Clear Language, Clear Mind

http://www.pagef30.com/2008/08/why-norwegian-is-easiest-language-for.html

Actually a very good read.

Link to article on SEP.

Consider the following quote:

“The term “pornography” is used in all of these different ways in everyday discourse and debate, as well as in philosophical discussions: sometimes it is used to mean merely material which is sexually explicit; sometimes it is used to mean material which is sexually explicit and objectionable in some particular way; and so on. It seems to me that we do not need to choose between these different definitions, for all of them capture something of the term’s everyday use. What matters crucially is that we know which definition is being used in a particular case. For the fact that “pornography” has different senses can have two very unfortunate consequences if these differences are not clearly noted and kept in mind: it can make it seem that there is disagreement when there is not; and it can obscure the real nature of the disagreement when there is.

Here is one topical example of how this might happen. Some feminists object to pornography on the grounds that it harms women. Other feminists claim that pornography may not always be harmful to women, and may even sometimes be beneficial. It seems that there is genuine disagreement here. But is there? Not necessarily. For the two sides might mean different things by “pornography”. Suppose that feminists who object to pornography are defining “pornography” as sexually explicit material that subordinates women. So pornography, for them, is that subset of sexually explicit material that in fact harms women. This definition makes it an analytic truth that pornography, wherever it exists, is bad from a feminist point of view. Feminists who defend pornography, however, may be using “pornography” to mean simply sexually explicit material (regardless of whether it is harmful to women). There may thus be no genuine disagreement here. For both sides might agree that sexually explicit material that harms women is objectionable. They might also agree that there is nothing objectionable about sexually explicit material that does not harm women (or anyone else). If protagonists in the debate are using “pornography” in different senses in this way, they may simply be talking past each other.”

It seems to me that it is important to keep this to mind when using a word that has different meanings in a debate. It is entirely gereralizeable to other issues that are not pornographic.

For some reason some people get these wrong.

And so on for a great deal of other concrete entities. However for abstract objects it becomes more difficult to translate into believe-that phrases. Consider:

I believe in democracy

What are we to translate this into? Some ideas:

I believe that democracy is good

I believe that democracy is the best

Other examples include:

I believe in freedom of speech

I believe in myself

I believe in you (this does not mean anything similar to the above even though the phrases are quite similar, the object of belief is a personal pronoun)

I believe in love

Examples:

1. I cannot find my socks. / I couldn’t find my socks.

2. I cannot find a counter-example to the theory. / I couldn’t find a counter-example to the theory.

The word “cannot” is usually taken to express impossibility and be somewhat equivalent in meaning with the word “impossible”, thought they cannot be used in the same way because they are different word types.

However, if we rewrite the above sentences to use the other word, then the meaning changes. Consider:

1a. It is impossible to find my socks. / It was impossible for me to find my socks.

2a. It is impossible to find a counter-example to the theory. / It was impossible to find a counter-example to the theory.

Why does (1) and (1a) not mean the same? It is because, I think, that we use “cannot” to express a different kind of lack of possibility than we use with “impossible”. This possibility I call willful possibility. It is defined like this: It is willfully possible for agent S to A iff that S wills to bring about A materially implies that A would happen.

This is applicable to the above examples like this:

1b. S wanted to find his socks but did not. Thus, it was not willfully possible to for S to find his socks.

2b. S wanted to find a counter-example to the theory but did not. Thus, it was not willfully possible to for S to find a counter-example.

The meanings of (1) and (2) are also expressible in another way:

1c. I tried to find my socks but I failed.

2c. I tried to find a counter-example to the theory but I failed.

Though there are also some relevant considerations about time. Willful possibilities change from time to time. Suppose for instance that at some later time were S to look for his socks, then he would find them. Similarly with counter-examples to the theory. I did not find a way to easily incorporate this into the definition above.

One should not confuse willful possibility with logical, physical or some other kind of possibility. It would be odd to interpret (1) and (2) as logical etc. possibility, but it would not be odd to interpret (1a) and (2a) that way. Also the sentences in (1a) are odd and would probably not be used very often. However (2a) are not particularly odd since that if some theory is true, then there are no counter-examples to that theory. And since one cannot (willfully) find a counter-example that does not exist, then it is (willfully) impossible to find a counter-example to such a theory.

