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

Like I said, it was the gesture of writing nonsense that communicated a point, not the actual code of letters, which doesn't have meaning.

Just like the lack of communication can have meaning. If you say something to me and I don't answer that could be me communicating to you that I'm offended, but the meaning lies in the gesture, not in the language.

Quoted Text 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?

That's a fallacious argument, because a word isn't just a symbol. It's a set of structured symbols. M-a-n. Structure denotes whether we're talking about Man or Nam.

You're overlooking the structural bulding blocks of language: the phonemes (often represented by letters).

Quoted Text 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.

So far I don't think you've succesfully communicated anything, probably because you don't have anything resembling a predicate.

Quoted Text 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.

Like someone already mentioned this is about structure as well. About proximity and the order of the words. Should you change the structure by adding other words in between you meaning wouldn't come across, or even if you change the order of the words:

Woman. Lovers. Man.

Would be a difficult one, because we expect the predicate to be the sum of the subject, so putting lovers (in plural) after woman (singular) would confuse us.

I hafta say, I'm symathetic to Death Monkey's position. I don't subcribe to the idea that poems are open to interpretation. Fact is, most aren't. Nor do I believe that it takes years to appreciate poetry.

Still, I see nothing wrong with employing a kind of free association of ideas and images in poetry -- Somethings, personal things, can't be expressed in concrete language.  These things, though, to the author, may hold great meaning. But to expect others to understand or appreciate it is, I think, asking too much.

Seth

Quoted from Death Monkey Like I said, it was the gesture of writing nonsense that communicated a point, not the actual code of letters, which doesn't have meaning. Just like the lack of communication can have meaning. If you say something to me and I don't answer that could be me communicating to you that I'm offended, but the meaning lies in the gesture, not in the language.

Gestures are indeed a part of language.  As I said earlier language is a set of contextual symbols. Gestures are one of those symbols.

Quoted Text That's a fallacious argument, because a word isn't just a symbol. It's a set of structured symbols. M-a-n. Structure denotes whether we're talking about Man or Nam. You're overlooking the structural bulding blocks of language: the phonemes (often represented by letters).

A word is most certainly a symbol.  Though on a mechanical level and in certain languages it may be composed of ordered letters. In others it is not, in Chinese for example it is a pictograph.  Even in English words have not always been spelled the same.  The main essence of a word, what it represents, what it means is really its importance to language.  The symbol for man means man no matter what characters, hand gesture or pictogram it is represented by.
We are discussing language here, aren't we?  Don't want us to digress by discussing peripheral issues.  

Quoted from Death Monkey So far I don't think you've succesfully communicated anything, probably because you don't have anything resembling a predicate.

Some people will see something communicated, some people won't. I think that is the underlying reason for this discussion.  But you can write a perfectly crafted sentence and some people will see what you are communicating and some people won't.  There is no difference.  

Quoted from Death Monkey Like someone already mentioned this is about structure as well. About proximity and the order of the words. Should you change the structure by adding other words in between you meaning wouldn't come across, or even if you change the order of the words: Woman. Lovers. Man. Would be a difficult one, because we expect the predicate to be the sum of the subject, so putting lovers (in plural) after woman (singular) would confuse us.

Structure can have an effect on meaning.  I never said it wouldn't.  I said that the unrelated words argument just confuses the issue because I did not add unrelated words to my communication. Just like I wouldn't add unrelated words to a sentence I was composing.

The word order you specified above does make my communcation confusing but I think that is only because it looks close to Woman Loves Man.  Which would be close to how we would be used to interpreting it.

I'm not saying that structure isn't useful. It certainly has it's place. I would hate to read an instruction booklet that was written like a post-modern poem.  What I have been saying is that it isn't always necessary.  Communication and language can and does happen without it.  

Quoted from mcornetto Gestures are indeed a part of language.  As I said earlier language is a set of contextual symbols. Gestures are one of those symbols.

I would argue that gestures are extra-liniguistic devices, because they do not necessarily have mening in themselves. Silence does not carry meaning outside of the specific context it's used in. Words do. Phonemes do.

Quoted Text A word is most certainly a symbol.  Though on a mechanical level and in certain languages it may be composed of ordered letters. In others it is not, in Chinese for example it is a pictograph.  Even in English words have not always been spelled the same.  The main essence of a word, what it represents, what it means is really its importance to language.  The symbol for man means man no matter what characters, hand gesture or pictogram it is represented by. We are discussing language here, aren't we?  Don't want us to digress by discussing peripheral issues.

Well, first of all I said that words aren't just symbols. They consist of symbols and thus are structured themselves.

