[PREV - LINGUISTOLOGY]    [TOP]

FORMLESS_EMBRYO


                                             September 24, 2018
                                             October   15, 2020


H.G. Wells, "A Modern Utopia" (1905):

     "We need suppose no linguistic impediments to intercourse.
     The whole world will surely have a common language, that is
     quite elementarily Utopian, and since we are free of the
     trammels of convincing story-telling, we may suppose that
     language to be sufficiently our own to understand. Indeed,
     should we be in Utopia at all, if we could not talk to
     everyone? That accursed bar of language, that hostile
     inscription in the foreigner's eyes, 'deaf and dumb to you,
     sir, and so--your enemy,' is the very first of the defects
     and complications one has fled the earth to escape."

                                                      BABEL-17


Wells argues against the new Scientific Language gang, and in the
process helps fill us in on the kinds of things those guys were
saying.  In the days before Loglan/Lojban, this is how the patter
went:

     "You would begin to talk of scientific languages, of
     Esperanto, La Langue Bleue, New Latin, Volapuk, and Lord
     Lytton, of the philosophical language of Archbishop
     Whateley, Lady Welby's work upon Significs and the like. You
     would tell me of the remarkable precisions, the
     encyclopaedic quality of chemical terminology, and at the
     word terminology I should insinuate a comment on that
     eminent American biologist, Professor Mark Baldwin, who has
     carried the language biological to such heights of
     expressive clearness as to be triumphantly and invincibly
     unreadable. (Which foreshadows the line of my defence.)"

And that foreshadowing makes it clear Wells thinks this is all nonsense.

    "You make your ideal clear, a scientific language you demand,
    without ambiguity, as precise as mathematical formulae, and
    with every term in relations of exact logical consistency
    with every other."

And that's the point that Bertrand
Russell objected to-- as a practical
matter, he couldn't get himself to
believe it was possible to have a
word for every concept: we
necessarily re-use words with
different meanings (some of them very      Russell also made the point that
individual and idiosyncratic) and          each individual can easily have a
distinguish between them by context.       different "concept" associated
                                           with a word. A completely
    "It will be a language                 unambiguous vocabulary necessarily
    with all the inflexions                requires everyone to share
    of verbs and nouns                     identical meanings, as well as
    regular and all its                    identical symbols.
    constructions inevitable,
    each word clearly                               LOGICAL_LANGUAGE
    distinguishable from
    every other word in sound
    as well as spelling."


That much, at least, we could probably do better with
than, say, English does... though it's interesting
that English hasn't evolved further in that direction
all on it's own.  If the cognitive limitations of
the irregularities of English were really so big, I
would think we would do away with some of them
naturally without any clean-up campaigns.


    " ... It implies that the whole
    intellectual basis of mankind is
    established, that the rules of
    logic, the systems of counting
    and measurement, the general
    categories and schemes of
    resemblance and difference, are
    established for the human mind     So Wells was an Auguste
    for ever--blank Comte-ism, in      Comte hater.  That's
    fact, of the blankest              mildly surprising...
    description."
                                                    I hadn't realized
      I'm not sure I follow the claim               that Comte claimed
      that human understanding must                 that the age of
      be static if the language was                 research was over
      perfectly standardized... I                   and all that could be
      would think there would be ways               known was known.
      around this, e.g. a process for
      tentative assignment of new                            In fact, the
      words to new concepts, and a                           accusation
      "standards body" process to                            sounds suspicious.
      decided which should be brought
      into the language proper.                              AUGUSTE_COMTE

      It could be a problem if advances in
      understanding of logic itself
      deviated from the understanding built
      into the language.



    "But, indeed, the science of logic and the whole
    framework of philosophical thought men have kept since
    the days of Plato and Aristotle, has no more essential
    permanence as a final expression of the human mind,
    than the Scottish Longer Catechism."

        I grok not the reference, but I fear Wells
        may exaggerate the grand progress since
        Aristotle... but then, it's not like there
        hasn't been some, so...                   
                                                  
                                                  
    "Amidst the welter of modern thought, a philosophy
    long lost to men rises again into being, like some
    blind and almost formless embryo, that must presently     What?
    develop sight, and form, and power, a philosophy in
    which this assumption is denied."


    "[Footnote: The serious reader may refer at
    leisure to
                                                         You've got Sidgwick
        Sidgwick's Use of Words in Reasoning             and Sigwart's on your
                                                         side--
    (particularly), and to

        Bosanquet's Essentials of Logic,
    and Bradley's Principles of Logic,


        Sigwart's Logik;

    the lighter minded may read and mark the temper of

        Professor Case in the British Encyclopaedia,
        article Logic (Vol. XXX.).

    I have appended to his book a rude sketch of a
    philosophy upon new lines, originally read by me
    to the Oxford Phil. Soc. in 1903.]"


                                          Say what?


   "The language of Utopia will no doubt be one and indivisible;
   all mankind will, in the measure of their individual differences
   in quality, be brought into the same phase, into a common
   resonance of thought, but the language they will speak will
   still be a living tongue, an animated system of imperfections,
   which every individual man will infinitesimally modify."

        Right, but like I said... we modern computer
        programmer types all work with standardized       That's my "modern"
        "languages" which are extensible by design,       not Wells' "modern"--
        and over time our experiments are often firmed    the proper jargon
        up into standard features...                      these days may be
                                                          "contemporary".
   "Through the universal freedom of exchange and
   movement, the developing change in its general            When we get to the
   spirit will be a world-wide change; that is the           post-contemporary
   quality of its universality. I fancy it will be           era, you'll know
   a coalesced language, a synthesis of many."               it's all over.

                                                                It's enough to
        And here, Wells jukes to                                drive one to
        the left on us again:                                   Esperanto.
        A universal tongue awaits,
        just not a universal design.



--------
[NEXT - BABEL-17]