Subject: RE: [Ltru] Introduction change: suggested text

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:42:09 -0700

I think that the following sentiments are a good summary of my position as well.

In response to the particular suggestion of Martin's below, as well as a previous thread concerning artificial languages and whether those were excluded and so forth, I would like to propose that we change the text at the start of Section 2 from:

<q>The language tag always defines a language as used (which includes being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of information to other human beings. Computer languages such as programming languages are explicitly excluded.</q>

to read:

<t>The language tag is used to identify a language as used (which includes being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of information to other human beings. A language of this type is sometimes called a 'natural language', and this includes constructed or artificially designed languages, such as Esperanto. Languages not intended primarily for human communication, such as programming and other computer languages, are explicitly excluded.</t>

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> Sent: 2005?7?13? 3:28
> To: Randy Presuhn; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed addition after introduction (was: JerseyJE
> andGuernsey GG Country Codes)
> 
> 
> [with my co-chair hat off]
> I quite a bit agree with the sentiment in some of the text.
> (I have worked on Internationalization of the WWW and the
> Internet for a long time, so I hope this doesn't come as a
> surprise.) 
[Addison Phillips] 

Amen.

However, as an engineer, I think that what counts
> is the actual spec. As a technical project, the only thing
> we can do is to try to produce good technology, and hope
> it gets used the right way. Engineers in general, and the
> IETF in particular, is rather bad at marketing and politics,
> and I think we should stay away from it. 
[Addison Phillips] 

+1
> 
> The only bit where I'd like a bit more time to check the current
> draft text is JFCs first paragraph. If we are not clear enough
> that the draft and the registry don't define languages, but
> only provide identifiers, then I think may be a problem.
> But if this is the case, then this should be fixed mostly
> by word tweaking, rather than by grandiose declarations.
> As an example, looking at the first sentence of section @,
> it currently starts "The language tag always defines a language...".
> I think this should be changed to say
> "The language tag always identifies a language..."
> 
I agree: this text leads away from the intentions of the document and from the spirit of RFC 1766 and RFC 3066 in general.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:36:31 +0900

While we are at it, I propose that we change:

The language tag is used to identify a language as used (which includes
being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human beings for
communication of information to other human beings.

to:

The language tag is used to identify a language as used by human beings
for communication of information to other human beings. This includes
language being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled.

[I'm not totally happy yet with the second sentence, but I'm happy that
the parentheses, which were difficult to parse, are gone.]

Regards,   Martin.

At 01:42 05/07/14, Addison Phillips wrote:
 >In response to the particular suggestion of Martin's below, as well as a
 >previous thread concerning artificial languages and whether those were
 >excluded and so forth, I would like to propose that we change the text at
 >the start of Section 2 from:
 >
 ><q>The language tag always defines a language as used (which includes being
 >spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human beings for
 >communication of information to other human beings. Computer languages such
 >as programming languages are explicitly excluded.</q>
 >
 >to read:
 >
 ><t>The language tag is used to identify a language as used (which includes
 >being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human beings for
 >communication of information to other human beings. A language of this type
 >is sometimes called a 'natural language', and this includes constructed or
 >artificially designed languages, such as Esperanto. Languages not intended
 >primarily for human communication, such as programming and other computer
 >languages, are explicitly excluded.</t>
 >
 >Addison
 >
 >Addison P. Phillips
 >I agree: this text leads away from the intentions of the document and from
 >the spirit of RFC 1766 and RFC 3066 in general.

---

From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:07:29 +0300 (EEST)

> language being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled.

The change looks like an improvement to me. Anything that removes 
parentheses without introducing ambiguity is usually an improvement.

I'm afraid it still isn't restrictive enough. People have created all 
kinds of communication conventions that might be called languages by some 
but really aren't languages in the ordinary sense, or in the sense 
intended here. For example, textbooks on bridge, the card game, often 
describe a bidding system as being a language, used to communicate 
information on player's hands. Or consider private conventions by two 
persons on the use of a few gestures to communicate information.
Though "languages" in a sense, they really aren't general means of 
communication; a human language proper can be used to express anything, in 
principle, since it contains some mechanism of defining new words,
among other things.

