Failures of Commutation

Post Reply New Topic

Language is not as simple as A + B = B + A or A x B = B x A. "is" is not a sign of equation in the standard sense. "George is a fool" cannot [do NOT mess with intonation quibbles or I shall smite] be considered equivalent to "a fool is George"; yet "George is the boss" is at least close to "the boss is George".

Consider "Philologos and Feynman agree". This is in all eseentials identical to "Feynman and Philologos agree."

But "Philologos agrees with Feyman" is equivalent to "Feynman agrees with Philologos" only under certain conditions:

a. P and F are in the same time and space and in discussion come to agreement.

b. P and F are both known to the speaker only as recorded speech, and hearing or reading them has convinced the speaker their positions are the same.

In most other situations there is a hierarchy Which apparently differs with the speaker.

For me and others of my general style, the issue is perceived temporal priority. If I think a thought or utter a sentence [in the broader sense] and later find out Feynman said the same thing, I say "Feynman agrees with Philologos" If on the other hand I am reading Feynman and see someting that strikes me as probable, I say "Philologos agrees with Feynman".

For others, the key seems to be perceived status. If Feynman and Philologos agree, they will say "Philologos agrees with Feynman", because Feynman has a broader base of reputation than Philologos. If Feynman and Hawking agree, Hawking might take precedence as being more in resonance with mainstream thought. But views on their work as physicists might outweigh this for some speakers.

Nonsense. A agrees with B means that A agrees with what B said or expressed. The converse B agrees with A does not follow. Your logic is faulty.

ruveyn

A. This is not logic, but descriptive Linguistics.

B. Your response does not appear to have understood the examples - perhaps not unexpected if you are reading it as a logical abstraction.

C. You seem, however, to join me in assuming temporal priority is the issue.

No... one ...cares.

arithmetic has a smaller list of operators + * are commutative / - are not.
verbs in English are similar some are some are not .
separate the verbs into commutative and non-commutative verbs.
you know for the robot.

For a linguist to try to squirm out of an overt expression of egotistical self adulation is rather pitiful.

So why post? When I do not care about your - stuff - I mostly stay away, unless you say something too absurd.

Maybe I should start telling you every time I don't care?

It is not quite so simple. Part of why NOBODY speaks symbolic logic. As in the case of "agree", some instances appear commutative, others not. Math at the level my sister as getting too before dropping out may be approaching the complexity of language, but there are just not that many operators.

Chemical formulae, especially bringing in the fancier organics, are much closer.

A fairly simple operation in a not too complex language has to deal with focus [unmarked in many languages], definite / indefinite status [also unmarked in many languages], and even the identity of the participants. Most languages have a construction expressing approximately equation [linguistic, not mathematica] but the exact relationships the construction is used to express are multitudinous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban

Hey, you want to talk about artificial languages? You take me back to the days in the 60s, talking about this with a guy in the Linguistics group who was into Loglan.

Basically you have the level of Pig Latin-like systems and the substitution argots, which are essentially a working language wearing a mask. The Pig Latins tend to be used by the young, the substitution based systems by subgroups in society for maintaining secrecy.

Then you have the level of Esperanto and the like, and products like Tolkien's languages. These are very language-like, with individual phonology, morphology, syntax. They cannot as they stand be SPOKEN, as genuine languages are spoken, but they have the potential. If a community adopts Esperanto or Elvish they can be used in communication at the level of a first-stage Pidgin, and with time can develop into genuine languages as a Pidgin may become a Creole. There will be alteration here - the language as constructed never has the minimum complexity of a live language.

Finally there are what I might call the special case constructs - Loglan > Lojban, Fortran or AroBuwehhe. These are constructed without serious reference to human language and are shaped to fit purposes other than communication. Their structures and complexities simply do not match those of possible human language. For a human community to SPEAK Lojban [as opposed to constructing and uttering Lijban sentences, it would first have to evolve a human accessible Pidgin Lojban and then develop it into a working human system which would bear little resemblance to the real Lojban.

Thank you for this, by the way - it was a big part of the 60s for me but I do not get to talk about it much.

"agrees with" != "agree"
"agrees with" is directional and non-commutative.
"agree" seems to be commutative

Dare I say, glad you agree with me?

In a lot of lingoes, the + / - commutative behavior of the various words for "marry" gets interesting.

Genuinely commutative expressions in real language are fairly rare. All the transitives are ruled out, of course.

Some languages give you a derived verb form marking the expression as commutative. but the outputs are subject to change without notice and are often multivalent.

It is an effort to ask you to stop creating a new thread for every goddamn reply you get in another thread. If you want to continue a discussion try doing it in the original thread for once.

I would venture a guess that the only truly commutative verbs are those from math and logic.