From what I've read so far, it seems that for Locke improvement in language means that language would more accurately convey knowledge. But I also wonder about how language changes over time. Language has certainly changed over time; for example, there are many new terms because of computer technology and social media. Language changes because of cultural/technological context, but it seems that no amount of change in language can remove language's distance from reality (language represents ideas which represent the essence of things).

I always thought the most helpful evidence (that was once pointed out to me) that sound-symbols are arbitrary is proof that even onomatopoeia varies from language to language. So even the sounds that we claim represent most directly are not necessarily similar from language to language. Here are some good examples:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/51996/12-onomatopoeias-around-world

https://vimeo.com/25215616

(This video is also interesting in that the more complex the animal's sound, the more dramatically onomatopoetic words vary from language to language. A cat's "meow" sounds almost the same in any language, whereas there are many different ways of representing a dog's bark, or a rooster's crow. I guess "meow" is the closest humanity can get to non-arbitrary language. Meow = Truth???)

It seems really provocative to study rhetoric before ancient Greece; it's certainly something I had never heard of, not that that is saying much. Also, I've only encountered materiality and rhetoric in regards to modern technology, so it's really interesting to trace this back waaaay before computers and even books. It's also interesting that this is a time when there wasn't a written, standard language. Other articles for this week discussed delivery and body language, but uses of some sort of standard language was always a focus, so going all the way back to the Paleolithic really stretches the boundaries of rhetoric in an exciting way.

Spanish he/she has a wide range of options in job opportunities after the completion of graduation. Spanish major is really very helpful for the students as it provides them with a greatly enriched view of the entire world around them. It is helpful to them because it also provides them with the best Spanish language skills which are really important in many professional occupations.

Today English is the most commonly used, i.e. spoken, written and listened language, making it extremely popular all around the world. In many countries, it has become the second official language, as they have understood the importance of it in the modern context. http://blog.selectmytutor.co.uk/top-10-books-on-english-language/

Translates to: “When shall I be as the swallow?” This is referring to Philomela (daughter of Pandion, King of Athens). In the story, she was transformed into a nightingale or something like that.

Datta: give/giving

Dayadhvam: compassion/be compassionate

Damyata: control/self-control

"Da" in German is similar to the English word "there." It is also used to mean "being present," not just as a location pointer. It was originally "there" as in "not here" but as all words' meanings morph over time, it can now also mean "then." So "Da" as a word occupies a space and a time.

There is peace in the rubbish. (Spelling?)

they teach their 2nd lang

even adults teaching english isn't 1st lang. so they are learning as they teach

its true they need to preserve the languages so more ppl learn it and so it won't die

offering more instruction=more children to learn

This is pretty good for salvadorians who want to practice their english, if they are choosing to learn it. It is also nice for the visiting americans, to read the news if they can't read/speak spanish.

thats a pretty large poplation...

If u were to visit El Salvador, this would be very useful seeming English is the most common second language. It would be a good idea to learn some Spanish survival sayings first though.

language spoken

these are examples of explicit culture. Something in a culture that you can't actually touch or feel but helps you learn about the culture for example language and traditions.

blah blah

Cue Roman Jakobson. In a way, by giving the illusion of mutual understanding, these apps exacerbate the problem. Also, because they do the worst job with rich language work (nuance, subtlety, wordplay, polysemy, subtext…) they encourage a very “sterile” language which might have pleased Orwell like it pleases transhumanists, but which waters down what makes language worth speaking.

Though he’s been associated with a very strange idea he never had, Edward Sapir was quite explicit about this loss over a hundred years ago. Thinking specifically about a later passage warning people about the glossocide English language. But it’s been clear in his work from long before that excerpt that we’re missing out when we focus on a single language.

One might think that those other languages are well-represented. People connected with the Open Knowledge Foundation are currently tackling this very issue. Here, Open Education isn’t just about content.

I should write this in English

De ce point de vue, il n'est pas nécessaire d'argumenter longuement sur ces dispositions car le convergence des structures de productivité peut produire des miracles et agrémenter le soutien du jeu des stratégies des forces en présence.

Sure, we’ve heard that before. But there’s reason to be cautiously optimistic about this one.

Glad Anglophone prescriptivists aren’t having their way. If they did, chances are that the language would have a similar fate to German as a colonial language. Chances are that a predilection for normative language has greatly impacted language insecurity among Francophones.

This is an archaic use of the -eth suffix for third-person indicative. This faded from usage during the Middle and Early Modern English periods.

I much prefer this nomenclature especially since it allows me to add Christopher Alexander to the mix. He argued that there are machine systems and growing systems. Or perhaps we can think of the distinction as between engineered and rhizomatic? Or using James Scott's terms: legible v illegible.

