Because 1) language requires no translation from experience 2) language is relatively easy to record, communicate and analyze.
Thus it is inevitable that our language will slide from “reflecting reality” to “reflecting itself”.
Consider where that’s going.
You must log in or register to comment.
Yeah, this is why an adult can learn a new language in a couple of months, whereas a newborn takes several years to grasp just the basics, and more than a decade to get good at it.
To misquote Eddie Harris, “It’s no big deal to learn another [language] once you know one. All you gotta do is have nerve.”
I personally think the second language is easier to pick up because languages are 99% alike. But that is beside my point.
My point is that slide into self-reflectingness.
Like one of those old xerox machines. A copy of a copy of a copy… till the original image is gone, replaced with something crazy.
So, you’re interested in entropy, as it applies to information?
Wittgenstein moment !
But yeah, it’s always important to make sure you’re not just saying words, you’re not just drawing the map of a non-existent terrain. Many people do this without knowing (what the hell does “MAGA” truly mean? How can a corporation also “be a person”? Even a pink elephant makes more sense and is more conceivable.) It’s also important to remember that many things cannot be easily/fully understood solely through words, but can only be met through experience and understood through reflection in the framework of words. This is why you can’t just “tell someone something” and expect them to “listen”. The words went through, sure, but they lack the rest to be on your side of the debate.
You might be interested in reading up on the debate of “Prescriptive vs Descriptive” approaches in a linguistics context.
deleted by creator
Can you gimme the short version?
Sure - Wikipedia says it better than I could hope to:
As English-linguist Larry Andrews describes it, descriptive grammar is the linguistic approach which studies what a language is like, as opposed to prescriptive, which declares what a language should be like.[11]: 25 In other words, descriptive grammarians focus analysis on how all kinds of people in all sorts of environments, usually in more casual, everyday settings, communicate, whereas prescriptive grammarians focus on the grammatical rules and structures predetermined by linguistic registers and figures of power. An example that Andrews uses in his book is fewer than vs less than.[11]: 26 A descriptive grammarian would state that both statements are equally valid, as long as the meaning behind the statement can be understood. A prescriptive grammarian would analyze the rules and conventions behind both statements to determine which statement is correct or otherwise preferable. Andrews also believes that, although most linguists would be descriptive grammarians, most public school teachers tend to be prescriptive.[11]: 26
Yeah, I get the basic idea. I was hoping for a little more on the actual implications tho. Preferably in conversation form rather than copypasted.
