The Chinese Diplomat's "the" (3)

[Alexander Gross]

Thanks for your latest message, Steve, and for the Peter Master article,
which i enjoyed.  Though since i am among other things a translator, i can't
help wondering how it would translate into Russian or Chinese.  I think over
time we will reach a meeting of the minds over whatever issues may seem to
divide us.

I also pulled down my heavy Liddell & Scott, and i wonder if the
medical-pharmacological meaning could be the missing link between classical
_chrio_ & christian _christos_.  Speaking as a former state-accredited
practictioner of humoral medicine, the kind Hippocrates & Galen practiced,
the act of rubbing a medicine onto & into someone's flesh is in fact
intended to alter their physical & emotional reality, so it wouldn't be an
enormous stretch to imagine that such an act could identify or legitimize a
religious leader, even a "saviour."

We have all kinds of ads surrounding us with claims that swallowing a pill
can alter our state of being, though some cultures still prefer herbs or
fire or needles or even suppositories to do the trick.  So why wouldn't
rubbing in a bit of aromatic herbal oil also impart wisdom and leadership?

very best to all!

alex

----- Original Message -----
From: <Salinas17 at aol.com>
To: <FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Re: The Chinese Diplomat's "the" (3)


> In a message dated 8/30/04 4:37:17 PM, language at sprynet.com writes:
> << Contrary to Steve's fantasies that all language can be broken down to
Roger
>
> Schank-like scenarios involving dialogues with car valets, both grammar
and
>
> accent really do matter in most languages. >>
>
> Well, obviously a problem with my scenario would be that it gave Alex the
> impression that I was saying grammar and accent don't matter.
>
> (Reminded me of one of the more memorable Roger Schank lines: "People
don't
> remember what you say. They remember what they say.")
>
> One of my points was that there are actually two different kinds of "bad
> grammar."  There's one kind that makes my speech incomprehensible to
listeners.
> There's another kind that sounds wrong "grammatically" but is nevertheless
> understandable by listeners.
> (Time for more scenarios.)
>
> A child recently told me that he "waked up in the morning..."  I corrected
> him but understood what he was saying.  That's bad grammar that doesn't
directly
> interfere with communication, except to the extent that it distracts or
> affects the willingness of the listener to listen.
>
> However, the Chinese diplomat scenario appears to teach us that whether
> grammar is faulty can often depend on non-linguistic factors (i.e.,
whether the
> embassy owns many cars or just one car -- ie, "get a car" or "get the
car").
> Some sociolinguists have had a habit of calling these non-linguistic
factors
> "context", in the sense of surrounding circumstances.  But the fact is
they are
> the core reason we are speaking in the first place.  If our diplomat has
no
> interest in cars, he should logically have nothing to say and the correct
article
> and other grammar problems do not arise.
>
> What Rob originally wrote was: "At any rate, the performance of the best
> [computer] models is getting close to that of humans at guessing which
article
> will be used in a given context."
>
> What I was challenging in that statement was how a computer could know
> "context" -- the non-linguistic ingredients in the soup.  From what I can
tell, the
> computer thinks "get the car" is more likely than "get a car" because "get
the
> car" or something like it has been more likely in the past.  This is not
> "context" in the sense of reference, which involves non-linguistic
factors.  It's
> "context" in the sense of word sequence and adjacency history and
contraints
> on sentence structure.  That's an important difference in terminology and
one I
> thought worth mentioning.  It seems to confuse the computer generated
> language issues a lot.
>
> Particularly because "a car" versus "the car" is NOT always a matter that
can
> be solved without looking outside language and in the real world.  The
> parking valet teaches us that.  A machine cannot solve that problem on its
own.  It
> just doesn't know whether " a car" or "the car" is correct in that
> circumstance.  It doesn't know whether the diplomat should choose one or
the other.  And
> of course we can't say which is correct unless we also have such
knowledge.
>
> Alex also writes:
> <<... just as i am concerned with ...breaking through to describing how
> language actually works. >>
>
> Let me suggest a place to start.  A friend recently received a phone
message
> from a colleague with a strong Southern accent.  She and I could make out
at
> best five words out of two dozen.  We're all competent native English
speakers,
> but the message to us was incomprehensible.  That's an example of when
> language "actually doesn't work" though it should.  Let me suggest that
explaining
> why it didn't work might go a long way towards explaining how it works,
when it
> does work.
>
> BTW, there's a humorous piece on the web about "the THE" by Peter Master
at:
> http://aaal.lang.uiuc.edu/letter/23.2/theology.html
>
> Regards,
> Steve Long