Chomsky is first and foremost a linguist. Agree or disagree with his politics, he is right on one thing: we keep changing definitions of words for the purpose of propaganda: Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Nationalist, Globalist, all mean different things today than the traditional meaning.

I live by the sea in england, in the summer there are glorious days of blazing heat, light breeze, and complete solitude in an untapped wealth of beauty. This means that i was able to swim from very young, i know very few people who can't. I feel that this is somehow connected to living by the sea, but it's quite a large target to avoid, so i can't pinpoint why i make this connection.

The seafront is excellent for biking. I'm more of an endurance biker than a mountain biker. When the weather is clement i do 7 miles of biking every day and i maintain a speed as close to 20mph as i can. I used to do 14 but it's no fun to do 2 circuits of 7 miles, and if i go another 7 miles then i have to go through one of the most disgusting tourist towns ever and often have narrowly avoided getting attacked or accidentally knocked off my bike by yobs (former) or pedestrians (latter) who don't realise that they're on a cyclepath. I have been called a psychopath as i was on a cyclepath and the humour was lost on me at the time.

Unfortunately the weather in other seasons is quite poor, living by the sea means it's always windy here and i'm not able to bike so much during those times. I fill that in by swimming 4 times a week but i'm only just starting this. It's so much harder to swim, i only end up doing about 600-700 metres which seems like nothing but is actually quite exhausting over a 30 minute period. But of course i thought that about biking when i first started and i'm pretty handy now. I reckon i could do well in amateur competitions, but i secretly harbour rogue brain cells that tell me i'm not as good as i think.

It's a funny thing about exercise, starting is hard, but once you're really into the mindframe and if you're doing it every day or near enough, then you start to feel bad on days where you don't exercise.

I also enjoy writing which is why i'm prone to bursts of self indulgent attempts at linguistic intricacies! But i never find the time to sit down and properly write. I have ideas and i work on them in my head, but when i sit down to write, i find it so hard. I always want to write every sentence perfectly for a start, and i end up spending an hour working on a paragraph and i'm never happy with it when it's done.

K i've bored myself now

The best information you'll ever get about English will come from a linguist. It still makes me cringe when people say often "off TEN" instead of "ofen" which is how it's actually supposed to be pronounced. (try it it sounds nicer if you ask me) But you can't change the fact that language changes over time. "Standard" language is nearly impossible to nail down (excluding math as a language).

The most important thing to remember about grammar/language is that you need to effectively communicate an idea. Poor grammar is poor because as the language breaks down, there is also a communication breakdown. The language CAN change to include new words that represent new ideas and similarly words with assigned meanings can be reassigned to something else as society and use dictates.

In short, don't be discouraged, both phrases are useful depending on how you want to actually use them (where i assume 'intensive purposes' might include actions that require much scrutiny and concentration and 'intents and purposes' would include the meaning behind and action itself or in other words the purpose - though that seems redundant no? intents AND purposes? maybe that's why it changed in the language for all i know) In any case, again, dont worry about it as long as you're communicating effectively. Watch this: http://www.videosift.com/video/Linguistics-and-Human-Rights-MIT-Lecture

It's such a perfect touch to the joke that his whole point is that the letter "y" sounds the same in English as the word "why," and therefore we should ask Obama "why."

Arguments are supposed to be based on logic, not on linguistic coincidences!

im going to use your posts in a Turing test of a linguistic AI... if it can decipher what you say, it passes... cause right now, even some real people can't tell... and i find your wit, logic, and observational commentary to be high caliber... thanks for all the source data. im srsly.

http://www.logicaldiscourseproject.org

On the racism discussion going on up there ^ ^
It's more about the context, anything can be used to describe something in a derogatory way. Being a fan of language in general I must admit that im a little jealous of african americans just because they get to use the word 'nigger' and i dont think i'd ever be able to use it in any social situation where it wasnt taken the wrong way (im not a racist just a linguist)

Now in the case of the word 'cholo' above, he's using it in a defamatory sense. In spite of the accuracy uncovered in the urban dictionary, that word usage is probably meant to devalue the man holding the gun in the video (based on the context).

The biggest problem i see is that there are so many ways to approach to the problem that all seem to do what is needed, but right now are scattered between researchers and projects all over the world, and i dont have access to them! For instance, you have massively excellent ideas, but would i have even known about them if i didnt come on videosift? so who else might already have another piece to the puzzle that i am completely ignorant of? that is my base starting point, because of my experience level and resources.

you are correct in approaching the linguistic AI component as the heaviest and most critical task to work on. Everything else is trivial in comparison.

The researchers at Cornell started a project in 2004 with a 10 year goal to accomplish basically what we're talking about in terms of analysis, only for a different purpose. I would not like to... spend time on that component when that research will save time and ultimately be better than what i can think of or make with my resources. I could essentially dig the hole, and fill it in with their system... a desire not driven by a particular ... inability... but out of desire for maximum efficiency.

I seem to be my best at unifying already developed systems, so right now... im identifying what components are needed, in what stage, if any, do they exist currently, where do they exist, and how can i use them in this new way.

The database component and GUI is likely where i personally could do the most work, but soon i will have access to the brains here at the CS department, and hopefully they will be interested enough to give me pointers in the right direction for the rest. I am about 7 months out from even getting to that point, so in that time, i am going to keep basically brainstorming and researching all the stuff i can so that the concept is presentable and accessible to new minds.

I can't contribute much at this point besides vision, time, and energy, but i feel like its such a worthy goal that i could easily spend a lifetime on it and consider it well spent. Your ideas make total sense to me, but... i wouldnt have been able to produce them in such logical context as efficiently... so at least, i can identify the need to be educated and educate myself more. I want to see what specific areas i excel at here at school so i feel i have validity to ... waste the time of more brilliant individuals such as yourself.

I mean, you already have such practical solutions for an AI framework, and i haven't even done anything as defined. so it makes me feel .. unworthy of attempting to interact at your level when i know i am not ready... but i know now you have a piece to the puzzle... so progress has been made... perhaps soon i can make the call to arms for the project in a way that is appropriate to the end goal, which is participation of everyone.

That's all i can spew forth ... once again thank you for making me see that it really is important to other people... that alone is enough to keep me going on this. I belive soon i will make a .org website for people to start brainstorming on, with a forum and such... that is how i can most effectively contribute at this point... organizing channels for ideas regarding the various components, as they are identified. My younger brother, for instance, is getting heavy training in the PeopleSoft/oracle suites, so there is another piece right there.

Sorry to be so vague in response to your very specific ideas.. all i can say to them is... YES MOAR PLS!1 and lol you found the same funny definitions for the acronym i did... heh heh heh. There needs to be a clearing house for these ideas... that's where i can come in the soonest, i believe... i would love to watch the conversation develop between more parties with interests and abilities such as yours! ok, well, back to the drawing board to channel some of this excitement productively! i have a large break time coming up in late august, and with that i hope to be in full swing making the website and "conceptual" framework for others to spin off of.

boy this will be neat... thanks D!

You know, I was with this guy to a degree on the linguistics one, then the scientific method one put me off. Now I realize he's a complete moron that ought to know what the hell he's talking about before he tries to "teach" what he thinks is correct.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'what, you, ought, to, know, grammar, linguistics, language, english' to 'what you ought to know, grammar, spelling, linguistics, language, english' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^nibiyabi:
>> I wonder if the grammar error in the phrase "things we say wrong" is intentional, because he never seemed to address it.

I can't tell, but he does say "things we say correctly" at one point. My first instinct is that he wasn't trying to be ironic.




>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> OK - I have to take this chap to task on this one: "I feel badly".

Yes, he's trying to assume that only an adverb fits there. Saying "I feel sick" is a description of what a person feels, not how he/she feels it. He would probably look at someone oddly if they said "I feel exhaustedly".

OK. You're off base. This isn't about Linguistics. This is prescriptive grammar.

