From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: Written and Spoken Language(s)
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:19:40 GMT

In article <45009@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
<In article <1992Apr12.180124.21175@news.Hawaii.Edu> jmu@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (James M. Unger) writes:
<>In article <44973@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
<>>In article <1992Apr11.174155.665@news.Hawaii.Edu> jmu@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (James M. Unger) writes:
<
<>This shows a complete misunderstanding of what "grammar" means in linguistics.
<>Formalisms of various scientific bodies of knowledge are by no means
<>comaprable to the grammars of natural languages. 
<
<Grammar is not the same as axiomatization.  The notion of a grammatically
<correct statement in other fields is not that different from grammar in
<"natural" languages, only more restricted.

More restricted indeed--so much more that the "grammars" of very limited
technical "languages" resemble the grammars of natural languages only in a
trivial, uninteresting way.

<>You evidently believe that mere transliteration suffices or should suffice
<>to render any possible well-formed utterance of English into an equivalent
<>mathematical form.  You've got to be kidding.  Incidentally, in the 17th
<>century, several savants DID try to reduce language to mathematical
<>formalism--and naturally failed.
<
<What do you think you are doing when you are producing your posting to
<electronic form?

Now you've lost me completely.  What pertinent difference exists between
the article you're reading right now (stored as a sequence of bits in a
computer somewhere) and a handwritten copy I could make and send to you
in an envelope?

<As for 17th century attempts to reduce everything to mathematical form,
<they did not know anything yet about the foundations of mathematics, and
<they assumed it would be an easy matter.

Do we today know enough about the foundations of mathematics to reduce
natural languages to mathematical form?  If so, don't tell:  you'll put
many linguists out of work!

<I notice that linguists have a tendency to ignore the
<grammar in favor of vocabulary, but is this correct?

I haven't noticed that.  What do you mean?

<>>What is a natural language?  Restricting the notion of natural language to
<>>the existing spoken systems is a great mistake.  

This remark baffles me.  Which non-spoken systems do you consider natural
languages?  (I do hope you're referring to sign languages rather than, say,
physics and chemistry.)

<If you think that plane geometry is basic in mathematics, you are mistaken.

Irrelevant.

<The structure of the number system, not developed until late in the 19th
<century, is much simpler.  

Again, what has this to do with a discussion of natural languages?

					--Scott

-- 
Scott Horne                               ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu      SnailMail:  Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT   06520
203 436-1848                Residence:  Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
ZANG4 HAN4 YI4 JIA1 / GONG4 JIAN4 ZHONG1HUA2!