Do you believe *in*?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 08:37 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;132146 wrote:
What does money being uncountable have to do with "I believe in money" having meaning?
Comparable sentences are not of the form 'I believe in sun', they're of these forms:
1) I believe in the sun
2) I believe in suns.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 08:42 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;132148 wrote:
Comparable sentences are not of the form 'I believe in sun', they're of these forms:
1) I believe in the sun
2) I believe in suns.


Comparable to what? What on earth are you talking about?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 08:48 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;132150 wrote:
Comparable to what? What on earth are you talking about?
Sorry, I dont see where the leeway to misunderstand what I've written is.
Zetherin;131845 wrote:
I also find it interesting those things we never use "I believe in" with, constrasted with those things we would use "I believe in" with. We would never say things like, "I believe in car", or "I believe in sun", or "I believe in computer". But we would say, "I believe in money". Most strange.
This is the piece I quoted. You "contrast" several sentences of a superficially identical form, this relies on those sentences being genuinely comparable, but they are not genuinely comparable, because "money" is an uncountable noun.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 08:55 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;132152 wrote:
Sorry, I dont see where the leeway to misunderstand what I've written is.This is the piece I quoted. You "contrast" several sentences of a superficially identical form, this relies on those sentences being genuinely comparable, but they are not genuinely comparable, because "money" is an uncountable noun.


Oh, I see. That's correct. Thank you. I should have used other plurals.

Why do you think "I believe in the sun" is a comparable sentence, though? Wasn't your point that "money" is plural (I would suggest you stop using this 'uncountable' thing) and "sun" is singular?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 09:33 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;132159 wrote:
Why do you think "I believe in the sun" is a comparable sentence, though? Wasn't your point that "money" is plural (I would suggest you stop using this 'uncountable' thing) and "sun" is singular?
Uncountable nouns, in the singular, dont take articles. "Money" is both the singular and plural form. As far as I can see, it was sufficient to point out that your sentences included singular forms of the countable nouns, had I realised that this is a matter of such difficulty I would have pointed out the requirement for articles, too, in my initial response.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 11:22 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;132180 wrote:
Uncountable nouns, in the singular, dont take articles. "Money" is both the singular and plural form. As far as I can see, it was sufficient to point out that your sentences included singular forms of the countable nouns, had I realised that this is a matter of such difficulty I would have pointed out the requirement for articles, too, in my initial response.


I still do not fully understand, but that is more than likely because of my shortcomings, not yours. Thank you for the correction.

I believe you know what you are talking about, and I also believe I do not know what I am talking about. So I will shut up.
 
Emil
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:06 am
@Zetherin,
Btw, ughaibu, welcome to the other side (the forum of course).

Please try to keep a cooler head here though. Smile You may see a lot of familiar faces around, Pyrrho, Kennethamy, Fast, Leaf, cberman, and maybe some more I cannot currently recall.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:09 am
@Emil,
Emil;132220 wrote:
Btw, ughaibu, welcome to the other side (the forum of course).

Please try to keep a cooler head here though. Smile You may see a lot of familiar faces around, Pyrrho, Kennethamy, Fast, Leaf, cberman, and maybe some more I cannot currently recall.
Thanks for the welcome. It was Kennethamy who originally suggested I visit here.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:58 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;131968 wrote:
Scotty:
I've written dictionaries and grammars for languages that have never before been documented, ground up sort of stuff. Believe me dictionaries are of very limited use when it comes to comprehending proper usage within the language as it is actually spoken.


I haven't found that true about Webster's Collegiate,or the Shorter OED, and others. What makes you say such a thing? Have you an example or two of what you mean? I find going to a good dictionary always very helpful. It is not, perhaps, the last word, but it is certainly the beginning word.

---------- Post added 02-25-2010 at 10:00 AM ----------

ughaibu;132221 wrote:
Thanks for the welcome. It was Kennethamy who originally suggested I visit here.


(Don't blame me for what befalls you, though). But, yes, welcome. You will, I think, find the administration here far more reasonable than at the other forum. (They don't despise philosophy).
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:01 am
@Zetherin,
I don't want to make a big issue out of things, but when I don't understand something, I try not to ignore it.

ughaibu wrote:

This is the piece I quoted. You "contrast" several sentences of a superficially identical form, this relies on those sentences being genuinely comparable, but they are not genuinely comparable, because "money" is an uncountable noun.


