The Indus script (also known as the Harappan script) is a corpus of symbols produced by the Indus Valley Civilisation during the Kot Diji and Mature Harappan periods between 3500 and 1900 BCE. Most inscriptions containing these symbols are extremely short, making it difficult to judge whether or not these symbols constituted a script used to record a language, or even symbolise a writing system.[4] In spite of many attempts,[5] ‘the script’ has not yet been deciphered, but efforts are ongoing. There is no known bilingual inscription to help decipher the script, and the script shows no significant changes over time. However, some of the syntax (if that is what it may be termed) varies depending upon location.[4] Indus Script was also present in South India. In Sembiyankandiyur a stone axe was found containing Indus symbols. In 2014, a cave in Kerala was discovered with 19 pictograph symbols containing Indus writing.[6]
So asking if the meaning was lost when its culture disappeared or is somehow still contained in the stone tablet, waiting to be released again, is ambiguous. It's either, depending on how you're using the word "meaning". — jamalrob
...we can still say that meaning is always at least originally bound up in a context of social practices, or, if you prefer, is always at least originally located in individual minds. Which means that the question isn't an enlightening one, in that it doesn't do much to resolve that debate.
Or am I missing the issue? — jamalrob
I take you to mean an ancient text in an unknown language that is as yet undeciphered. — jamalrob
In English, nouns are persons, places, or things... — creativesoul
Of course not! The two are not one in the same. The ancient text no longer has users. Current texts do. Current texts are still used, and that is precisely what grounds the certainty of answering in the affirmative when asked "Can the meaning of any text persist through time?" — creativesoul
What does it mean for a text to have users? — Fooloso4
The user of a text may not be the same thing as a reader of the text.
There may be, on the other hand, texts that have been lost and thus not read or "used" for thousands of years. If such a text were found it might be of great interest depending on the author or time at which it was written. It might prove to be extremely useful to those with an interest since it fills in gaps or gives a new perspective on the subject. — Fooloso4
So, what you are asking is whether a text has meaning if no one understands the language?
If so, then I would say yes. It may be that the language can be recovered. It has happened before. Once the language is understood the meaning can be discovered. — Fooloso4
If such a text were found it might be of great interest depending on the author or time at which it was written. — Fooloso4
What needs to be definitively determined is what it takes for the meaning of this text in this language to persist through time. What is it that is persisting? To answer "the meaning" is not at all helpful. For starters, the written aspect of the language persists. That holds good for the ancient text as well. Secondly, the use of the language. That does not hold good for the ancient text. So, the question then becomes...
Is the meaning of written text existentially dependent upon it's use? — creativesoul
Understanding the language is knowing the meaning. One cannot understand the language a text is written in unless one knows what the marks mean. Knowing what the marks mean IS understanding the language... — creativesoul
How can an ancient text from a long dead people be of great interest depending upon the time or author, when in order to know what the time was or who the author was, the text would have to be already understood, and the text itself would have to state the time and author in the language of the text. — creativesoul
If so, then I would say yes. It may be that the language can be recovered. It has happened before. Once the language is understood the meaning can be discovered.
— Fooloso4
Understanding the language is knowing the meaning. One cannot understand the language a text is written in unless one knows what the marks mean. Knowing what the marks mean IS understanding the language... — creativesoul
Do you imagine that this is not so obvious that you have to state it? — Fooloso4
The meaning of a text is not dependent upon anyone at time T actually understanding the language...
There was a great deal of interest in ancient Egypt long before hieroglyphics were successfully deciphered in 1822 after centuries of attempts: [url=http://]http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/writing/rosetta.html[/url]
There are other ancient languages that have yet to be deciphered but there is interest in doing so: [url=http://]https://www.livescience.com/59851-ancient-languages-not-yet-deciphered.htm[/url]l; [url=http://]https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/6-lost-languages-and-scripts-that-have-not-yet-been-deciphered/[/url]; — Fooloso4
The point I'm making is that it is impossible to understand the language without knowing the meaning and vice-versa. — creativesoul
You've drawn a distinction between the two, and there is no difference to be had. — creativesoul
That presupposes precisely what's at issue here. Do you not see that? Whether or not the meaning of a language is existentially dependent upon it's language users is precisely what needs argued for. — creativesoul
There are innumerable people throughout written history who claim to have deciphered some ancient text or another. I'm not denying that many people, most I would say, think/believe that it is possible to decipher an ancient text from a long dead civilization.
I'm refuting that thought/belief. — creativesoul
In order to even be able to do that, the meaning of the text would have to be able to persist through time, despite the fact of it's users all having long since perished. — creativesoul
Here's a question...
Upon what ground does one claim to have deciphered an ancient language into our own? — creativesoul
I mean, even when we have a case of two well-known languages, it is often the case that the meaning of certain expressions in one language are quite simply incapable of being accurately translated into the other language. — creativesoul
If you know English you do not automatically know the meaning of a particular text written in English. In fact, there may be various interpretations of its meaning. A string of words may or may not have a meaning. Then again, one might impose a meaning on a random string of words.
The point I'm making is that it is impossible to understand the language without knowing the meaning and vice-versa.
— creativesoul
What is the meaning of English? If you know English you can, but may not, understand something written in English but this is not knowing the meaning of English. It is only what is spoken or written in English that has meaning.
You've drawn a distinction between the two, and there is no difference to be had.
— creativesoul
See above. — Fooloso4
You seem to be confusing meaning and knowledge of the meaning. — Fooloso4
To the extent it is possible to understand the meaning of an ancient text that meaning must exist.... — Fooloso4
In order to even be able to do that, the meaning of the text would have to be able to persist through time, despite the fact of it's users all having long since perished.
— creativesoul
And that is exactly the case. That is why I pointed it out. — Fooloso4
What is all linguistic meaning existentially dependent upon? Does that answer hold good for the ancient text? Does it have what it takes? That us the general approach here. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.