[WikiEN-l] a language issue

[stevertigo]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>
> The issue is a matter of much ado about nothing.  Should the Monty
> Python skit say that it was the parrot's body that was nailed to the
> perch and not the parrot itself?
>
> In the interests of mutual respect an editor who wants to include the
> word "body" in his writings is perfectly at liberty to do so, and they
> should be reassured at the same time that those who omit that same word
> are not doing so to troll the fears of the taphephobics.
>
> A general adoption of a formula to always include the reference to a
> "body" (or a synonym thereto) strikes me as an excess of politically
> correct theology.
>

Language and the concepts expressed in statements are not "much ado about
nothing." And I don't know or care what Monty Python should or should not
say, or (your actual point) what people in non-encyclopedic contexts should
say.

The point is that its using an English figure of speech to say "Grant is
buried in Grant's tomb," rather than using English itself, to say something
like "Grant's body is probably just dust at this point." Anyway precision is
preferable, is it not, in certain contexts, if not others. What context
would I be mainly thinking of?

In this case the idea of bumping up precision in a certain small area
reveals some wider human conceptual miasmas with regard to croaking. Which
is normal and understandable. The only real problem is that the association
of person <=> body comes from that typically excessive qualitative assertion
of empiricism that states that life is entirely biological.

Just taking one of the relevant dimensions, the issues with regard to the
way English Wikipedia articles translate via mechanical processes (Google
Translate is actually usable) to other languages, and what exactly people
can derive from those translations, are profoundly relevant to us:  The
first thing to note is that certain concepts may be missing and thus require
expansion to a definition to translate. Secondly, concept-to-word
orthographies aren't all the same, though being human means the important
ones shouldn't be too far off. And third thing to note is that because
idioms are idiomatic (ie. they often don't translate well), it therefore its
not a bad idea to curb idiom usage in contexts where information is likely
to be translated.

Formal modes of language can handle each of these, and translate quite
nicely if one follows certain expansion rules, even where the cultural
concepts might be somewhat different. This criticism follows from these
notions of expressive formalism, precision, and reducing idiomatic
expression - yes, with maybe a little divine orthography thrown in there
too.

-Steve