Secondly you're discussing spelling, which in many cases has nothing to do with the essense of the word itself. I specifically mentioned phonemes as the building blocks of laguage, not letters, because, as you mention, letters can deceive. Especially in English. Betrand Russell's famous example of "Fish" being spelled "Ghoti" comes to mind.

My evidence that language is structure is found in the way our brain computes the building blocks of words, the phonemes, and how meaning changes because of the structure of these phonemes.

Quoted Text Some people will see something communicated, some people won't. I think that is the underlying reason for this discussion.  But you can write a perfectly crafted sentence and some people will see what you are communicating and some people won't.  There is no difference.

Dethan's poem had many perfectably crafted sentences. But they didn't make sense because the fram of reference was foreign to me, and others.

I think it's a gross simplification to say there is no difference between Dethan's poem and, for instance, the sentence "the man walked". There is absolutely no ambiguity in the latter and communicates only one thing. You do have a choice to communicate clearly or vaguely. However, it is true, that sometimes, people will misunderstand anyway.

But it's not true that there is no difference.

Quoted Text Structure can have an effect on meaning.  I never said it wouldn't.  I said that the unrelated words argument just confuses the issue because I did not add unrelated words to my communication. Just like I wouldn't add unrelated words to a sentence I was composing.

No, but the point was that if language wasn't about structure, then you could add as many unrelated words as you liked and the same meaning would still be there.

Quoted Text The word order you specified above does make my communcation confusing but I think that is only because it looks close to Woman Loves Man.  Which would be close to how we would be used to interpreting it. I'm not saying that structure isn't useful. It certainly has it's place. I would hate to read an instruction booklet that was written like a post-modern poem.  What I have been saying is that it isn't always necessary.  Communication and language can and does happen without it.

I would argue it doesn't. The basis of your understanding of any utterance is that your brain understands the underlying structure of the language. the reason why you may be able to understand an amputated sentence is because your brain can fill in the blanks thanks to knowledge of language structure.

I can't think of an instance of language without use of structure?

Quoted from Seth I hafta say, I'm symathetic to Death Monkey's position. I don't subcribe to the idea that poems are open to interpretation. Fact is, most aren't. Nor do I believe that it takes years to appreciate poetry. Still, I see nothing wrong with employing a kind of free association of ideas and images in poetry -- Somethings, personal things, can't be expressed in concrete language.  These things, though, to the author, may hold great meaning. But to expect others to understand or appreciate it is, I think, asking too much. Seth

Whaddaya know, Seth, I agree completely.  

Quoted from Death Monkey I would argue that gestures are extra-liniguistic devices, because they do not necessarily have mening in themselves. Silence does not carry meaning outside of the specific context it's used in. Words do. Phonemes do.

There are gestures that have meaning in themselves as well. If I stuck my middle finger up at you you would know exactly what I meant.  No matter when I did it.  So you are saying that some gestures need context - but some obviously don't.  I could see us arguing this point forever since we have a some do/some don't situation here.  I for one am ready to leave it be because neither of us are going to concede this point.

If phonemes mean something out of context then tell me what /k/ means?

Quoted from Death Monkey My evidence that language is structure is found in the way our brain computes the building blocks of words, the phonemes, and how meaning changes because of the structure of these phonemes.

Quoted from Wiki Although the concept has been fundamental to the development of phonological analysis of language beneath the level of the syllable, some linguists reject the theoretical validity of the phoneme. Some think that phonemes are more a product of literacy (i.e., the need to categorize the phonetics of a language in order to write it down systematically with a minimum number of letters). Other critics charge that the mind processes sub-phonemic elements of speech (e.g., features) in meaningful ways.

Your "evidence" is disputed.

Quoted from Death Monkey I think it's a gross simplification to say there is no difference between Dethan's poem and, for instance, the sentence "the man walked". There is absolutely no ambiguity in the latter and communicates only one thing. You do have a choice to communicate clearly or vaguely. However, it is true, that sometimes, people will misunderstand anyway. But it's not true that there is no difference.

I said there was no difference between misunderstanding something that has no structure and misunderstanding something that has structure. Both can be misunderstood. Both can be understood.

Quoted from Death Monkey No, but the point was that if language wasn't about structure, then you could add as many unrelated words as you liked and the same meaning would still be there.

You're just being silly now. We have already established that words have meaning and context has an effect on them.  If you are trying to communicate why would you put unrelated words together.  There is no argument here, context is not structure.

Quoted from Death Monkey I would argue it doesn't. The basis of your understanding of any utterance is that your brain understands the underlying structure of the language. the reason why you may be able to understand an amputated sentence is because your brain can fill in the blanks thanks to knowledge of language structure.

Since I can neither prove nor disprove the theoretical study of phonemes, I won't argue for or against it.

