6 ms·

Linguist here.[0] Yes, this is a nitpick, but no apologies, because this is Hacker News. :) Unfortunately, languages don't always work the way that logicians

by blahedo 13y ago

Linguist here.[0] Yes, this is a nitpick, but no apologies, because this is Hacker News. :) Unfortunately, languages don't always work the way that logicians would like them to do. Yes, we can read that sentence as the English-language summary of a logical formula (something like ∀x [Sx -> ¬Fx]), but English (and many other languages) treat the scope of the "not" as ambiguous. It's not a matter of "interpreting what you said literally", because there are multiple correct literal interpretations of what he said---he is not using a metaphor or anything. There are many cases where "not" can scope out to an enclosing quantifier (one of the better-known is "All that glitters is not gold", famously by Tolkien), and this is not just because all these speakers are in error. [0] Also computer scientist, but I'll wear my linguist hat for now.

ok_craig 13y ago
The mathematician had a better point.
Zuider 13y ago
For me, It violates the principle of least surprise to encounter a sentence like "all birds do not fly". I have to do a double take and reinterpret the sentence to realise its intended meaning.
andrewflnr 13y ago
IMO, if "all these speakers" collectively make the language ambiguous, then clearly someone is in error, because unambiguity[0] is essential to the primary purpose of language: communication. This has nothing to do with whether one is a logician or mathematician. A sentence like "all X are not Y" naturally associates like "all X are (not Y)". Usually modifiers attach to the closest thing they can, as a matter of well-established convention. So if someone decides they want that to mean "not (all X are Y)" and expects me to understand it, I'm going to go ahead and say they're the one in error. Sorry, Tolkien. [0] Is that a word? Chromium spell-check doesn't like it. I have lightened up on neologisms, as long as it's clear what they mean.
- DrewAllyn 13y ago
  Despite the primary purpose of languages being communication, they occasionally fail at it. Does this surprise you? Have you never heard someone say something and completely misinterpreted them?
- Tomte 13y ago
  Ambiguity does exist in natural languages, and it is obviously no big problem.[1] Unfortunately, technically inclined people like to apply their domain specific "knowledge" (compiler cosntruction?) to everything and come to incredibly bad conclusions. Ex falso quodlibet. It gets especially bad when technical guys talk about law and juristic methodology. Demonstrated daily here on HN. [1] BTW, linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. You immediately disqualify yourself from any linguistic discussion when you claim that native speakers are in error.
- blahedo 13y ago
  > IMO Note: science is not about your opinion. > unambiguity is essential Is it? We function in the presence of ambiguity all the time. Sometimes, we let the ambiguity ride. Sometimes, we take a sentence that is (by itself) ambiguous and let the context disambiguate it. Sometimes, we use the ambiguity for some rhetorical purpose and then resolve it later. There are many sources of ambiguity in natural language---it's one of the things that makes NLP so damn hard---and you can't wave that away by saying that everybody is doing it wrong. (Not that generations of prescriptivist grammarians haven't tried.) > Usually modifiers attach to the closest thing they can, as a matter of well-established convention. First of all, attachment ambiguity is a difficult NLP problem specifically because modifiers don't always attach to "the closest thing they can". Second, to the extent that the statement is true (that low, i.e. "closer", attachment has a higher prior probability than high attachment), it is not a matter of "convention" but a fact about the grammar of a language. Third, "not" is special in all sorts of ways (as is negation in general, in many languages, not just English), and as I mentioned before, this specific kind of ambiguity is well-known, and interesting because it seems so strange, and once again you can't just wave the logic stick and declare that it ought not to be so.

by blahedo 13y ago

ok_craig 13y ago

The mathematician had a better point.

Zuider 13y ago

For me, It violates the principle of least surprise to encounter a sentence like "all birds do not fly". I have to do a double take and reinterpret the sentence to realise its intended meaning.

andrewflnr 13y ago

IMO, if "all these speakers" collectively make the language ambiguous, then clearly someone is in error, because unambiguity[0] is essential to the primary purpose of language: communication. This has nothing to do with whether one is a logician or mathematician. A sentence like "all X are not Y" naturally associates like "all X are (not Y)". Usually modifiers attach to the closest thing they can, as a matter of well-established convention. So if someone decides they want that to mean "not (all X are Y)" and expects me to understand it, I'm going to go ahead and say they're the one in error. Sorry, Tolkien. [0] Is that a word? Chromium spell-check doesn't like it. I have lightened up on neologisms, as long as it's clear what they mean.

DrewAllyn 13y ago
Despite the primary purpose of languages being communication, they occasionally fail at it. Does this surprise you? Have you never heard someone say something and completely misinterpreted them?
Tomte 13y ago
Ambiguity does exist in natural languages, and it is obviously no big problem.[1] Unfortunately, technically inclined people like to apply their domain specific "knowledge" (compiler cosntruction?) to everything and come to incredibly bad conclusions. Ex falso quodlibet. It gets especially bad when technical guys talk about law and juristic methodology. Demonstrated daily here on HN. [1] BTW, linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. You immediately disqualify yourself from any linguistic discussion when you claim that native speakers are in error.
blahedo 13y ago
> IMO Note: science is not about your opinion. > unambiguity is essential Is it? We function in the presence of ambiguity all the time. Sometimes, we let the ambiguity ride. Sometimes, we take a sentence that is (by itself) ambiguous and let the context disambiguate it. Sometimes, we use the ambiguity for some rhetorical purpose and then resolve it later. There are many sources of ambiguity in natural language---it's one of the things that makes NLP so damn hard---and you can't wave that away by saying that everybody is doing it wrong. (Not that generations of prescriptivist grammarians haven't tried.) > Usually modifiers attach to the closest thing they can, as a matter of well-established convention. First of all, attachment ambiguity is a difficult NLP problem specifically because modifiers don't always attach to "the closest thing they can". Second, to the extent that the statement is true (that low, i.e. "closer", attachment has a higher prior probability than high attachment), it is not a matter of "convention" but a fact about the grammar of a language. Third, "not" is special in all sorts of ways (as is negation in general, in many languages, not just English), and as I mentioned before, this specific kind of ambiguity is well-known, and interesting because it seems so strange, and once again you can't just wave the logic stick and declare that it ought not to be so.