The Chinese Diplomat's "the" (4)

[Alexander Gross]

>  Maybe some things are just not translateable across time, even in
languages
>  we still know well.  And maybe that suggests how vital experience -- real
>  world context -- is to how language actually works.

Good, Steve, we agree on something.  I would only add that some things are
just not translatable even today between two existing cultures.  Or even
between two people in the same room speaking essentially the same form of
the same language.

Take as just one possible example among thousands the following simple
sentence:

"Put it in."

This sentence most definitely requires translation even between two members
of the same linguistics department, or it might well cause an explosion.  It
could  mean:

Include something...

Provide or install something...

Spend or pass time in or at something...

Insert a key...

Place something in the oven...

Introduce the arming device for a bomb...

Or just to make this subject a bit more interesting:

Initiate sexual intercourse.

And lots of other meanings besides--anaphora may be far too meager a term to
describe what is going on here, like so many other "terms" in our field.
"Image schemas" don't really come close. And even "linguistic relativity"
may fall short.

I can quite easily provide vast numbers of other such examples.  Simply go
to my website and download my ancient, pre-windows computer program "The
Glorious Verb 'TO PUT.'" Just click under Free Downloads on my website at:

http://language.home.sprynet.com

I think you'll find it presents more than enough problems to short-circuit
the whole Schank-Lenat scenario-CYC dreamwalker's approach to NLP.

Any & all of these examples require loads of context and/or mutual
understanding to make sense of the sentence.  Or a truly competent
translator.  And any or all of them would require different translations
into a foreign language.

Much effort in what we call "communicating" gets devoted to making sure we
have the context right.  One could almost say:

  communication = disambiguation,

on the assumption that the message is ambiguous to begin with.

If there seems to be a missing middle here, there isn't.  From a functional
point of view translating between two languages isn't all that different
from explaining or paraphrasing something in a single tongue.  In some ways
translation can be seen as a form of paraphrasing between two different
idioms.

very best,

alex

ps--the program comes as a zip file. unzip it into a single directory and go
to Windows/Run.  From there find your directory and run the file to_put.exe.
make sure you read the file to_put.doc as well, along with the docs inside
the program.


----- Original Message -----
From: <Salinas17 at aol.com>
To: <FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Re: The Chinese Diplomat's "the" (4)


In a message dated 9/1/04 7:55:32 PM, language at sprynet.com writes:
<< 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_. >>

One of the curious and I think not adequately explained things in the
Mycenaean Linear B tablets is the great emphasis placed on "perfumed oil."
“The
amount of space at Pylos devoted to the manufacture and storage of perfumed
oil,
and the role of palace administrators in collecting and allocating raw
material to perfumers, indicate the importance of the industry”
(Shelmerdine, 1985).
The usual interpretation is that this was a vanity item, but then why should
it get more emphasis and distribution than regular or fancy textiles or
clothes, for example?

Perhaps this supports your idea that we don't have a real picture of how the
chrio word worked in ancient times -- what it actually meant.  Maybe some
things are just not translateable across time, even in languages we still
know
well.  And maybe that suggests how vital experience -- real world context --
is
to how language actually works.

Regards,
Steve Long