Respect goes both ways!

[Larry Trask]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

> From: ECOLING at aol.com
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:15:36 EDT

[LT]

>> So: is the English of 1998 "the same language" as the English of 1997?
>> If you answered "yes" the first time, you must answer "yes" now.

> No, that does not follow.  The relation is not transitive.

> I am sure the correspondent knows perfectly well it is not transitive.
> So why bring up this kind of an example and act as if the persons
> being criticized believed the relation is transitive?

I am completely mystified.  The relation "is the same as" is unquestionably
transitive.  That is, if it is true that X is the same as Y, and also true that
Y is the same as Z, then it must be true that X is the same as Z.  There is no
way round this, and I cannot understand why anyone should dispute it.

However, the point under discussion has nothing to do with transitivity.
Obviously, if it is true that X is the same as Y, then it does not follow, by
transitivity or by anything else, that Y is the same as Z.  This is not a valid
conclusion.

But my point is otherwise.  I'm talking about the following two propositions:

(a) English 1999 = English 1998
(b) English 1998 = English 1997

Now, if you agree that (a) is true, it does not *logically* follow that (b)
must be true.  However, given the nature of these statements, I can see no
rational basis for accepting the truth of (a) while rejecting the truth of (b).
Anyone who accepts (a) but rejects (b) must apparently agree that there was
some kind of dramatic discontinuity in English at the end of 1997, but not at
the end of 1998.  And this position I can't fathom at all.

[LT]

>> But you can see where this leading.  If the answer is "yes", then, by
>> transitivity, the English of 1999 is "the same language" as the English
>> of King Alfred the Great 1000 years ago.  Are you happy with this?  The
>> two varieties are not at all mutually comprehensible, since the changes
>> in 1000 years have been dramatic.

> And therefore,
> since the correspondent knows I would not want to answer yes
> (it is the most elementarily obvious conclusion from what I have written
> previously) it is obvious that the relation I used the definition of
> is not transitive, the correspondent has proven that.
> Isn't that interesting!

Well, I don't know if it's interesting or not, but I certainly can't regard it
as coherent.  As far as I am concerned, "is the same language as" is beyond
question a transitive relation, and there is nothing to discuss.

> The definition I made explicit was not a transitive definition
> (which goes unremarked by the correspondent).
> What an odd coincidence!
> Surely I could not have been careful
> enough to think this through in advance?
> Nor knowledgeable enough to know this in advance?
> Must be a coincidence.

Perhaps you could just explain how, in your view, "is the same language as" can
be other than transitive?

> The correspondent here is using a different definition,

A different definition of what?

> and just incidentally, it seems to be a definition of "language"
> more used by the man-on-the-street (i.e. a political-cultural definition).
> I believe earlier discussions were explicit that this was more
> the man-on-the-street's definition.

And I disagree absolutely.  I can only suggest that you stop a few people in
the street, ask them what they understand by 'language', and then report back
to us.

In my experience, the man in the street believes that there's a language called
'Indian' spoken by native Americans, that there's a language called 'Belgian'
in Belgium, that there's a language called 'Chinese' spoken by everybody in
China, that everybody speaks English with an accent except him and his friends,
and very often that they speak Latin in Latin America.

> I have not previously accused the correpondent of being an ignorant
> layman, though that is apparently what the correspondent is accusing
> me and Steve Long of being (in more than one way).

Hardly.  I merely fail to agree with the statements made above, and with other
statements made in other postings.

By the way, I do have a name, and I don't mind when people use it. ;-)

> The correspondent seems simply unwilling to face the fact that
> one particular technical definition of
> what makes two dialects distinct languages,
> a definition used by some professional linguists
> (and part of the definition used by almost all),
> carries with it a paradoxical answer that yes,
> what Steve Long said is in principle possible,
> a language and a descendant distinct language can co-exist.

Lloyd has already mailed me privately about this, and I have replied privately.
If anyone is interested, I can post the relevant part to this list.

> Inconvenient, perhaps, but a consequence of that technical definition.
> Not my technical definition,
> rather one used by many professional linguists
> when using "same language" in an ideal sense,
> not colored by political or cultural preferences of users.

Sorry, but I don't think this is a reasonable description of the approach of
linguists.  Among other things, I don't think linguists recognize an "ideal
sense" of the terms 'language' or 'same language', and I don't think we
commonly ignore the political and cultural preferences of users.

> And, just perhaps, co-operativeness would dictate that one should
> propose another more easily operationalized definition.

But my point was that there *is* and *can be* no "easily operationalized
definition".  Languages are simply not discrete entities, and that is that.

[LT]

>> I think that Steve
>> and Lloyd are both gravely wrong on certain fundamental points.

> Notice the magisterial tone, "fundamental points",
> unspecified even in what follows, like the Joe McCarthy hit list,
> very much like the words "fundamentally flawed"
> which have become a code among academics in reviewing books
> for "worthless, unprofessional, do not read that author".

Lloyd, this is absolutely unreasonable.  I have spelled out at some length the
fundamental points on which I was taking issue.

> I think the correspondent knows perfectly well
> I have not made that error.
> In which case I believe what he said is slanderous or libelous
> (take your pick, email is a strange being).

Well, under the draconian British libel laws, it would surely be libel.
See Geoff Pullum's essay on the subject in NLLT in 1985 and reprinted in his
book The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax.

However, I don't plead guilty to either libel or slander, but only to
disagreeing with you on a number of fundamental issues.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk