Praxeology and Linguistics

[I_Ryan]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

But, if you are saying “epicurus is an idiot.” If you call me an idiot, you are not using an adjective, that would be 'the idiotic Epicurus."

An idiot is a noun.

idiotic is an adjective.

You said that a noun exists, but an adjective describes things. Well, I could describe you by calling you an idiot. So how is your definition useful at all?

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Dont overthink things.

Don’t underthink things. (Do you now see how useless it is to say things like that?)

[I_Ryan]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Destruction exists as a state of chaos, action exists as the manifestation of acting (the verb), description exists as the means by which we describe (the verb form) things, noun exists as the description of existing things.

It really is quite simple; if it exists it is noun, if it acts it is verb, if it describes it is adjective/adverb, etc etc. Theres a reason you learn it in first grade.

I will grant that pronouns are a little different, hence why they have their own category. But pronouns are just a shorthand way of describing nouns; instead of John acts, we say he acts, to simplify things.

By the way, if you read my long post, you would know where your ad hoc, commonsense definitions are coming from.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

You said that a noun exists, but an adjective describes things. Well, I could describe you by calling you an idiot. So how is your definition useful at all?

fBecuase you are not so much describing me, as placing me in the state of that description, thereby it becomes a noun.

Idiot = noun. To describe me as idiotic is entirely different than to place me in the state of idiocy.

An apple is delicous, an apple is red = descriptive

An apple is a plant = placing it in a state, noun

It is based off the language itself, purple isnt an adjective becuase it is a descriptive term. It is only an adjective when used to describe something. Purple is awesome; purple is no longer an adjective there, it is a noun (the state of being purple)

words only exist in context. which is why I cant say “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” or “the bite dog man the” or “jump purple thirteen apple she pow”

[I_Ryan]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Becuase you are not so much describing me, as placing me in the state of that description, thereby it becomes a noun.

Uh, yeah, okay . . .

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

you’re welcome

[I_Ryan]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

you’re welcome

It was sarcasm, if you didn’t catch that.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

yes, yes it was…

(as was mine, just in case you didnt catch that either)

[I_Ryan]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

yes, yes it was…

Well, try reading my long post from earlier, and then get back to me.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I am sorry. These things have been described quite reasonably to first graders. If you think you have a new way of describing language that is fine. But until you get it published in the Journal of Linguistics, or some other enterprise.. you’re really just some guy on the internet who thinks he knows better than an entire field of study.

No offense, cuz I did read it. But you really could just sum it up with;

noun = thing

adjective = description

a word can be either of these things depending on its context, tho usually, in the english language, we create ways to just change the word slightly to show its intent;

idiot = noun

idiocy = verb

idiotic = adjective

[I_Ryan]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalboun

I am sorry. These things have been described quite reasonably to first graders. If you think you have a new way of describing language that is fine. But until you get it published in the Journal of Linguistics, or some other enterprise.. you’re really just some guy on the internet who thinks he knows better than an entire field of study.

What a joke. Don’t expect me to take your posts seriously in the future.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Haha. I never did in the first place. Which says a lot really…

[I_Ryan]

@AJ

The claim was made in another thread that most of modern linguistics is invalid for the same reasons that most of modern economics is invalid, in that it doesn’t follow a praxeological approach.

Ludwig von Mises said in Human Action that the method of praxeology is using imaginary constructions:

@Ludwig von Mises in Human Action

The specific method of economics is the method of imaginary constructions.

This method is the method of praxeology. That it has been carefully elaborated and perfected in the field of economic studies in the narrower sense is due to the fact that economics, at least until now, has been the best-developed part of praxeology. Everyone who wants to express an opinion about the problems commonly called economic takes recourse to this method. The employment of these imaginary constructions is, to be sure, not a procedure peculiar to the scientific analysis of these problems. The layman in dealing with them resorts to the same method. But while the layman’s constructions are more or less confused and muddled, economics is intent upon elaborating them with the utmost care, scrupulousness, and precision, and upon examining their conditions and assumptions critically.

An imaginary construction is a conceptual image of a sequence of events logically evolved from the elements of action employed in its formation. It is a product of deduction, ultimately derived from the fundamental category of action, the act of preferring and setting aside. In designing such an imaginary construction the economist is not concerned with the question of whether or not it depicts the conditions of reality which he wants to analyze. Nor does he bother about the question of whether or not such a system as his imaginary construction posits could be conceived as really existent and in operation. Even imaginary constructions which are inconceivable, self-contradictory, or unrealizable can render useful, even indispensable services in the comprehension of reality, provided the economist knows how to use them properly.

[…]

The main formula for designing of imaginary constructions is to abstract from the operation of some conditions present in actual action. Then we are in a position to grasp the hypothetical consequences of the absence of these conditions and to conceive the effects of their existence. Thus we conceive the category of action by constructing the image of a state in which there is no action, either because the individual is fully contented and does not feel any uneasiness or because he does not know any procedure from which an improvement in his well-being (state of satisfaction) could be expected. Thus we conceive the notion of originary interest from an imaginary construction in which no distinction is made between satisfactions in periods of time equal in length but unequal with regard to their distance from the instant of action.

