This text is in a subpage at Talk:Language/draft A. Click section [edit] to the right to edit the text and comments below, and those changes will be transcluded here.
Andrew's draft version, and comments
comments on image caption (0)
Current caption:
" Cuneiform is one of the first known forms of written language, but spoken language is believed to predate writing by tens of thousands of years at least. "
Language is a term most commonly used to refer to so called "natural languages" — the forms of communication considered peculiar to humankind. By extension the term also refers to the type of human thought process which creates and uses language. Essential to both meanings is the systematic creation, maintenance and use of systems of symbols, each referring to concepts different from themselves.
comments on above paragraph (3)
Language is "a term", true, but its not that confusing here to just say what that term means, in the form "language is.." -SV
Um, when I said "not that confusing" I was not indicating that it was all confusing to use terms like "cognition." I was simply stating that such usage was not as confusing as you make it out to be. Further, I think not using these terms is confusing, and creates expressions which belong more at simple.wikipedia than here. -SV
The most obvious manifestations are spoken languages, such as English or Chinese. For example the English word "language", derived ultimately from lingua, Latin for tongue, and "tongue" is still a word which can be used in English to refer to spoken language. But there are also written languages, and other systems of visual symbols, sign languages and so on.
comments on above paragraph (3)
In a human context, "obvious manifestations [of language]" are too obvious to not point out how obvious it is to state this. -SV
Don't be snobby. There are good reasons that even very well informed intelligent people should start any discourse with what is most clear and obvious. On Wikipedia it is even more important. If you do not do that for an article like this you expect the text never to settle down because every clever person will want to out-clever the others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK. I lose a point for this one. I concede that it was too obvious for me to even mention how obvious it is, and my mention was itself obvious. -SV
Although some other animals make use of quite sophisticated communicative systems, and these are sometimes casually referred to as animal language, none of these are known to make use of all of the properties that linguists use to define language in the strict sense.
comments on above paragraphs (4+)
Animal language isn't entirely relevant at this point, though I agree there is sufficient interest in the concept to warrant dealing with the distinctions. Note also, this distinction is not really just limited to language. See next comment. -SV
Humans aren't "animals," in the important sense of the word; ie. the word ("animals") as commonly used to distinguish human beings from ("other") biological organisms that cannot be considered "beings." In any context where cellular biology, biochemistry, and even genetics (including evolution, when limited to biological concepts) are concerned, humans are "animals" in only the crude sense that deals with the material form - the human body. In any context dealing with intelligence, sapience, sentience, and actual being, human beings are rather distinct, wouldn't couldn't you say? We don't ever say "animal beings" do we? -SV
The word animal is not most commonly used in the way you use it, and your way also has no special etymological or other status. (The term is Graeco-Roman and implies a soul. So also classically humans are animals.) So it is not tenable. Don't try to force others to use it this way. -Andrew
"The word animal is not most commonly used in the way you use it" Actually it is. When I say "I shot an animal" one doesn't think '?did he shoot a human being', unless (case two) he means "that person is an animal", in which case one infers that he means "that person is not a human being" (ie. not posessing the qualities of a "human" being) and not just simply "a member of the animal kingdom classification." Ie. if one shoots a human being, one does not say "I just shot an animal," unless of course that person really is "an animal." You said "and your way also has no special etymological or other status." Certainly. You argue for 'plain language' in one context (the introduction to language), and then say that a plain term in common usage (animal ≠ human), isn't "special" enough for you. But you do add: "The term is Graeco-Roman and implies a soul. So also classically humans are animals." Certainly one could argue that a termite has a soul, because it is "an animal" after all. But that negates intelligence, in at least a couple ways. We could of course discuss higher level organisms, but then you would be applying a largely theological term (soul) to organisms (animals) which are not really relevant to theological concepts. Or are they? -SV
When discussed more technically as a general phenomenon then, "language" always implies a particular type of human thought which can be present even when communication is not the result, and this way of thinking is also sometimes treated as indistinguishable from language itself.