There's two basic sets of rules of language, prescriptive and descriptive. The first is standard grammar, where rules are given by the keepers of language in ivory towers; you must say it this way, not that way. The second type, the descriptive rules, look at how native speakers actually speak, and describe those rules without judgement. This field is called Linguistics. Linguistics is not at all concerned with how others perceive the language, or about what's officially correct or not.

What this guy is talking about is prescriptive rules of grammar, which has nothing to do with linguistics.

There's a saying in linguistics: "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." This means that whichever variety of a language is spoken by those in power is perceived as the correct way, and other ways are considered wrong. Even the normal TV news anchor standard way of speaking English is full of silly things that don't exist in "strange" dialects.

Take Newfoundland, Canada. In a variety of English spoken there, it's correct to say I is, you is, he is, she is, we is, and they is. To us, this sounds uneducated, but it makes much more sense than I am, you are, etc.

Beyond everything else, he confuses "four" with "for" and "two" with "to" which are different words, and have similar pronunciations by coincidence. There are clear, logical rules for why "for" can be pronounced "fer" but "four" never is.

Munchkin man irritated me as well. That was some childish attention-seeking he was up to. Beyond that, one of the first things you learn in linguistics is that someone who asks a series of inane questions like that is usually feeling rather insecure. The questions are designed to give the other party in the conversation "status points" as a strategy to ward off confrontation. (as opposed to what I just did which was try to atain status points by providing information).

We social scientists have to talk about cultural differences every day. We face it directly. When I talk about my areas, linguistics and education, I openly categorize people, and nobody listening perceives it as racist because it isn't: Mexcans are more focused on production; Koreans are more focused on learning accuracy; Turks are more focused on giving the correct answer in class. It's only people who aren't listening who automatically jump on the "racist" button as soon as anybody makes any comparison between cultures. This vid has nothing to do with racism.

The topic of this vid is how cultural differences affect performance in different jobs. That's an awesome topic.

I thought this highlight from the article was fascinating:

“Laughter serves as an emotional contagion,” said biologist Jared Taglialatela at Clayton Sate University. “It serves as a way of getting everyone on the same page. Secondly, it serves as a way for individuals to inform their social partners about their intentions, as well as provide information and feedback about their own emotional state.”

In other words, the laughter continuously tells an animal’s playmates that he is happy and merely fooling around, with no intention of picking a fight. This type of play builds social bonds in many mammals, including other primates and mammals like dogs and rats, which are also thought to emit sounds while being tickled.

Unlike other apes, humans can laugh without any contact or threat of contact, as their “play” is often cognitive or linguistic. 

What's funny is that the "I could care less" thing is very low on my list of grammar pet peeves (that guy was just bugging me). Conversational language is far looser than the written word, and a lot of things get a pass from me. It is also ever evolving. However, while it may be about what is implied or inferred, if you're not careful with what you say, those two can be in direct opposition. That can definitely be the case with "I could care less" (though folks seem to have accepted it). The lazier we get with our language, the less* we will understand each other in the future. The world has enough trouble communicating as it is, we shouldn't help it along.


*Less vs Fewer IS one of my pet peeves, on the other hand.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
"Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred)."


Yes, and "language" is about what is implied and what is inferred. Grammar is not the only factor involved in communication.

Language is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.

Communication is the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Communication sometimes has nothing to do with grammar.



That being said, it bugs the CRAP outta me when somebody says, "I could care less."






In reply to this comment by Bullwinkle:
"Yep, mixed up imply/infer and didn't reread my post. Whoopee, what a tame and insanely common mistake. Notice how I can admit where I'm wrong instead of kicking the air like a mule."

A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

"What an amazingly thorough rebuttal, just stubbornly asserting the opposite without addressing the logic of my post. Why would anyone interpret that you cared enough to give a preference unless an actual preference followed? Explain. Your entire argument rests on this. For "I could care less" to imply caring when the opposite was intended, it has to be inferred that way by the person to whom it's spoken."

I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.

Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant. As another example, people may know what you mean when you use a double negative, that doesn't make it correct.