It's expressed in the quote. It's unreasonable for you to expect me to do anything else here. How can I show you without expressing it? You're basically asking me to express it without expressing it, which is obviously an unreasonable request.
— S

Right, that's my point. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your point is that you're being unreasonable? We agree for once!

If you think that it is false that a rule can only exist as expressed in language, then the onus is on your to give evidence of this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Each of us have a burden, with respect to what each of us have claimed, unless I retract my stronger claim and revert to scepticism. Then it would just be on you.

Anyway, I'll think about and address your argument at a later time, as I'm just about to go out. :victory:

Your point is that you're being unreasonable? We agree for once! — S

Wow, your (dim) wit never ceases to amaze me. It would be unreasonable for me to expect you to do anything else. But that something else is what is required of you to support your claims. So it would be unreasonable for me to expect that you could support your claims. You seemed to recognize this as well, in which case we would have agreement.

With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication. — quoted in the OP, unattributed

The same way apes invented humans, agreed on their traits, and then started being them?


Why does the genesis of english seem this way to you? Most (all?) historical linguists would profoundly disagree (unless you're playing extremely fast and loose with 'invent', 'agree' etc.) Your account sounds a little bit like Rousseau's idea that the original humans must've been running around, on their own, until they got together and decided to have a society.

It seems counterproductive to try to come up with an ontology of meaning beginning with a speculative reconstruction that is disconnected from- and seemingly unconcerned with - research on what actually happened.

Odd. Who said that? MU? Anyhow, rules are retroactively inferred from language in use. The extent to which (generalized) linguistic rules are genetically inbuilt is a hot topic, but no-one thinks that humans "invented" language and then had a debate how to use it before employing it as a tool for communication because that's extreme cart-before-horseness.

Oops, fixed that, attributed now. It's from the OP and seems to be laid out there as a kind of foundation for the rest of the discussion.

Edit: Oh, tho I guess the OP itself quoted it, unattributed. So maybe I've incorrectly attributed it.

Just saw that, thanks. Sorry, @Metaphysician Undercover :scream:

Why does the genesis of english seem this way to you? Most (all?) historical linguists would profoundly disagree (unless you're playing extremely fast and loose with 'invent', 'agree' etc.) Your account sounds a little bit like Rousseau's idea that the original humans must've been running around, on their own, until they got together and decided to have a society. — csalisbury

What would you say the alternatives are to humans inventing languages and agreeing with each other on how to use them?

Question is addressed to S. I apologize, but I've no desire to engage in discussion with you.

And so the alternatives would be?

Here's a common definition of "invent," by the way: "create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of."

So if we didn't invent language--and specifically a language like English, then we didn't create it, we're not the originators of it. Who or what is?

Were you just getting at the notion that some homo sapiens ancestor species invented language?

It's trivially true that language originated in humans, but it was not "invented" as if there was some conscious effort at design involved. Language develops organically. The world's most recently developed language, Nicaraguan Sign Language, is a case in point. The route from creole to full language occurred through the children of parents who used the creole and added grammatical complexity spontaneously.

So the process there is something like rudimentary tools of communication being automatically transformed into a language, which allows for more advanced communication and from which rules are retroactively inferred and codification occurrs. The communication comes first then becomes more complex. And only at that point can you start to talk about a set of rules which defines how the language functions.

So, the quote

With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication — quoted in the OP, unattributed

is senseless from a linguistic point of view (and really from any point of view to the extent it implies people invented and debated rules with each other before using language as a tool for communication).

It's true we don't know for sure how quickly or gradually language developed (there are competing theories), but there does seem to be an in-built capacity that kicks in with children to the extent that they can unconsciously create complex linguistic form. It's important though to stress the lack of purposeful design / agreement.

It's trivially true that language originated in humans, but it was not "invented" as if there was some conscious effort at design involved. — Baden

Okay. Again, a common definition of "invent" is "create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of." The term doesn't necessary imply that there were board meetings about it. (So to speak.)