comments on above paragraphs (3)
"when discussed more technically as a general phenomenon" (!) Are you saying the "[technical term]" is used to refer to the "[general concept]" ? Hm. Think about that. If it refers to the general concept, I almost don't care how "technical" it is; I would almost always deal with it. -SV
Your personal preferences are not really what we are trying to distill though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Certainly you misunderstand language. By saying 'I would almost always deal with it' I meant that, with few exceptions, my preference is that we should deal with it, based loosely on the WP:ENC concept. -SV
In Western Philosophy for example, language has long been closely associated with reason, which is also a uniquely human way of using symbols. In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used as a term for both language or speech and reason, and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes used the English word "speech" so that it similarly could refer to reason, as will be discussed below.
comments on above paragraphs (4+++)
!Obvious alert: "language has long been closely associated with reason"
"Associated with reason" - If you can "reason" with someone else without using language, I'll give you a dollar. In fact, if you could even "reason" with yourself alone, without using language, I'd give you a ten dollars. -SV
"long been" - Has there ever been a time when language was not
so "associated?" -SV
Western, Hobbesian concepts: In a global encyclopedia, we have to do better; just simply referencing Westernism doesn't cut it. Hobbes is of course relevant, but only within a rather large field of rather notable philosophers. -SV
I will agree with something like "language has facilitated the development of what we call 'higher reasoning' skills," but not that its just "associated with reason". The real point here is that while reason is a nice higher-level concept to reference here, its not fundamental to language as cognition is. In fact reason's own fundamental constituents are cognition and language. --SV
Me personally, I see language and reason as basically the same. Maybe I should push my POV in? No, because I'd have to explain and justify this, which would make it too long or else I would be accused of OR. One way or another someone would revert me. It pays to start with what everyone can agree with. Hobbes is just here as an example who used English in order to show how the words for language and reason have had cross over in English. This is English Wikipedia. If we just mention the general point that this happens in some languages, then someone will delete this comment as irrelevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
You wrote:
"Me personally"
You're introducing a personal attack with a confession? -SV
"I see language and reason as basically the same."
I don't think you mean that. -SV
"Maybe I should push my POV in? No, because I'd have to explain and justify this, which would make it too long or else I would be accused of OR. One way or another someone would revert me. It pays to start with what everyone can agree with."
I see, so instead of dealing with my critique that your assertion "[language and reason] [are associated]" is a bit too simplistic, you're teaching me a lesson about how my understanding of the concepts is "OR," and your version, which is in need of correction on at least a couple fundamental points, is 'more agreeable to people.' Please deal with the arguments, and then we can move on to matters of style and 'agreeability.' -SV
"Hobbes is just here as an example who used English in order to show how the words for language and reason have had cross over in English."
I've got no problem quoting Hobbes, and in fact I think you make an interesting point. But dealing with the concept of language and reason or reason and language cannot be done with sufficient justice in the lede section of this article on language as a general concept. At best we can reference these other concepts, as I did with cognition, and as you did with reason. The difference here is that while cognition is fundamental, you disagree with its usage. You reference reason, and I disagree with its importance in a lede which doesn't bother to mention cognition. Dealing with both is the 'obvious' solution here. -SV
"This is English Wikipedia. If we just mention the general point that this happens in some languages, then someone will delete this comment as irrelevant."
Um, no. Take a look at, for example international English, or the {{globalize}} tag, and ask yourself, 'what is this about?' The English language is not just an aspect of Western culture anymore; its a powerful tool that's open to anyone to use, and has few implicit cultural localizations that would inherently cause the English Wikipedia to be exclusively Western in its concepts. Unlike a language like Arabic, which for example uses dar al-Harb (house of war, ie. 'object of conflict,' or 'enemy lands') to refer to what we call the 'Western World.' Just an example. But note, just as anima has little connotation in English with soul, so too does dar al-Harb have a certain limited connotation with its etymological meaning, though there is arguably less conceptual distance there than between English "soul" and Latin "anima." Certainly its complicated to judge which controversial etymological concepts have currency, but anyway the point was that English has less such concepts, and cases such as "crusade" or "niggardly" these terms are generally deprecated and retired from usage. Deprecating them is a requirement if English is to be considered neutral, and therefore suitable as the undisputed/undisputable lingua franca, even though ethnocentrists might want to continue using the deprecated words and their concepts. -SV
