So, to finish out my thoughts from yesterday, I don't think semantics is a field I want to explore further, at least not as a specialty. I kept wanting the "so what?" answered, and no one really seemed interested in that question. The logic class wanted to pin language down as a machine. You put this (x) in, you'll get this (y) out. While admitting that this hasn't been accomplished, I don't really know why people would think you could do that to language. Even the human "machine" doesn't always act like it's supposed to . . . because it's not a machine! I don't think language is, either.
I think the classes I'll be taking in the regular session will have some more practical applications, though. And I don't mean to be saying that I dislike the exploration of theory. I just like to know the "so what?" And I know that semantics can be useful and helpful, but just trying to break down words into component, isolated meanings for the sake of breaking them down, doesn't appeal to me. I suppose the object then is to build them back up into a language, supposedly superior to natural language? And I think "natural language" is another technical term I don't know.
Can you tell I'm barely able to swim through this stuff?
This morning for breakfast, I had a little bit of raisin bran (which made me think of Uncle Jim), which I mixed with granola and a few cocoa puffs for flavor. The mixing of the cereals made me think of Aunt Melinda, Aunt Susan, Mom, and Grandma, who all taught me how to mix my cereals. So, it was like I got to have breakfast with my family! :) If only they had Daddy's bread to toast, I could eat with him, too.
Yipe! now it's time for lunch. It's weird when you have a closed window of time to get your food. Maybe being on a schedule will be good for me. :)
Happy 4th, everyone! Neills, blow something up for me. Thanks. Grace, you can send off some firecrackers for me, too. I hope the Owens, Jr. family time with the Owens, Sr. family is blessed. I'm sorry I can't be there to meet everyone. Love y'all!
3 comments:
All,
Please do not be deceived by your inability to understand what I'm saying. It merely reflects the fact that I don't know what I'm saying.
That is all.
Well, the funny thing is that you seem to have the very similar criticisms of semantics to the ones I did.
The people who have tried to make this superior logical language failed utterly--it was called LogLan (for logical language) and consisted of using a lot of parenthesis that you would pronounce ( would be 'gif' and its ) counterpart would be 'gaf, but another set within those could be 'bif' and 'baf', etc. Essentially, it's not usable as language because we don't think that way and saying it aloud only confused people.
The use of semantics looks much more like how people actually talk once you get into pragmatics, which, depending on who you talk to, is either part of the same field or a separate one.
And, then, I agree. You're telling people things that they either do but deny doing because of other, more complicated cases you didn't mention, or that they deny because they speak a slightly different dialect of English, or that they admit doing freely. And, in any of these three cases, so what?
But I don't mean to rant OVERmuch. And it's still useful to understand it--lots of times, the semantic framework is used to descripe various morphological or syntactic processes, and so you'd need to know how to use it.
Anyways. Enjoy!
thanks for writing on here - it makes you seem less far away :-)
Post a Comment