All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
This is an intelligent poem -- one that DOES include irony and wit. Jesus Christ! It just gets better and better! It comes complete with a vocabulary and rhythm that most poems, on this board, anyway, lack. It's not only well written, but relevant too.
While most lines are excellent, the last one...
Quoted from poem
and so chaos theory was proven correct.
...is particularly good. It sums things up nicely.
As usual, I just do not get it. Which is why I avoid poetry, I suppose.
Avoiding poetry will only make you "get it" less and less till you got nothing at all. Poetry doesn't come in one sitting. It takes days, years, or decades to come to an understanding of a good poem. Its meaning will change for you. You'll notice different things. Maybe you'll like it less or more. Meaning is personal and is different for each person reading. Things may never be clear, but then, what is?
I mean, there is clearly a lot of clever wordplay going on here, but when it comes to adding it up, I have no idea what the sum is supposed to be.
If my poems, or any of my writing, can be put into columns and added or subtracted, multiplied or divided then shoot me. I'm a poet not your accountant. And did you file your taxes yet?
What are you saying? Is there an answer key available? And what the heck is a Jesus T-Rex?.
Modern religions or a T-Rex on a cross or a t-rex born to a virgin or a reconciliation between religion and science, creationism and evolution or a the son of god born from an reptile egg or... or... or...
I could come up with those all day.
The answer key is in your head. You just have to let go of the idea you have to "Get" everything. Use that overactive imagination you have that I see you use on your scripts and you'll get a lot more.
Thanks for the read. And hopefully I didn't ruin poetry for you.
I can definitely sympathize with Bert on this one. Don't get me wrong. I think this is one of the best poems I've read on this site, if for nothing else then your style.
But I really think a lot of poetry does a cop out when it comes to meaning.
Quoted Text
Avoiding poetry will only make you "get it" less and less till you got nothing at all. Poetry doesn't come in one sitting. It takes days, years, or decades to come to an understanding of a good poem. Its meaning will change for you. You'll notice different things. Maybe you'll like it less or more. Meaning is personal and is different for each person reading. Things may never be clear, but then, what is?
So is a Rorschach inkblot test poetry? I appreciate not being literal and hitting people on the head with your meaning, but I really think there can be something very self-indulgent in purposely obscuring what you mean to say.
If there isn't an exact meaning to the poem, that's great. Celebrate it! You have great nonsensical sentences in this one - they want to be spoken! But let's accept that there isn't meaning in the conventional sense, or something to 'get'. I think it's a bit insincere to let people search for a key to getting it, because they are just random images and scattershot ideas floating around the canvas. Unless I misunderstood something?
That being said, when I write songs or poetry (rarely) I always go for this approach. But I don't pretend my work is layered with meaning, because for the most part it's not. They are just characters and images that float in and out of my head.
I think post-modernism is corrupting a lot of great poetry. If every interpretation is right. Then no interpretation is right. And then there is no meaning.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I think post-modernism is corrupting a lot of great poetry. If every interpretation is right. Then no interpretation is right. And then there is no meaning.
I have to disagree with this statement.
Post-modern poetry expresses abstract concepts. Just because the reader interprets a poem in a way that is different than the author intended does not mean the poem has no meaning. It most certainly has meaning - if to no one else than the author.
The same can happen with abstract paintings. Just because you don't understand an abstract painting does not mean abstract paintings are corrupting painting. Though I'm sure some people would say exactly that.
There are plenty of people who shy away from things they don't understand. It's a reasonable reaction. But not understanding something is not a valid reason to condemn it.
Now...
If you want to read some poetry that intentionally defies interpretation -
The poem appears to be irrational and arbitrary, but only because it speaks of things irrational and arbitrary -- the capricious, unreasonable life, the structures, we are subject to.
Post-modern poetry expresses abstract concepts. Just because the reader interprets a poem in a way that is different than the author intended does not mean the poem has no meaning. It most certainly has meaning - if to no one else than the author.
The same can happen with abstract paintings. Just because you don't understand an abstract painting does not mean abstract paintings are corrupting painting. Though I'm sure some people would say exactly that.
There are plenty of people who shy away from things they don't understand. It's a reasonable reaction. But not understanding something is not a valid reason to condemn it.
Now...
