguity and (as spoken) a lot of performative - if you will - flexibility.
- ropejumper 3y ago
  Fair point! I think it's just a different way of expression, and both are valuable in their own way.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Why not "unable to express at all"? Maybe you prefer the "languages are like Turing complete" argument? You've heard of Russell's paradox and Godel's incompleteness, I am sure. Wouldn't a concept that escaped our capacity, be by definition unthinkable? Someone literally can't think of an example. So maybe we should approach it a different way - is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? If concepts exist only in the mind, that are more than literal depictions of physical reality, surely here must be conceits thinkable in some systems but not in others. (I am probably just replaying Douglas Hofstadter here) The alternative is that every language is kinda "complete" and I could spend three hours trying to explain what a Alpha-Centurion has one word for. Edit: sorry our discussion is getting down-voted for bizarre reasons. Is there a kind of racist/anti-pluralist thing here on HN?

hnfong 3y ago
Russell's paradox speaks of logical contradictions. Language is full of logical contradictions, but it's fine to us (not to logicians though). Similarly Gödel speaks of consistent proofs in logical systems. His incompleteness theorem talks about either a system has statements it cannot prove (but they can expressed!), or is inconsistent. Since natural language is probably not that consistent, the whole issue is moot. It should be possible to show under some loose conditions that all natural languages are "Turing complete". Even the halting problem does not impose a problem -- we're really not interested in telling whether long-running computation halts in natural language. The expressivity is guaranteed by not insisting on strict consistency in language. (PS: the situation changes where there is a mandate to only speak things that are "correct", for example, censorship. Now you get into the realm where something might be technically "correct" but the decision algorithm is imperfect and does not allow you to speak that truth) > is there any possibility for the "existence" of a concept that could not be successfully communicated at all, say between a human adult and a 5 year old child, or the the adult and an advanced alien being? I don't think so as long as the concept is constructed from physical objects or shared emotions/feelings. There is a problem with something that can only be subjectively felt though. Let's say some alien can see the X-ray spectrum. How does the alien communicate to humans what the colors look and feel like? But this is kinda off-topic.