Language HAS structure.  And even that is arbitrary. Language is abstract. Love? Beauty? Even BIKE - you may picture a huffy, I could picture something else entirely. We've gone away the simple this = that a long time ago.  If you want to go back to being a cave man, go right ahead.

Funny part is, I could probably make a program that could decifer your little pound on keyboard into meaningful data.  Looks like the KEY to my Adobe photoshop.

Dethan

Quoted from Dethan Language HAS structure.  And even that is arbitrary. Language is abstract. Love? Beauty? Even BIKE - you may picture a huffy, I could picture something else entirely. We've gone away the simple this = that a long time ago.  If you want to go back to being a cave man, go right ahead. Funny part is, I could probably make a program that could decifer your little pound on keyboard into meaningful data.  Looks like the KEY to my Adobe photoshop. Dethan

You're talking about semantics and pragmatics.

While beauty or love may mean slightly different things to you and I, their meaning isn't arbitrary. Love cannot mean hate. Up cannot mean down. Love can mean a number of things, but only within the paramters of its lexical meaning. therefore the word MUST adhere to structure.

Another example of language as structure:

I just invented the verb "to neeb". Without knowing anything about this word you or any English-speaker will be able to conjugate the verb in all its tenses and inflenctions. Why? Because language isn't random. Because it's a system.

Language has nothing to with magic. It's the opposite.

And no, you couldn't turn my jibberish into 'meaningful' data because it does not adhere to any known system. Only by inferring meaning from it yourself would you be able to manufacture meaning. And that would be your meaning you decided to create right then and there, not the meaning I actually typed.

Quoted from Death Monkey You're talking about semantics and pragmatics.

Sometimes.

Quoted from Death Monkey I just invented the verb "to neeb". Without knowing anything about this word you or any English-speaker will be able to conjugate the verb in all its tenses and inflenctions. Why? Because language isn't random. Because it's a system.

You created something from nothing? Magical.

Quoted from Death Monkey Language has nothing to with magic. It's the opposite.

Language is a system - Magic is a system. You misunderstand because you know nothing about magic.

Quoted from Death Monkey And no, you couldn't turn my jibberish into 'meaningful' data because it does not adhere to any known system. Only by inferring meaning from it yourself would you be able to manufacture meaning. And that would be your meaning you decided to create right then and there, not the meaning I actually typed.

1.) It had meaning because how you were attempting to use it.  Thus it already had meaning.
2.) It is a part of a system - your computer - already.  It has meaning if only it is a location in the memory of your HD.
3.) It is already in a code - a system, asii.
4.) I could go on and on.  And I'm not manufacturing meaning here - this meaning is there.  You just have to look within a system or apply a different system.

I do see your point, and I'll be fair.  I was messing with you.  Words are better when used in a system.

Dethan

Quoted from Dethan Sometimes.

The implicature being "not all of the time". Inferrence: "right now".

Quoted Text You created something from nothing? Magical.

Actually I created something from a super secret system of letters known as "The Alphabet". Don't tell anyone! We cannot allow it to fall into enemy hands!

Quoted Text Language is a system - Magic is a system. You misunderstand because you know nothing about magic.

Whoa, you're getting a tad presumptuous, don't you think?

How is magic a system?

Quoted Text 1.) It had meaning because how you were attempting to use it.  Thus it already had meaning.

What does that even mean? Are you saying something has meaning simply because it is?

Quoted Text 2.) It is a part of a system - your computer - already.  It has meaning if only it is a location in the memory of your HD.

Quoted Text 3.) It is already in a code - a system, asii.

Okay, focus. Remember, we're talking about language meaning?

Quoted Text 4.) I could go on and on.  And I'm not manufacturing meaning here - this meaning is there.  You just have to look within a system or apply a different system. I do see your point, and I'll be fair.  I was messing with you.  Words are better when used in a system.

In fact you ARE manufacturing meaning here. There is only meaning in what I wrote if you manufacture a system to FIND the meaning. And that can't be done when you have no paramters to work with. What meaning each letter or symbol represents will be entirely up to your imagination and thus the meaning will be yours altogether and have nothing to do with what I initially wrote.

And words are systems in themselves. They work only in systems. That's why they're words.

Let us step back.  I'll be basic.  

Language is magic.  An obvious metaphor.  Both are systems of combining things (nouns/verbs, roots/mushrooms, morphology) into a mixture using a set of rules (syntax/grammar) to create a desired effect (meaning or love potion #9). It works.  A solid metaphor.