Your point, I believe, was that "I believe in sun" is not comparable to "I believe in money", and this is because "money" is a plural or singular uncountable noun, and "sun" is a singular countable noun.

However, you go on to say:

Quote:
Uncountable nouns, in the singular, dont take articles. "Money" is both the singular and plural form. As far as I can see, it was sufficient to point out that your sentences included singular forms of the countable nouns, had I realised that this is a matter of such difficulty I would have pointed out the requirement for articles, too, in my initial response.


Now you state that uncountable nouns in the singular do not take articles. What has this to do with things? Well, it seems to have to do with what you say here:

Quote:

Comparable sentences are not of the form 'I believe in sun', they're of these forms:
1) I believe in the sun
2) I believe in suns.


Your stating that (1) would be a comparable sentence. What does the addition of the article add here that makes this sentence comparable? It is still a singular countable noun here, is it not? So, how would this be comparable to "money", a plural or singular uncountable noun?

Perhaps someone else can explain to me, since I know this takes a lot of patience, and I already detect that you would like to gouge my eyes out with a seafood fork.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:08 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;132298 wrote:
I don't want to make a big issue out of things, but when I don't understand something, I try not to ignore it.



Your point, I believe, was that "I believe in sun" is not comparable to "I believe in money", and this is because "money" is a plural or singular uncountable noun, and "sun" is a singular countable noun.

However, you go on to say:



Now you state that uncountable nouns in the singular do not take articles. What has this to do with things? Well, it seems to have to do with what you say here:



Your stating that (1) would be a comparable sentence. What does the addition of the article add here that makes this sentence comparable? It is still a singular countable noun here, is it not? So, how would this be comparable to "money", a plural or singular uncountable noun?

Perhaps someone else can explain to me, since I know this takes a lot of patience, and I already detect that you would like to gouge my eyes out with seafood forks.


On the other hand, "I believe in sons (not daughters)" is grammatical, and, "I believe in the son (but not in the daughter)" is also grammatical.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:20 am
@Zetherin,
kennethamy wrote:
On the other hand, "I believe in sons (not daughters)" is grammatical, and, "I believe in the son (but not in the daughter)" is also grammatical.


But why is "I believe in the sun" comparable to "I believe in money", but "I believe in sun" not comparable to "I believe in money"?

Gosh, you may be able to help me out, as you seem knowledgable about the intricacies of language.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:23 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;132302 wrote:
But why is "I believe in the sun" comparable to "I believe in money", but "I believe in sun" not comparable to "I believe in money"?

Gosh, you may be able to help me out, as you seem knowledgable with the intricaties of language.



I really don't know the answer to that. But it may be accidental in the sense that it is not caused by anything relevant to this issue.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:05 am
@kennethamy,
Zeth:
usage for believe in (def) versus believe in (indef) is the main crux here. One first has to understand the real functional usage of things definite and thing indefinite. One might look at it as Old news versus novel news. Those things that are definite were either previously mentioned or they are common knowledge of some sort.
(The Statue of Liberty)
(Starship Enterprise)
(Peter Frampton)
(The Sun)
(The Son)

Those things which are indefinite are either things that have yet to be introduced in conversation or cannot be determined as specific.
(a statue)
(starship) <-not the band
(a sun)
(sons)


Couple this with the property of the verb (to believe in), the particle (in) sort of acts like a postposition, except that it does not place an noun/pronoun in space it places the verb in an ideological system.


So I believe in X(Def) shows that the thing being believed in has a property of positive value within the part of your ideological system that overlaps the general ideological system shared by your greater language group.

Also (to believe in) mandates the definiteness of all non-marked objects. In other words every object of (I believe in) will be definite unless otherwise specified. And in most cases things marked as indefinite will not sound right at all.

(I believe in money) - and indefinite object money, however because it is being place in a definite socio-linguisitc system it has definite properties. [I believe in the functional worth of money within the realm of its usefulness in and around the topic of the current conversation and the greater social sense of the uses of money]

(I believe in the money) - a definite object already which limits the object to specific already stated monies and a more limited system within which to place it. [I beieve in the functional worth of this money to bring about the ends that have previously been discussed or implied]

*I believe in a money* doesn't work of a lot of reasons (collective plural and all that.

however

*I believe in a son* or *I believe in a sun* although gramatically correct do not sound right to most native English speakers, most likely because the verb (believe in) mandates some sort of definiteness.

The rules of grammar are hierarchical normally with the most unusual rule taking precidence. So we in certain circumstances must suspend normal rules of definiteness and plurals to accomodate the unusual rule. This is why a sentence like. *I believe in son* does not work. There is no way to force the sense of the singular *son* into a definite socio-linguistic system. The sociolingustic system regarding progeny requires a plural like son or a possesive like my son. A plural would imply their worth as general progeny and producers of family. Whereas my son would imply his worth within the family and his potential for success in general or a more specific worth dependent upon the topic being discussed or the people discussing it.


Ken: The above is why dictionaries are of limited use when discussing actual real worlk usage of terms. No dictionary, in fact almost no published grammar, is going to break down the real world usage and grammatical hierarchy of rules involved in their entried to such a level that one hopefully understand the function of a term within its realworld context.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:10 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;132335 wrote:
Zeth:
usage for believe in (def) versus believe in (indef) is the main crux here. One first has to understand the real functional usage of things definite and thing indefinite. One might look at it as Old news versus novel news. Those things that are definite were either previously mentioned or they are common knowledge of some sort.
(The Statue of Liberty)
(Starship Enterprise)
(Peter Frampton)
(The Sun)
(The Son)

Those things which are indefinite are either things that have yet to be introduced in conversation or cannot be determined as specific.
(a statue)
(starship) <-not the band
(a sun)
(sons)


Couple this with the property of the verb (to believe in), the particle (in) sort of acts like a postposition, except that it does not place an noun/pronoun in space it places the verb in an ideological system.


So I believe in X(Def) shows that the thing being believed in has a property of positive value within the part of your ideological system that overlaps the general ideological system shared by your greater language group.

Also (to believe in) mandates the definiteness of all non-marked objects. In other words every object of (I believe in) will be definite unless otherwise specified. And in most cases things marked as indefinite will not sound right at all.

(I believe in money) - and indefinite object money, however because it is being place in a definite socio-linguisitc system it has definite properties. [I believe in the functional worth of money within the realm of its usefulness in and around the topic of the current conversation and the greater social sense of the uses of money]

(I believe in the money) - a definite object already which limits the object to specific already stated monies and a more limited system within which to place it. [I beieve in the functional worth of this money to bring about the ends that have previously been discussed or implied]

*I believe in a money* doesn't work of a lot of reasons (collective plural and all that.

however

*I believe in a son* or *I believe in a sun* although gramatically correct do not sound right to most native English speakers, most likely because the verb (believe in) mandates some sort of definiteness.

The rules of grammar are hierarchical normally with the most unusual rule taking precidence. So we in certain circumstances must suspend normal rules of definiteness and plurals to accomodate the unusual rule. This is why a sentence like. *I believe in son* does not work. There is no way to force the sense of the singular *son* into a definite socio-linguistic system. The sociolingustic system regarding progeny requires a plural like son or a possesive like my son. A plural would imply their worth as general progeny and producers of family. Whereas my son would imply his worth within the family and his potential for success in general or a more specific worth dependent upon the topic being discussed or the people discussing it.


Ken: The above is why dictionaries are of limited use when discussing actual real worlk usage of terms. No dictionary, in fact almost no published grammar, is going to break down the real world usage and grammatical hierarchy of rules involved in their entried to such a level that one hopefully understand the function of a term within its realworld context.


I am not sure what you mean, but from what I can gather, what you are talking about is not to be expected from a dictionary. People use other sources for what you seem to mean. For example, Fowler's Dictionary of English Usage.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:34 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;132338 wrote:
I am not sure what you mean, but from what I can gather, what you are talking about is not to be expected from a dictionary. People use other sources for what you seem to mean. For example, Fowler's Dictionary of English Usage.


Fowlers in a prescriptive dictionary, not an analysis of real world usage. Fowler's like many style guides tells one what one should do to create a specific regimented phrase. However, language as spoken is not prescribed, it is evolutionarily fluid, regionally fluid, idiomatically fluid, and ideologically fluid. It has rules etc... however as noted in my previous posts there are elements of socio-linguistics that cannot be placed in a dictionary or grammar of any sort, there are even elements of specific conversations required to use the above examples properly.

The prescription argument is an old one, and one that is really a matter of preference and education. It simply does not apply when attempting to unravel real world language usage.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:56 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;132350 wrote:
Fowlers in a prescriptive dictionary, not an analysis of real world usage. Fowler's like many style guides tells one what one should do to create a specific regimented phrase. However, language as spoken is not prescribed, it is evolutionarily fluid, regionally fluid, idiomatically fluid, and ideologically fluid. It has rules etc... however as noted in my previous posts there are elements of socio-linguistics that cannot be placed in a dictionary or grammar of any sort, there are even elements of specific conversations required to use the above examples properly.

The prescription argument is an old one, and one that is really a matter of preference and education. It simply does not apply when attempting to unravel real world language usage.


It describes how fluent and educated speakers of English speak. It is up to anyone whether he wishes to emulate those speakers. There are, of course, other dictionaries. For example, of slang.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:13 pm
@kennethamy,
Ken:
I promissed myself the last time this topic came up that I would never again waste time with a first lesson of any lingusitics 101 class ever taught. So the above posts about dictionaries are good enough.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:23 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;132372 wrote:
Ken:
I promissed myself the last time this topic came up that I would never again waste time with a first lesson of any lingusitics 101 class ever taught. So the above posts about dictionaries are good enough.


That linguistic should be entirely descriptive, and not, at all, prescriptive, is not a revealed truth, and it doesn't even seem to me to be a truth. And if it is taught in Linguistics 101 that it is a revealed truth, or even a truth, then those who teach it are wrong.
 
Baal
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 12:40 pm
@Zetherin,
Dictionaries are never a definitive reference of language, to a language, or the like. The best a dictionary can do is provide a relative aggregate of exposition on a given word. See my previous post about paraphrasing.

Likewise, one cannot simply emulate speakers of a language, not successfully at least. In that vein, learning from a dictionary and emulating speakers will always result in contradictory results to the outsider, simply because either individually is inadequate to grasp the essence of the language.

In truth, nothing is sufficient. What is explained as grasping the essence of a language; 'getting it', is as natural as walking or eating, in the sense that once complete it is not a conscious process and furthermore is not confined to any specific manner or form. There are only regions, spheres of influence in which the speaker is well established enough in a linguistic community to provide his own input, while at the same time be perceived as an actual speaker of the language.

Dictionaries make an artificial summaries of all these classes and of all these peculiar usages, meant to serve as a reminder to the actual speaker when placing a given word in a particular context; it should be seen as a crutch, but not an actual pair of legs, and for one who can properly walk, the crutch is awkward, and cumbersome.

But as Gosh said, this is basic linguistics; though it is not the popular discourse among other academic fields, certainly not in the so-called logical fields, it is nevertheless written and explained all over in most introductory texts on linguistics. Simple Aristotelian logic will not work.

Thus a dictionary is equivalent to a literary work; it provides a window as to what people have anticipated words to mean, it provides a perspective for the state of that particular society and culture. Like a monument to a war does not comprise victory itself, and like a glorified statue of a deity does not comprise that deity's actual traits and attributes, so does a dictionary not comprise the actual usage of language. All of these artifacts depict collective anticipations which are to be viewed in a collective sense.

For in essence a dictionary does nothing more than use other words to explain any index. Thus it inherently assumes that the user is already familiar with those words used as explanation, to some extent. Assuming otherwise would be making the entire ideal contradictory, as on the one hand the dictionary would provide the definitive prescriptive reference for language, but yet on the other hand assume that the reader already uses all the descriptive terms according to the dictionary itself; thus making it a horrible instructive tool.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 09:43:02