Quoted from Death Monkey I can't think of an instance of language without use of structure?

I'm not arguing that languages don't use structure.  Just that it isn't always necessary nor is it always used.

Quoted from mcornetto There are gestures that have meaning in themselves as well. If I stuck my middle finger up at you you would know exactly what I meant.  No matter when I did it.  So you are saying that some gestures need context - but some obviously don't.  I could see us arguing this point forever since we have a some do/some don't situation here.  I for one am ready to leave it be because neither of us are going to concede this point.

Well gestures are bound by context. In this case cultural context. In some cultures flipping me the bird would be a compliment while a thumbs up means you'd want to kill me.

But, you're right, we accept that some gestures can hold meaning isolated of themselves. but they don't always. And yes, I would be willing to leave this one behind as well.

Quoted Text If phonemes mean something out of context then tell me what /k/ means?

It means the sound k. No matter context you put it in. Unlike letters.

"The phoneme can be defined as "the smallest meaningful psychological unit of sound." The phoneme has mental, physiological, and physical substance: our brains process the sounds; the sounds are produced by the human speech organs; and the sounds are physical entities that can be recorded and measured." from wikipedia. I couldn't find my old text books...

Quoted Text Your "evidence" is disputed.[7quote] Well, I don't think ever claimed it wasn't? There are numerous theories and I choose to support the one I feel presents best evidence. [quote]I said there was no difference between misunderstanding something that has no structure and misunderstanding something that has structure. Both can be misunderstood. Both can be understood.

Frequency is the difference.

If something without structure is misunderstood in 99% or its occurences, while something with structure is misunderstood in 5% of its occurences, then there is a difference. A substantial one.

Of course these a fictitous figures, but I think it's safe to say structure denotes a higher frequency of understanding than non-structure.

Quoted Text You're just being silly now. We have already established that words have meaning and context has an effect on them.  If you are trying to communicate why would you put unrelated words together.  There is no argument here, context is not structure.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument? You don't know what I'm trying to communicate - that's the point?

Quoted Text Since I can neither prove nor disprove this theoretical study, I won't argue for or against it.

There is considerable evidence here. I believe it's one of the key studies in language acquisition. But I'm gonna have to confer with my professor and get back to you.

Quoted Text I'm not arguing that languages don't use structure.  Just that it isn't always necessary.

Again, I can't think of an instance?

Wow.  What happened to this thread?  And so literate.  What a pleasure to read.

I had no idea I was throwing out such a philosophical stink bomb haha.

But this is not entirely fair:

Quoted from Death Monkey ...the discussion spawned off Bert's dissatisfaction with the substance of your poem...

What I actually stated, broadly, was that this whole genre was not to my taste.  Like sushi, for example.

And whenever I say this, somebody always says, “Oh, but you obviously haven’t had good sushi!  Try this.”

Then I try it, and I still don’t like it, and after about a dozen iterations of this process, I have come to the conclusion that I do not like sushi.  No -- not even “good” sushi, thank you.  And I am left with the lingering sensation that I am missing something.

So I was not busting on the poem.  I was stating I didn’t get it.  And when I saw smart people were enjoying it, I wanted to know what was up with the "meaning".

And I grumbled a bit when my response for something straightforward was met with more riddles.

But now I don’t even know whose side I am on anymore.  Maybe more riddles was the right answer, and I am left with the lingering sensation that I must be missing something.  Good job, guys.

Think I'm now with Bert.  We both feel like we're missing something.

Quoted from bert Wow.  What happened to this thread?  And so literate.  What a pleasure to read. I had no idea I was throwing out such a philosophical stink bomb haha. But this is not entirely fair: What I actually stated, broadly, was that this whole genre was not to my taste.  Like sushi, for example. And whenever I say this, somebody always says, “Oh, but you obviously haven’t had good sushi!  Try this.” Then I try it, and I still don’t like it, and after about a dozen iterations of this process, I have come to the conclusion that I do not like sushi.  No -- not even “good” sushi, thank you.  And I am left with the lingering sensation that I am missing something. So I was not busting on the poem.  I was stating I didn’t get it.  And when I saw smart people were enjoying it, I wanted to know what was up with the "meaning". And I grumbled a bit when my response for something straightforward was met with more riddles. But now I don’t even know whose side I am on anymore.  Maybe more riddles was the right answer, and I am left with the lingering sensation that I must be missing something.  Good job, guys.

You're right. That was bad phrasing on my part. I didn't mean to imply that you were coming down on the poem, and I certainly didn't try to 'recruit' you on my side, even though I can see how it looks when it's quoted and all.

But your post on page one did start a discussion on substance and style, even if that wasn't your intention. That was all I meant to say.

Hope that clears it up.