Language is structure.  A fact.  And I'm not debating it linguistically.  But it has nothing to do with my metaphor.  You were being a dip, so I decided to mess with you and debate it logically.  In a way, nothing is more non-structured than human language.  Listen to someone on a cell phone, at the grocery store, or at starbucks, they make no sense. 70% is gibberish. That is why I laugh when people say "realistic dialogue" in a script.  If it was realistic we'd walk out. Or that language is structured.  It should be... we got the rules, but in reality not-so-much. A series of grunts and a fake nod of understanding is what you'll usually get.

As for the 1-5, quickly:
1.) You wrote it trying to make a point.  You knew I'd understand your point.  It became a part of our language as we communicate with each other.  That or your dropped your head on the keyboard.
2.) You missed it?
3.) ascii is a part of a language. I can even sum these characters up to satisfy Bert.  
4.) We're meaning manufacturers!  That is the human condition! If you cannot explain it say that it is god, the devil, or the ghost of George Washington.  We'll find meaning in everything.  Even when you don't insert a meaning.  Haven't you read the horror section of this MB? Tons of manufactured meaning in meaningless plots.

Now, I'm not really sure why your on my poetry thread.  You didn't really say a thing about my poem.  Are you here to argue? Really? My metaphor  annoy you that much?  You can reply, I encourage it.  Have the last word.  It is yours.  But unless it has to do with the poem I doubt I'll respond.

Dethan

Quoted from Dethan Let us step back.  I'll be basic.   Language is magic.  An obvious metaphor.  Both are systems of combining things (nouns/verbs, roots/mushrooms, morphology) into a mixture using a set of rules (syntax/grammar) to create a desired effect (meaning or love potion #9). It works.  A solid metaphor.

First of all you're likening language to alchemy, a specific subset of magic. That would be like me saying my "love is a plant", when what I mean to compare her to is a rose.

Secondly the metaphor doesn't work, or at least you don't make it work because you don't explain what set of rules magic follows.

And what was the point of the metaphor? The entire notion of combining elements to create an effect is a scientific one. Chemistry.

Quoted Text Language is structure.  A fact.  And I'm not debating it linguistically.  But it has nothing to do with my metaphor.  You were being a dip, so I decided to mess with you and debate it logically.

What was your point about likening language to magic again, if it wasn't to counter the idea of language as structured communication?

Quoted Text In a way, nothing is more non-structured than human language.  Listen to someone on a cell phone, at the grocery store, or at starbucks, they make no sense. 70% is gibberish. That is why I laugh when people say "realistic dialogue" in a script.  If it was realistic we'd walk out. Or that language is structured.  It should be... we got the rules, but in reality not-so-much. A series of grunts and a fake nod of understanding is what you'll usually get.

There are a lot of things I need to adress in this chunk.

1. Obviously you're concerning yourself solely with speech and not all the facets of the language. That's okay, let's just be specific in what we're dealing with.

2.  That so-called gibberish is actually proof that language is structure. the reason why you understand what a guy on his cell is saying, is because, even though he leaves out subjectives, verbs and doesn't finish his sentences, your brain can fill in the blanks because you understand the system.

3. I'm not sure I follow your 'realistic dialogue' train of thought though?


As for the 1-5, quickly:

Quoted Text 1.) You wrote it trying to make a point.  You knew I'd understand your point.  It became a part of our language as we communicate with each other.  That or your dropped your head on the keyboard.

No. The gesture of punching in random keys had meaning. the actual arranging and punching did not. Thus, you cannot take what I wrote of the context of this very conversation and get any meaning. Proof that it's nonsensical.

Quoted Text 2.) You missed it? 3.) ascii is a part of a language. I can even sum these characters up to satisfy Bert.

Please explain this point to me like I'm a four-year-old. And don't be afraid to be too specific.
  

Quoted Text 4.) We're meaning manufacturers!  That is the human condition! If you cannot explain it say that it is god, the devil, or the ghost of George Washington.  We'll find meaning in everything.  Even when you don't insert a meaning.  Haven't you read the horror section of this MB? Tons of manufactured meaning in meaningless plots.

There's a cop out if I ever saw one. You go out on a tagent and turn a very concrete discussion into something flimsy and metaphysichal.

----------------------

HARD BOILED DETECTIVE
You killed her! Your finger-prints were all over the murder-weapon!

DEFENDANT
In a sense we're all murderers, detective. We poison the ozone layer, slaughter senseless animals. You're wearing leather, I see?

HARD BOILED DETECTIVE
Don't play dumb with me. I got all the time in the world to get an answer out of you...

--------------------------

You wrote: "I could go on and on.  And I'm not manufacturing meaning here - this meaning is there.  You just have to look within a system or apply a different system."

And now we're all manufacturing meaning?

But I agree, people manufacture meaning when they don't understand. When people are faced with communication they find nonsensical they will manufacture meaning for themselves. But this meaning has NOTHING to with the actual message communicated. It is solely the creation of the recepient when confronted with meaninglessness.

Thus, what I typed had no meaning.