I guess I do have a prejudice for this one. Don't all people use language to learn, reason, argue, and communicate, no matter their discipline or field?

The Book of Human Emotions, Tiffany Watt Smith

Emotions are not just biological, but cultural. Different societies have unique concepts for combinations of feelings in particular circumstances.

If you know a word for an emotion, you can more easily recognize it, control it -- and perhaps feel it more intensely.

Emotions and how they are valued also varies across time as well as space. Sadness was valued in Renaissance Europe: they felt it made you closer to God. Today we value happiness, and we may value it too much. Emodiversity is the idea that feeling a wide range of emotions is good for you mentally and physically.

This could be the first time we can talk with empirical evidence about language requiring innate components or not.

Can we embrace diversity?

I don't totally agree with the fact that writers the creation of language is the target of a writer, I think language is just a means, the "algorithm" that "plays" with words/semanthincs, as any machine can do

Do you have what it takes? Signup on www.venturesity.com and unlock opportunities.

This makes me think of David Abram's The Spell of the Sensuous, an exploration of the sensuous foundations of language.

I wonder about the relationship between "attachment" and sensation. Could one become attached without sensing the attachment? And is attachment rhetorical: is it like a language, even if it is not (only) epistemic?

Here I start to wonder about "translating" sensory perceptions into (written) language; namely, are we ever not doing that.

What is the "self-" qualifier doing here? Is this useful for some reason? No one exists in a bubble.

Here's one article about the term: http://aclj.org/jihad/self-radicalized-islamic-terrorist

Yeah, grammar marmism is rampant in our worlds. Some people mistake language for a machine when it is really a joshua tree or a redwood or some kind of fungus. The only disease that would kill language would be the evolution of telepathy and I don't think that would do it. To adapt Johnny Paycheck: take your rules Mr. Heller and shove 'em.

Correction, the link location for Unspeakableness has changed to http://peiyinglin.net/unspeakableness.html

More details accessible here: http://unspeakableness.net/

That sounds good. I aim to get fluent this semester!

Hdt. 2.2. The Nature vs. Nurture enigma is presented here. It is advocated here that language is biologically programmed here and thus language is a nature phenomenon. However, the nature v. nurture debate has become bane in the field of psychology. Do the lengths or widths make a rectangle?

collaboration-driven ethos

We take a turn here to see how deceptive language can be. It's power to persuade by verbiage, not just by what is being said.

A 'snowflake' sort of ideal applied to other words... but a valid point. Our language is imperfect, inaccurate, and vague- every time I read through Nietzche I come around to his thought process a little more.

It's fascinating to consider how if our language had been constructed differently... based on, somehow, a logical reasoning of stimuli... mankind would think entirely differently.

It would be hard to imagine human language without a humanocentric bent, but a completely fair point nonetheless.

And this is exactly what linguists are talking about when they say that words are simply symbols for the things that they represent

I can understand his reasoning in this statement. Our language describes the world and things around us in relation to mankind. Kind of ego-centrical if you think about it

Great question, and I think the answer is 'no'. Each language has it's own restrictions in expressing certain ideas, emotions, or situations. I definitely think that there are boundaries that can confine our expression in any language

I'm not sure exactly what he is trying to say here. Is he saying that while language is not pulled from out of know where, words and language are built upon connections to other words instead of the intrinsic nature of a thing?

Language vs. Truth

Do we lose something in this dissolution?

Well, how else are people supposed to function in a real world? Nothing's constant, so all we can do is make assumptions and generalizations in an attempt to make sense of our surroundings

definition of language

Implies that the sound is, somehow, directly related to the perception of something?

I wanted to highlight "Is language the adequate expression of all realities?"

Without language, what exists?

If deception is only deception because of a negative result, is deception without a negative result still deception?

We are only continually approximating out thoughts, not fully communicating

Language is probably the greatest tool human kind has. Reasoning exists in many animals, but extensive communication networks and language is ours! Also, poor use of the word "Universal" here. If it was a universal gift, it would be for everyone and not just man.

Read some Chompsky. Language is an internal process. The Language Instinct from Pinker is good, too.

Early study of a language needed.

beautiful

Language is formed on complex interactions and has many histories, especially English. It cannot be classified as our language and other language because these so often overlap

"in oratory the very cardinal sin is to depart from the language of everyday life, and the usage approved by the sense of the community." - Cicero, De Oratore

Use of language in good style.

Style. Use language people recognize and understand.

This is an important sentiment, one that we might see repeating in other readings. In what ways is language a drug? In what ways does language intoxicate or heal?