Dear Rich, (01)
This is a valid point I think. (02)
I assume that by "compression" here you mean "abbreviation." "Compression" is
only effective if it is unambiguous - so in language design it is important to
be able to formally transform the short form into an unambiguous form. (03)
Regards,
Steven (04)
On Feb 23, 2013, at 1:39 PM, "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
> Since the primary topic of this forum is ontology, I found a very relevant
>quote from Simon Spero’s link to SWH in Wikipedia:
>
> The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do
>not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary,
>the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be
>organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our
>minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances
>as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in
>this way—an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is
>codified in the patterns of our language.
>
> This seems related to the “engineering language” phenomenon noted by Steven
>Ericsson-Zenith regarding such languages as Lisp and C, and how their user
>communities differ.
>
> So the proper conclusion, IMHO, is that the “categories and types” that Sapir
>noted as “staring each observer in the face” are subjected to the compression
>effects of each language as practiced. C emphasizes the procedural, but in
>fact any declarative structure in Lisp can also be represented in C, though
>less compactly. So in C it is easier, and more compressed, to write
>procedural code, while Lisp offers a more compact representation of
>declarations, and a somewhat foggier representation of procedures.
>
> I suppose that early peoples would have placed a high value on compression of
>language, since speech during a hunt would have risked losing the hunted
>critter. The emphasis of compressed structures would have had evolutionary
>value, and hence would have affected the way we descended from the most
>cost-effective speakers rather than from the more prosaically inclined.
>
> Personally, I prefer Delphi and Lisp to most others, such as Prolog or COBOL
>or FORTRAN. The elegance of my preferred two is what draws me; either Delphi
>(with its elaborate component set) or Lisp (with its flowery expressiveness)
>can support elegant programming.
>
> Elegant programming can support discussions of the correctness of the program
>among programmers more easily than obfuscated programs in inelegant languages.
> Since this form of language is important to us in modern usage, more
>important than the deeper compression I suspect early peoples used, I prefer
>it.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:25 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/#Who
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (07)
|