When interpreting sentences like (1) and (2) we should not be misled to interpret them as something along the lines of (1a) and (2a) but should (probably) interpret them as something like (1c) and (2c).

Consider the phrase in the title in this paragraph:

“each has a thumb, followed in order by four fingers: the index (or forefinger), the middle, the third, and the so-called little finger.” (Swartz, Beyond Experience, pp. 204-205)

What are the conditions for its correct use? (Correct use is how it is commonly used by fluent speakers of english.) It is funny that I, as a fluent speaker of english, asks this question since I can and do use the phrase correctly. It is often the case that we can use a word correctly without being consciously aware of the conditions of its use. Some people call this usage intuitive. One could speculate that the pattern mechanisms in the brain that makes it possible to use such phrases correctly do not share their information with the consciousness.

As for the above phrase, I propose a theory for its use: A necessary and sufficient condition for its use is that the speaker/writer considers the name mentioned after the phrase questionable in a broad sense. In relation to the example above, presumably Swartz thought when writing that paragraph that that name of the little finger is somehow questionable. Perhaps little finger is a slang name or was at the time that book was written and Swartz preferred the non-slang name. I have not found a counter-example to this theory yet.

“A speaker of the language should be able to pronounce correctly any sequence of letters that he may meet, even if they were previously unknown, and secondarily, to be able to spell any phonemic sequence, again even if previously unknown.” -Archibald A. Hill, distinguished U.S. linguist.

I have not been able to confirm the source. A google search reveals only two pages that mention the quote. Even if it is a misquote, is it still a good principle.

This essay on the german language is definitely worth reading. Especially if one has ever taken a german class as I recently have.

I found the text here. I made a nice pdf version Mark Twain, The Awful German Language.

I love when people use the phrase “Stop raping language!”. It’s a bloody inconsistent performative.

“In sharp contrast, men more than women tended to rate egoistic dominant acts as more socially desirable, including “Managing to get one’s own way,” “Flattering to get one’s own way,” “Complaining about having to do a favor for someone,” “Blaming others when things went wrong.” Men appear to regard more selfish dominant acts as more desirable, or less undesirable , than do women.” (David M. Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 1999, p. 353)

Notice how the author uses the phrase “less undesirable”. Does it serve a good purpose? That is the question I want to answer.

It seems to me that the author thought that in some cases it is correct to use “more desirable” and in other cases it is correct to use “less undesirable”. I imagine that the kind of cases where he thinks that the latter phrasing is correct are cases where both the things considered have a negative value.

To illustrate: Think of an infinitely long vertical line that is numbered every centimeter with increasing numbers upwards and decreasing numbers downwards. The numbers correspond to desirability. Now imagine two points, A and B, that represent two items and are on that line at two negative numbers, -2 and -5 respectively. Do we need to say “A is less undesirable than B” or can we do fine with “A is more desirable than B”? As far as I can tell the second phrase is fine. Recall the truth condition for the proposition: D(A)>D(B) where D(A) means the desirability of A. Is that condition met? Yes, because -2 is larger than -5. If so, then it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the sentence “A is more desirable than B”. It is not the case that the proposition implies that A is desirable. It neither implies that B is desirable. A thing is desirable iff the dot representing it has a positive value on the vertical line. Neither A or B are desirable, but A is more desirable than B. I see no problem with this wording.

So when do we need the other sentence, that is, “A is less undesirable than B”? Perhaps when we want to imply (not a logical implication but implicature [Wiki, SEP]) that both A and B are undesirable, that is, have a negative value. Perhaps the author above added the secondary phrase just in case some readers thought that A and B have negative values. This seems unnecessary to me. Worse, it lengthens the text which should be avoided.

Another use of the “less undesirable” phrase is that of intended confusion. It involves a double negative which is good for confusing matters. As a general principle double negatives should be avoided for the sake of clarity.

This essay on clarity is great and short. Read it.