Sure. You see what you want to see. Words are flexible like that. You can misrepresent my words and convince yourself that was specifically what I was trying to say. Go for it. :up: — apokrisis

:lol: How can I misrepresent your words if your use of words is not specific? It seems like that can only happen if you are specific with your use if words.

Words, as arbitrary symbols, have the potential to be flexible, but are not flexible when used properly because you mean something specific when you use them that I can misrepresent. If you didn't mean anything specific, then what would I be misrepresenting?

How can I misrepresent your words if your use of words is not specific? — Harry Hindu

But I was very specific in my use of the term "constraint" - defn: "something that controls what you do by keeping you within particular limits".

If your understanding of a constraint differs from this conventional usage, you would have to demonstrate the flexibility of semantics by adding some further constraint on my usage of the word, "constraint".

Early language was ideographic: consisting of logical signs for qualitative ideas; any emotional aspect or affect was considered evident in the human element of an exchange. Meaning is usage, and value is subjective.

Conceptual language developed later, enabling users to define their intended meaning to an extent without relying on the human element. Affect was increasingly incorporated into the language itself, often as a tool for manipulation, and ‘official’ or dictionary definitions became necessary to determine meaning from usage that often includes cultural perceptions of value or potential. Language took on a ‘life’ of its own, evolved in interaction with humanity, its meaning increasingly indeterminate and subjective. — Possibility

How do we know about early language and how it developed. It was my understanding that all languages which have been encountered, no matter how primitive the society, have fully developed grammars and vocabularies.

How do we know about early language and how it developed. It was my understanding that all languages which have been encountered, no matter how primitive the society, have fully developed grammars and vocabularies. — T Clark

It is in evidence of their early use that we see the development. There are ideographic systems of languages, such as Chinese or Japanese, and Egyptian hieroglyphs that developed from a stationary, visual and official means of communication, and there are alphabetical and phonetic systems that developed more from the oral or performative communications of nomadic peoples.

The differences between these traditions developed very different conceptual systems. The Chinese developed an extremely logical syntax and grammar system, while their ‘vocabulary’ was less structured, with the same character sometimes communicating seemingly contradictory concepts, depending on its relational position in the text. Modern Chinese has developed stand-alone concepts by grouping characters together, but in traditional Chinese each character represented a non-conceptualised idea or quality of experience. There was no verbs or objects.

Nomadic people, less accustomed to trusting the permanence of structure, developed their language system by relating a subject to objects and sounds through action. Affect, energy and action was always a part of their communication system - so when they eventually developed more permanent symbols and systems, the structure of subject-action-object was a natural fit.

It is in evidence of their early use that we see the development. There are ideographic systems of languages, such as Chinese or Japanese, and Egyptian hieroglyphs that developed from a stationary, visual and official means of communication, and there are alphabetical and phonetic systems that developed more from the oral or performative communications of nomadic peoples. — Possibility

You are talking about written language. There are, or at least were, societies without written language. It is my understanding those societies still had fully developed spoken languages. I don't think anyone knows when and how language first developed or whether earlier humans used language.

You are talking about written language. There are, or at least were, societies without written language. It is my understanding those societies still had fully developed spoken languages. I don't think anyone knows when and how language first developed or whether earlier humans used language. — T Clark

I agree - no-one knows, but we can speculate based on their relation to socio-cultural systems - patterns in the way they think about and correlate ideas, concepts and objects. Societies without written language have life, affect and emotion surrounding their spoken language, similar to the oral traditions of early Anglo-Saxon, Greek and Roman cultures. For them, meaning IS use, and there would have been no need to incorporate a complete meaning of a concept in the language itself (ie. vocabulary and grammar), because human affect is never absent.

So any ‘concept’ in a spoken-only language would be undefined, and its meaning determined by use. It is only in written language that the ‘definition’ or ‘meaning’ of a concept becomes important at all.

There are ideographic systems of languages, such as Chinese or Japanese, and Egyptian hieroglyphs that developed from a stationary, visual and official means of communication, and there are alphabetical and phonetic systems that developed more from the oral or performative communications of nomadic peoples. — Possibility

Are you relying on some source you can reference here?

My understanding was that writing arose in agrarian empires that had the need for records and which could afford a scribe class. This started off ideographic (or indexical) and naturally evolved towards the more purely symbolic (or alphabetical) with use.

Nomadic folk had oral cultures and little need to keep written records. So they wouldn't have originated any written language system, and only have employed the more generalised symbolism of art, decoration and dress.

My understanding was that writing arose in agrarian empires that had the need for records and which could afford a scribe class. This started off ideographic (or indexical) and naturally evolved towards the more purely symbolic (or alphabetical) with use.

Nomadic folk had oral cultures and little need to keep written records. So they wouldn't have originated any written language system, and only have employed the more generalised symbolism of art, decoration and dress. — apokrisis

I don’t think I’m contradicting anything you’ve said here. I certainly don’t disagree. Some agrarian systems were established from or heavily influenced by nomadic cultures, such as Hebrew and Arabic. So not all of them developed ideographic language, as you say - some of them developed more indexical language systems, pointing to objects/concepts in a performative or actionable structure, rather than the flow of ideas in a static structure.

So any ‘concept’ in a spoken-only language would be undefined, and its meaning determined by use. It is only in written language that the ‘definition’ or ‘meaning’ of a concept becomes important at all. — Possibility

Do you have a reference for your speculation? I'm skeptical. A little evidence would help.

Do you have a reference for your speculation? I'm skeptical. A little evidence would help. — T Clark

Yes, if I had evidence, it wouldn’t be speculation...

Definition: degree of distinctness. A statement of the exact meaning of a word.

It may be possible that the leader wherever a spoken-only language occurs might be able to state an exact meaning of a word-concept (I can’t see how else such a ‘definition’ would exist), but surely this would be difficult to enforce in terms of using the concept in everyday language, and would only exist so long as those speaking remember and respect the original statement, and have no need to modify the concept’s use.

Meaning is usage. — T Clark

When a language is spoken only, the complete meaning of a concept commonly involves human performance: the speaker’s identity and relationship to the listener, volume, vocal inflection, hand and body gestures, objects, etc. A concept’s full meaning would not be encapsulated in vocabulary or grammar, such that it could be determined without use.

Not sure what evidence you’re expecting...