Quoted Text Now, I'm not really sure why your on my poetry thread.  You didn't really say a thing about my poem.  Are you here to argue? Really? My metaphor  annoy you that much?  You can reply, I encourage it.  Have the last word.  It is yours.  But unless it has to do with the poem I doubt I'll respond. Dethan

It's a bit late to play that card, don't you think? If you thought this thread was going off-topic why did you keep feeding it? You can't have your proverbial cake and eat it.

In fact, the discussion spawned off Bert's dissatisfaction with the substance of your poem was quite relevant, I think. Ironically it was you who turned the debate into wild metaphors about magic and what have you.

I don't know what you want from me, really. I liked your poem. I said so several times (despite your claims of the opposite). I just don't think it has any substance.

You are very gracious to allow me the last word, though. I'm not kidding. I'm compulsive that way. I need it. But if you want to reply to anything I've said, without clouting this thread, you can always throw an PM my way.

Cheers. And good luck with the writing.

As Planned
By Frank O'hara

After the first glass of vodka
you can accept just about anything
of life even your own mysteriousness
you think it is nice that a box
of matches is purple and brown and is called
Le Petite and comes from Sweden
for they are words that you know and that
is all you know words not their feelings
or what they mean and you write because
you know them not because you understand them
because you don't you are stupid and lazy
and will never be great but you do
what you know because what else is there?

That was fun to watch play out while it lasted.

Glad it amused you.

Oh, the argument.  Sweet as language, wasn't it?

Quoted from Death Monkey HAJHS jhaskjdh Fhahahas NANRER FLIATYE. SSUADUA GGGGD TRYADlnkjf SHDJAHDKJADH JAJSA.

Most definitely has meaning.  It was meant to prove a point and the communication was successful.  It was understood.

Words are symbols.  Structure is not necessary for interpreting them.  If it were then I wouldn't be able to say something like

Man

And expect you to understand it.  But just the word man alone conjured up images for you didn't it?   No structure needed for that was there?

Of course structure can change things but is it really the structure or the context. Try -

Man. Woman.

Anything there?  Am I being understood?  I probably am.  No. I'll try a bit more context.

Man. Woman. Lovers.

Ah! Well that explains it doesn't it? All without the help of structure.

Language is not a structure but is instead a set of contextual symbols (structure being one of those symbols).

And we all know that new symbols can be created at any time. We all should have done that at one time or another in our scripts.
  

Quoted from Mcornetto Man. Woman. Lovers. Ah! Well that explains it doesn't it? All without the help of structure.

Well actually, you're just proving a point. You ARE following the structure, just not properly. By mentioning those words in close proximity, you evoke the idea of the man and woman being lovers. If you had done it like this: Kingdom. Animation. Man. Kindess. Woman. Queen. Lovers. Rug, you wouldn't have evoked that thought because you were putting other words in with it, evoking other ideas.. A part of the structure of language is words clsoe together form a meaning, and you followed that but just put dots between.

Wish I had the book of William Buroughs cut ups.  Get this idiocy rolling in the properly illogical way.

Sweet as language.

Dethan

Quoted from -Ben- Well actually, you're just proving a point. You ARE following the structure, just not properly. By mentioning those words in close proximity, you evoke the idea of the man and woman being lovers. If you had done it like this: Kingdom. Animation. Man. Kindess. Woman. Queen. Lovers. Rug, you wouldn't have evoked that thought because you were putting other words in with it, evoking other ideas.. A part of the structure of language is words clsoe together form a meaning, and you followed that but just put dots between.

Man.    

                                                             Woman.                

Lovers.                

That far enough apart for you?  Still means the same thing! Or nearly.  I can see a slighty different connotation to it.

I am following the structure?  I honestly don't see how. Putting words close together is not a structure - it is context.   Structure is order and there is no order in the words I   put down.  I could have said Woman. Man. Lovers. or Lovers. Woman. Man.

I could have added a bunch of extra words to confuse the meaning but I didn't.  I don't see any point in your saying that I could unless you wanted to confuse the issue.

And once again putting words close together is context - not structure.

And you are right, I did prove a point. My point.

  

Quoted from Dethan Wish I had the book of William Buroughs cut ups.  Get this idiocy rolling in the properly illogical way. Sweet as language. Dethan

Burroughs? I am a fan! I dig on junkie poet/writers -- layed bare, cut up, flayed! That's the way I like 'em.

Seth

Quoted from mcornetto And once again putting words together is context - not structure.

Yes! Structure refers to the total organization of a poem --  which doesn't concern itself with "context," the placement of words. It can be logical or illogical. It can tell a story, or evoke an emotion. Or it can be, as Dethan's was, imo, repeated variations of an idea -- arbitrariness.

Structure is a device.

Seth