If you want to read some poetry that intentionally has no single interpretation or a concrete meaning try -
And if you must know why I wrote them I would be happy to explain my reasons.
I would argue literature is communication. And if the only one who understands the meaning of your messgae is you, then you have failed to communicate.
The problem here is, DOES the author intend for his audience to take away a specific meaning? If he does, and if they don't take away that idea, he has essentially failed.
The post-modernist defense is: "Well, just because I didn't get the meaning the author intended, it doesn't mean the meaning I got is any less 'correct'".
But if every reading of a piece of poetry has an equal truth value, then that means my personal take on Emily Dickinson, that she wrote misogynist anti-consumerist elegies, is as good as Emily Dickinson's. And that voids the concept of meaning, because meaning distuingishes itself from nonsense by having a truth value. If everything is equally true, then nothing is false.
Or as I pointed out, everything is.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Modern religions or a T-Rex on a cross or a t-rex born to a virgin or a reconciliation between religion and science, creationism and evolution or a the son of god born from an reptile egg or... or... or...
I could come up with those all day.
Yeah, but see, that's what I am talking about. That's your answer? I still don't know what you mean.
None of that makes any sense, and it makes me suspect that even you don't know what you are talking about.
But my take on your answer is that it is meant to be like abstract art. Like splashes of paint on a canvas.
The only true meaning is one that I am forced to manufacture for myself.
You hit the nail on the head. Sometimes everything is. Sometimes a poem is just a combination of words that the author needs to get out of their head, an expression of emotion, a therapeutic purge. Sometimes even the author doesn't know what they mean - but they like them, they like the order, they like the way they sound together, they like the rythm they make, they are what the author wants to express - wants to communicate. It doesn't really matter how other people interpret them because those words are exactly what the author wants to say - they are.
You hit the nail on the head. Sometimes everything is. Sometimes a poem is just a combination of words that the author needs to get out of their head, an expression of emotion, a therapeutic purge. Sometimes even the author doesn't know what they mean - but they like them, they like the order, they like the way they sound together, they like the rythm they make, they are what the author wants to express - wants to communicate. It doesn't really matter how other people interpret them because those words are exactly what the author wants to say - they are.
I can definitely appreciate that. I just think it's inane to act as if there is a 'key' to understanding it, which some poets do (like David Lynch, sorry I can't help it;)).
I think Dethan's poem has some wonderful words, compounds, images in it. But I don't get it. And I hope I'm not supposed to.
It doesn't speak to me on any profound level, like say some Dylan Thomas does, where he expresses an idea or a thought that resonates inside me. But the words are purdy. And that's enough sometimes.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
None of that makes any sense, and it makes me suspect that even you don't know what you are talking about.
The modern religions and creationism/evolutionism makes perfect sense to me. After those I can make up dozens of others. And I've heard people come up with weirder ones than those. I'm saying, once the poem is written how people interpret it is out of my hands.
But my take on your answer is that it is meant to be like abstract art. Like splashes of paint on a canvas.
Actually, it is what would be called a collage poem. It has meaning in starts and fits. But it does have a universal theme: Chaos and the modern world. Look at the title. Look at the last line. Look at the multiple perspectives.
And each section has a meaning of its own. Some are about the perils of consumerism. Some are about the beauty of transformation. Others are about government paranoia. The poem is seeping with meaning you can "get" if you wanted.
There is only one section that is about abstract art. Or is purely abstract. It is the section where I describe how I see a Van Gogh painting illuminated only by a computer screen. I don't expect people to see that. I was trying to communicate what I was seeing and experiencing. But words are clumsy things. If they convey the enjoyment of that experience that would be enough for me.
Quoted from DM
I would argue literature is communication. And if the only one who understands the meaning of your messgae is you, then you have failed to communicate.
Language is magic. Intangible. Rarely does anyone really understand each other. Language is the attempt to communicate. And it can feel hopeless, sometimes.
Language is magic. Intangible. Rarely does anyone really understand each other. Language is the attempt to communicate. And it can feel hopeless, sometimes.
Dethan
HAJHS jhaskjdh Fhahahas NANRER FLIATYE.
SSUADUA GGGGD TRYADlnkjf SHDJAHDKJADH JAJSA.
Language is structure.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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.
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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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.
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.
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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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.
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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
...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.
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.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Pages: 
Author
One World Exploding
Logged
Locked Board