I already gave an example. The "so-called" rules of grammar. People can and do learn language and use it according to the rules (conventional syntactical practices) without ever being able to formulate them. They do this by imitation. You could learn to play chess by observant imitation; you would then be playing by the rules without having had to explicitly formulate them. If someone then asks you what the rules of chess are, you might be able to reflectively analyze the practice of chess and then explicate them.

Something I continually notice with you is that when you get into difficulty coming up with a cogent response, you then try to shift the argument and plead that your interlocutor's usage of some term or terms is not in accordance with your 'special' usage, This doesn't seem at all honest (at least to me) and is very annoying for your partners in conversation. I think it also limits your ability to develop your understanding, rather than repeating the same tired patterns of thought over and over, and focusing on justifying those at all costs rather than trying to learn anew. So, you might want to take a critical look at this tendency you have, because I can tell you it's no fun trying to carry on a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to be arguing with charity and in good faith in an honest search for clarity.

Why should I respond to a litany of empty tendentious assertions. If you produce an argument that addresses any of what I have written, I'll consider responding, otherwise I will ignore you. MU.

according to the rules (conventional syntactical practices) — Janus

So you use "rule" to just refer to a conventional practice?

You could have simply said that if so, no?

:grimace:

No idea what that would indicate.

Asperger's then?

It indicates that you have Asperger's? Why would you be telling me that all of a sudden instead of just answering the simple question I asked?

You're the one with no idea what an emoticon indicates; but by all means project away, and I'll leave you to it. :yawn:

You're the one with no idea what an emoticon indicates; — Janus

Right, especially when it was in lieu of answering a simple question. I was looking for an answer, not a deflection.

Sorry to be harsh,Terrapin, but it wasn't a deflection it was a rejection. I don't have the patience for persistently intellectually dishonest interlocutors.

It was a rejection of a question?

No, of your whole sophistry.

That's a lot to read into two simple questions.

If you produce an argument that addresses any of what I have written, I'll consider responding, otherwise I will ignore you. MU. — Janus

OK. I'll give it another go then.

For example, the so-called rules of grammar were operative long before anyone analyzed actual language usage and explicitly formulated them. — Janus

This is simply false. It may be the case, that people were using language in identifiable ways or patterns, prior to the formulation of "rules of grammar", but this in no way means that the rules of grammar were operative at this time. Language use is an habitual behaviour, and habits are not based in rules. That people can come along and formulate rules which reflect those habits, does not mean that the rules were operative as the cause of those habits. A habit is not necessarily formed by someone obeying a rule, so it is an invalid conclusion to say that habitual behaviour such as linguistic habits are cases of rules being operative. And your claim that the rules of grammar were operative before anyone formulated the rules of grammar is false.

Language is not merely an individual habit, but a collectively evolved and utilized system. Of course there are patterns of usage, but without those there would be no language. Those patterns are equivalent to rules; they reflect the communally shared ways of doing things with language which have become established by convention.

These communally shared ways of doing things with language are effectively rules, whether or not they are explicitly recognized as such. The 'chess' example I gave, where someone could learn to play chess, that is to follow its rules, by imitation, without actually explicitly formulating those rules shows the same thing. Rules of etiquette are another example of rules that can be acquired just by imitation without needing any explication.

If you want to pedantically say these examples are not 'really' rules; what could that "really" mean, when what I have outlined is in accordance with common usage of the term 'rule'? Rule-following, even when it is not made explicit, is ubiquitous in human communal life, and obviously necessary for that life, and that is really the point, whether this social phenomenon is called "rule-following" or not. Even animals do it.

So if we didn't invent language--and specifically a language like English, then we didn't create it, we're not the originators of it. Who or what is? — Terrapin Station

A Monolith. Haven't you seen the prelude to 2001: A Space Odyssey?

But seriously, csalisbury has a point. Why build a philosophical theory of language without consulting history to see whether there is evidence humans actually acquired language that way?

Is this ontology thing even the right way to think about this, or is there a better way? Perhaps making it more about language or categories? Is this just what is called a language game, or is there something more substantial to it? — S

Is your argument in the OP that ontology is confused because we need to be looking at language games instead to see what is going on when we categorize things?

If so, my response would that ontology remains relevant because there's lots of evidence in favor of reductive explanations and related patterns among various phenomenon. And that's why physics theorizes that four forces are all that's required for everything in the universe, and that ordinary matter is made up of particles that form atoms and molecules.

So there's good reason to think there is a basic stuff the universe consists of. Maybe it's fields, maybe it's particles and spacetime, maybes it's superstrings. Or maybe it's something we can only approximate. If you go back far enough, everything in the universe was part of tiny volume of space that inflated. It's not like rocks, stars and animals eternally populated the cosmos.

Is physics itself a language game? There is certainly agreed upon jargon. But the experiments themselves aren't linguistic. And those have forced scientists to revise their jargon and even replace it over time.

Atoms weren't a thing and then they were, and then they were composed of subatomic particles and light had particle properties, and all the odd QM and GR results. Also that it's heavily mathematical.

Is math a language game?

Language is not merely an individual habit, but a collectively evolved and utilized system. Of course there are patterns of usage, but without those there would be no language. Those patterns are equivalent to rules; they reflect the communally shared ways of doing things with language which have become established by convention. — Janus

As I said in my post that you rejected as "empty tendentious assertions", we can learn habits from others. This is not an empty assertion, it has been proven by observation. We copy the actions of others, it is one way of learning how to do things.

Also, a pattern is not equivalent to a rule. Patterns are described by rules, and there is a reason for a pattern. For instance, meteorologists study weather patterns, and assume reasons for the patterns, and describe the patterns with rules. But a pattern is not a rule, because a pattern is an observable arrangement of order, and a rule is the principle which the order conforms to. Do you apprehend this difference?

These communally shared ways of doing things with language are effectively rules, whether or not they are explicitly recognized as such. The 'chess' example I gave, where someone could learn to play chess, that is to follow its rules, by imitation, without actually explicitly formulating those rules shows the same thing. Rules of etiquette are another example of rules that can be acquired just by imitation without needing any explication. — Janus

Your example does not prove your point. That a person could imitate another who is following a rule, and therefore act as if following the same rule, does not prove that when a person imitates another, that person is following a rule. Imitation is just a matter of repeating what has been observed, it is not a matter of following a rule.

If you want to pedantically say these examples are not 'really' rules; what could that "really" mean, when what I have outlined is in accordance with common usage of the term 'rule'? — Janus

I do not think that what you have said actually is in accordance with common usage of "rule". A rule is a principle, so to learn a rule is to learn a principle. When one person imitates another, that person is copying. To copy another is not to learn the rule, we learn this in grade school. That's why copying is not allowed. We must each learn the rules, the principles involved in what we are being taught, and copying from another does not qualify as learning the rule.

Rule-following, even when it is not made explicit, is ubiquitous in human communal life, and obviously necessary for that life, and that is really the point, whether this social phenomenon is called "rule-following" or not. Even animals do it. — Janus

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that there is an activity which most people would not call "rule-following" because they do not consider it to actually be rule-following, but it really is rule-following according to your superior knowledge of what rule-following really is? I think you're wrong, imitating and copying each other is not "rule-following". So I'll repeat my tendentious assertion. You need to learn that there is a distinction to be made between activities which are habitual, and activities which are instances of following a rule.

According to normal usage conventionally established patterns of behavior are rules. Think of the road rule: drive on the left hand side of the road (in Australia). If one consistently drives on the left hand side of the road merely on account of following what everyone else does; that is following a rule. Standing in queues is another example.

I have shown that rules are prior to, are not dependent on, and also underpin language. The point of your claim that an unformulated rule is not a rule is apparently to support a further claim that "rules are created by language". This is nonsense, since rules are created by people not by language, and even animals have rules and hierarchies that determine customary behaviors. Language itself is a customary behavior. Whether you call these pre-linguistic customary behaviors "rules" or not doesn't change the fact that they exist and determine linguistic, as well as moral, behavior.