The method of imaginary constructions is indispensable for praxeology; it is the only method of praxeological and economic inquiry. It is, to be sure, a method difficult to handle because it can easily result in fallacious syllogisms. It leads along a sharp edge; on both sides yawns the chasm of absurdity and nonsense. Only merciless self-criticism can prevent a man from falling headlong into these abysmal depths.

If I am correct that the method of studying markets should be the same as the method of studying language, and he is correct that the method of studying markets is using imaginary constructions, what is the method of studying language? Well, it apparently is imaginary constructions. So what are imaginary constructions that we should use in studying language? Did I use any in my division into nouns and adjectives? Yeah, I built the simplest language possible, which was just any combination of objects and relations, abstracted away from the specific objects and relations except for the one that I was talking about, which was intersection, and then showed how to make just one isolated change to that, adding the division into nouns and adjectives.

I thought after I wrote that post of the fact that Ludwig von Mises in Human Action said that the method of praxeology is using imaginary constructions, so I wanted to figure out what the imaginary constructions in studying language are. Well, I saw it right away in the post that I wrote for you in which I defined the division into nouns and adjectives. We need to build simplified languages isolating the things that we are talking about, and that way we can describe language. Just like the evenly rotating economy is an imaginary construction in studying markets, the simplified language that I used is an imaginary construction in studying language.

The method of studying natural languages at least in the praxeological tradition should be building simplified languages to isolate the distinctions that we find in natural languages.

[Amanojack]

I was hoping to start more simply (simple but deep). For example, if “seven” is a noun…

…is this a noun?

From? the perspective of human action, I as an individual use words to better my state of affairs. I utter “seven” on the phone with Suzy to communicate my intention to meet her at 7pm tomorrow, because I believe the state of affairs where Suzy knows of my intentions to meet her at that time is more satisfactory to me (because we can meet without confusion, etc.).

But before I uttered “seven” I had a much more detailed thought in my mind that I wanted to convey, namely my intention to meet Suzy at seven. In the context, I judged that only that one word was necessary for her to guess my intent. That one word crossed the inferential gap. If there were even more context - say, I always meet Suzy at 7pm - I could have simply said nothing. No words would be needed.

Why do we both know what “seven” means? Because, one way or another, we both figured out long ago that there is a convention most people in this area follow, and that is that they indicate the concept of 7 by uttering the word “seven.” Just like they indicate that something is acceptable by making the “thumbs up” gesture, or indicate “bird” by another hand gesture, or even indicate the concept of 7 by raising seven fingers.

OK, so what are words? They are communication devices for filling in what cannot be reliably guessed from context.

[I_Ryan]

@AJ

I was hoping for a simpler discussion (simple but deep).

Sorry, brother. The definition was simple, but the groundwork took a bit of time.

@AJ

For example, if “seven” is a noun…

…is this a noun?

Of course not. Didn’t you read my post? The distinction is just a sort of syntactical convenience.

[I_Ryan]

@AJ

I was hoping to start more simply (simple but deep).

Good change. I was worried for a minute.

[Amanojack]

Aren’t you trying to debunk modern linguistics? That means answering John Ess or someone else’s expositions of Chomsky/Pinker/etc. Ess hasn’t weighed in yet. This question and the one in the OP are mainly for him or another supporter of linguistics.

[I_Ryan]

@AJ

Aren’t you trying to debunk modern linguistics? That means answering John Ess or someone else’s expositions of Chomsky/Pinker/etc. Ess hasn’t weighed in yet. This question and the one in the OP are mainly for him or another supporter of linguistics.

Well, isn’t the positive theory also important? Aren’t examples important?

[Amanojack]

(Maybe positive theory is important, but if all of what you’re attacking* is really pure nonsense, a negative deconstruction might be all you need. Just like I don’t think we need a positive theory of objective ethics, just an explanation for why it is meaningless.)

The questions aim to poke holes in mainstream linguistics, not in your conception.

*What elements of mainstream linguistics do you take the most exception to?

[I_Ryan]

@AJ

The questions aim to poke holes in mainstream linguistics, not in your conception.

Well, I showed in my long post that one of the most common definitions is just a fuzzy offshoot of the “praxeological” distinction that I made, which I think poked a pretty good hole in it.

[Amanojack]

Well I just feel like we don’t have the mainstream position represented here. I don’t know enough about it, so whatever Chomsky/Pinker quotes I dig up might be dismissed as out of context or not accepted by the mainstream anymore. I don’t want to be accused of strawmanning. I need a real argument from a real linguist or someone who knows the material decently well. I have my own very detailed account of what language is and its relation to thought, but I haven’t posted it here because I am awaiting something to disagree (or agree) with in the “official” mainstream.