Post by peteolcottPost by DKleineckePost by peteolcottI am providing proof rather than evidence that this thread does belong
in sci.lang. Both formal and natural language equally depend upon the
notion of Truth. I have specified the formalization of the specification
of Truth and its simple English equivalent. It seems that I may be able
to continue translating between the formal logic and its simple English
equivalent, thus everyone here may be able to join this dialogue.
Natural language has nothing to do with Truth.
That statement seems quite absurd, thus you could only mean it
with some degree of subjective leeway of interpretation. If we
"a dog is not a type of cat" would be pure gibberish with
not the slightest nuance of a trace of any meaning what-so-ever.
What on earth does "Truth" have to do with the definitions of words?
Do you imagine that "A unicorn is not a type of dragon" is uninterpretable?
One of the things you're probably taught on Day 1 of Linguistics 101 is
that (with the exception of a handful of onomatopoeic words) linguistic
signs -- "words," perhaps, to you -- are completely arbitrary. Is any one
of "dog," "chien," "Hund," or "canis" more expressive of doggy nature than
any of the others? Of course not. Those words are not True or False. "Dogs
smell bad" is neither True nor False. There are a lot more generalizations
in language, which have no Truth Value, than factual statements like "a dog
is not a kind of cat." (Which, incidentally, is factual only because the
words in it have been arbitrarily associated with particular referents.)
Post by peteolcott{with all of the dishonesty that I see in the world it seems to
me that natural language typically as very little to do with truth}.
Don't continue to be absurd.
Post by peteolcottSome of the most horrible travesties in the world are because of these
exact same sort of errors of precision with language. These precision
errors allow lies to slip through the cracks unnoticed.
Sorry, but Mr Orwell wasn't talking about language, he was talking about
the political use of language. Exactly the same language is used by Barack
Obama and Donald Trump, but one of them is rather better at it than the other.
Post by peteolcottIf it was not for these exact same precision errors in the use
of language sound bites would never carry nearly the same weight
as established facts.
"Precision" has nothing whatsoever to do with language, it has to do with
the use of language. Maybe you need to go join S. I. Hayakawa and "cleanse"
the language.
Post by peteolcottIn the age of alternative facts, lies are winning. With perfect
precision of language {alternative facts} are totally understood
to be lies by everyone, thus no chance what-so-ever of succeeding.
The very fact that lies can be uttered in perfectly grammatical sentences
shows what an utter crock your basic premise is.