Re: SCWC 32: Discussion: IMPLEMENT

On Jun 11, 8:10 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:06:42 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"

<gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The word "rule" has two utterly different uses. You simply
cannot conflate the two.

That's a bit cryptic! "Rule" has only one meaning to me
- with, of course, many variants. This is borne out by
the fact that Chambers has only one headword for it (it
seems to have come from Latin, via Old French).

I did not say there are two different words. (Like "ear" and "ear.") I
said it has two utterly different uses (within the context of
discussions of grammar).

One is the utterly illegitimate one, invented by applying "logic" or
Latin to English, such as "don't split infinitives" or "don't use
double negatives."

The other refers to the procedures that model, or conceivably actually
represent, what goes on in the brain of a speaking person.

Which two of the many shades of meaning are you concerned
to distinguish? I imagine you mean: (1) "rule" as in "as
a rule", i.e. generally, usually; versus (2) "rule" as in
"obey the rules!" But that's only a guess.

Nope. Not even close.

In this scientistic age, when what is merely statistically
"normal" has taken on a definitely prescriptive flavour (in
default of any other source of authority), the descriptive
and the prescriptive cannot be kept as far apart as you
might like to do. I even think that freedom often lies
in the paradoxical direction of trying to resurrect the
prescriptive (even though I'm not conventionally religious,
and definitely not politically conservative).

(***, I could definitely develop a taste for becoming an
Internet kook, that is if I'm not one already!)

Language "rules" are nothing like chess rules, since chess rules are
the products of deliberate human choices, but virtually nothing about
language can be changed deliberately.

I acknowledged this. But from the fact that there are
significant differences between two things it doesn't
follow that there aren't also significant similarities.

(Spelling doesn't count; written
language is rare and secondary.)

Apropos of which, I've got two books by Roy Harris that I
must get around to reading. :-)

I would say, don't bother.

(One's called /Rethinking Writing/, and I think the other
is called /The Origin of Writing/, but I haven't catalogued
it yet.)

And nowhere in any of his half-dozen (at least) books on writing will
you find a definition of what he's talking about. He loves to
castigate others' definitions of "writing" but has never offered one
of his own.

Plus, he's a nasty SOB. Couldn't keep his job at Oxford, then couldn't
keep his job at Hong Kong (this was well before 1997).

Even mathematics changes. Standards of logical rigour
have evolved, and will presumably continue to evolve.
There is still all the difference in the world between
a valid argument and an invalid one.

You wander farther and farther from the point.

It's a bad trait of mine, and I struggle to keep it in check.

I'm very concise and lucid when I write mathematics, but I'm
all over the place when I try to use English. (I mostly shut
up.)

Never mind mathematics - I was going to bring ethics into it
as well! This prescriptive/descriptive issue is hard for
/anybody/ to keep in check.

Anyway, I definitely feel that the rules of a language are to
some extent prescriptive, not merely descriptive.

That's because you haven't grasped that "the rules" are two quite
different things. The prescriptive ones (which aren't worth the paper
they're printed on) and the descriptive ones (which are subject to
modification as the data improve).

I have a
sort of George Orwell view of the thing. (Must get around to
reading him again, as well. At least I /have/ read him once
or twice.) ... OK, OK, don't let the rats eat my face! I love
Big Brother, I'm sorry, I mean Big Brother is doubleplusgood.

(And yes I know I'm wandering from the point again, but I do
sort of enjoy doing it, and I think/hope it even has a kind
of point of its own - and if not, I'm ready to learn when
I'm being a little crazy, and go back to my default state
of not saying a word.)

Yes, the split-infinitive "rule" is based on nothing more than the
fact that it can't be done in Latin.

Thanks for confirming this, and I'm glad we agree that it
is really silly. I still feel a bit guilty and fearful
every time I split an infinitive, as if it should only
be done between consenting adults in private.

Read Fowler.

The use of the word "evolution" may even suggest some
quite far-reaching analogy with genetics (about which
I know even less than about linguistics, so I'll shut
up now).

That doesn't actually work, since languages influence each other far
more than organisms' genetic makeups influence each other.

I'm not sure about that, as competition is so much a part
of evolution by natural selection; but I won't pursue it,
at least not until I have got round to reading all those
books by Dawkins that I've got sitting around, unopened.

(Sorry, that was a bloody lecture! But feelings run
deep on this subject.)

You're welcome to post to sci.lang -- you might crosspost a reply
thither, and then in my response I'll remove r.p.c. from the follow-
ups.

What, and spread my ignorance even more widely? I think
I'll rest content with embarrassing myself here, if that's
all right with you! :-)

The r.p.c.-fascists are generally very quick to condemn "off-topic"
postings.

.