I've given the matter of language acquisition and animal communicatiom some thought but, luckily or not, I lack the wherewithal to conduct a proper investigation into it. — TheMadFool

I was thinking about it, and I feel they communicate with what looks like emotional language. They definitely do communicate, but their language is not obvious, regular, versatile than humans. Even if a few uttered barks and meows or glares and wagging the tails - not sure if these can be classed as language as such. I think not. But still there seems some form of communication going on in the animals world.

I'll say this though, children acquire language in ways that seem rather mysterious. The sound "ma" and "mama" seem to be hardwired into our brains. At other times, we need to teach children words. — TheMadFool

I think they pick up language as they grow up up to a certain level. But above that point, for writing skills, grammar and the foreign languages, they must learn and be taught.

But getting back to Wittgenstein, I feel that language cannot exist itself. It works together with the real world situations and the users psychology. I agree with Quine in that regard.

So those symbolic logic statements AND OR cannot represent much on the language of the real world. If you read Wittgenstein's language game and family resemblance, it is really a simple story. No need to bring in AND OR stuff to explain it.

Cheers.

The contents of this thread has little to do with Wittgenstein. It's wrong-headed. Mad has not tried to understand, but instead is content to make shite up to suit himself. Might be best to leave the topic rather than engage with this muddle.

It is a bit of an experiment in dogmatism. What happens when some one doesn't participate in the observation of a prescribed set. I'm not suggesting this is the best way to examine it, but it carries a novelty of the primary participant selecting a label of thought and then proceeding to huff gas fumes as a method of translation. A type of naive found art.

A type of naive found art. — Cheshire

There are folk who look at a Picaso and say "I could draw that".

Picaso painted like a Master while still a child, transcending that ability as he grew. Those who think his art childish have misunderstood.

Madfool has seen a Picaso and thinks he has the capacity to critique it, without doing the work of understanding the background and implications. What he is doing is not clever; it's naive. Foolish.

It's not the fact of his critique that is objectionable. It's his insistence that he has understood what he clearly has not, his unwillingness to understand his error.

He chooses not to learn.

Now all that is entirely up to him. But at the same time as he has actively sort my engagement, he has refused to pay attention to my replies.

Hence, there is nothing in this thread that might be of interest to me.

True. Had he understood AND rejected it then maybe we'd have something. But, misunderstanding it and accepting what it does not in Mad-Hatter type contract leaves just a trail of ..

I was thinking about it, and I feel they communicate with what looks like emotional language. They definitely do communicate, but their language is not obvious, regular, versatile than humans. Even if a few uttered barks and meows or glares and wagging the tails - not sure if these can be classed as language as such. I think not. But still there seems some form of communication going on in the animals world. — Corvus

Thanks for bringing up the issue of animal language. Come to think of it, Wittgenstein is more than just relevant here, he's super-relevant ( :grin: ). Animal vocabulary is limited e.g. dogs can only growl, whimper, and howl. If they wish to communicate complex information, the same "word" (growl/whimper/howl) would have multiple meanings and disambiguation would be achieved contextually. This is more about polysemy than family resemblance but the two are close cousins, a kinship that might prove useful to the concept of language games. I'm not sure how exactly.

I think they pick up language as they grow up up to a certain level. But above that point, for writing skills, grammar and the foreign languages, they must learn and be taught. — Corvus

Coming to children and language, I noticed from being around infants and toddlers that most of the words they know are based off of ostensive definitions e.g. my 3 year old nephew (S) can point to a toy car and say "car" but there's also abstract thinking involved because he points to all toy vehicles (cars, trucks, pickups, trailers) and identifies them as cars (intensional definition) which is correct usage of the word "car" in a certain sense.

What do I mean by "...in a certain sense"? Well, this: S is focusing on similarities rather than differences - that's why a toy car, a toy truck, a toy pickup, are all cars for fae. In other words, S is looking for patterns and differences mess up patterns, they break them as it were. Had my nephew S (fae's very cute :love: ) instead looked for differences, or is attuned to distinctions, fae wouldn't have used the word "car" for all 4-wheeled toys.

What does this have to do with Wittgenstein? Simply this: Our attention is asymmetrical vis-à-vis similarities/differences i.e. similarities matter more than differences because with the former, we have a pattern (4 wheels or thereabouts for S) and patterns, knowledge about them, are/is mighty useful I hear. Thus, once a word is defined, say "chair" (4 legs, back, seat) it provides the seed for a pattern. You see a sofa, it has a seat, you think chair. You see a spinny, it has a seat, you think chair. Basically, you're focusing on what's common (similarities) and ignoring the dissimilarities - we're looking for a pattern! There is a pattern and your mind latches onto it. Hey presto!, we have on our hands Wittgenstein's family resemblance.

The contents of this thread has little to do with Wittgenstein. It's wrong-headed. Mad has not tried to understand, but instead is content to make shite up to suit himself. Might be best to leave the topic rather than engage with this muddle. — Banno

That sucks! For me that is.

Anyhow, what about my explanation for the family resemblance phenomenon is "wrong-headed"? What's your take on it? Why do you think family resemblance exists?

There are folk who look at a Picaso and say "I could draw that".

Picaso painted like a Master while still a child, transcending that ability as he grew. Those who think his art childish have misunderstood.

Madfool has seen a Picaso and thinks he has the capacity to critique it, without doing the work of understanding the background and implications. What he is doing is not clever; it's naive. Foolish.

It's not the fact of his critique that is objectionable. It's his insistence that he has understood what he clearly has not, his unwillingness to understand his error.

He chooses not to learn.

Now all that is entirely up to him. But at the same time as he has actively sort my engagement, he has refused to pay attention to my replies.

Hence, there is nothing in this thread that might be of interest to me. — Banno

Hey! I have feelings, you know!

By the way, please go through my reply to Corvus above!