Although a really satisfactory definition probably cannot be given here, 
I'd suggest a simple change that tries to improve it as regards to the 
nature of language: removal of the words "of information". That is:

   The language tag is used to identify a language as used by human beings
   for communication to other human beings. This includes
   language being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled.

Human language is not limited to communicating information.
We can say "What a lovely evening!", which is an expression of feelings 
and impressions, or "I will", which is a promise, or "Please give me the 
sugar", which is a request. (It would be artificial to call an expression 
of emotions or a request acts of communicating information. The clearest 
of all is a promise: it does not simply express an intention but actually 
makes a promise and commits to something, at least morally.)

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

---

From: "Felix Sasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:47:50 +0900

In various fields of linguistics, there are various definitions what a  
"language" is. It seems to me that Jukka refers to are various types of  
speech acts in the sense of
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.  
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
There are many different opinions on how speech acts can be defined. But I  
have never seen anybody defining various types of speech acts as different  
languages. So I would vote for keeping "of information".

-- Felix

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:07:29 +0900, Jukka K. Korpela <[email-masked]>  
wrote:

> kinds of communication conventions that might be called languages by  
> some but really aren't languages in the ordinary sense, or in the sense  
> communication; a human language proper can be used to express anything,  
> in principle, since it contains some mechanism of defining new words,
> among other things.
>
> sugar", which is a request. (It would be artificial to call an  
> expression of emotions or a request acts of communicating information.  
> The clearest of all is a promise: it does not simply express an  
> intention but actually makes a promise and commits to something, at  
> least morally.)
>

---

From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:04:03 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Felix Sasaki wrote:

> "language" is.

Surely, but that's not the point. The point is that language is, in 
reality, used for much more than communication of information. Our 
everyday use of language is mostly something else, though with occasional 
pieces of information thrown in. We keep forgetting this in technical and 
scientific discussions, where the information density is much higher.

> It seems to me that Jukka refers to are various types of 
> speech acts - -

Well, my argument is indeed based on such things, but it did not mean 
classifying each speech act as a separate language. Instead, what I wrote 
was about defining language as something used for communication, not just 
communication of information.

> languages.

And neither did you see that now. I did nothing of the kind.

> So I would vote for keeping "of information".

But that would mean just the opposite of what you wrote: you would count 
only such speech acts as belonging to a language that communicate 
information.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:57:44 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Introduction change: suggested text
...
> only such speech acts as belonging to a language that communicate
...

Perhaps it would move this discussion along if you gave an example of
a speech act (or of language in general) that communicated no information.

I'm personally having difficulting understanding how communication can
exist without information; my only problem with the phrase "communicate
information" is that I find the word "information" redundant, not that I
find that it restricts the word "communicate" in any meaningful way.
Consequently, I'm interested in your perspective.

Randy

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:20:29 +0900

>Consequently, I'm interested in your perspective.

Not speaking for Jukka, of course, but he wrote (in an ealier mail):

Human language is not limited to communicating information.
We can say "What a lovely evening!", which is an expression of feelings and 
impressions, or "I will", which is a promise, or "Please give me the 
sugar", which is a request. (It would be artificial to call an expression 
of emotions or a request acts of communicating information. The clearest of 
all is a promise: it does not simply express an intention but actually 
makes a promise and commits to something, at least morally.)

I think I'd see things a bit different. "What a lovely evening!" indeed 
contains information.
It contains information about the feelings of the speaker. Same for the 
other cases:
"Please give me the sugar" contains information about the fact that I'm out 
of sugar,
or that I'd really prefer my oponent to hand me the sugar rather than to 
get up and
walk around the table, and so on. "I will" usually is rather low in 
information, because
the propbability of it getting uttered at the right time is very high. But a low
information content, and no information at all, are not the same. The additional
'moral commitment' or 'feeling' or 'request' doesn't take out the information.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Felix Sasaki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:26:05 +0900

Searle would say it is hard to descripe the proposition of "What a lovely  
evening!". The proposition can be evaluated with regards to its  
thruthfulness, e.g. you can evaluate whether the utterance "The King of  
France has no hair" is true. (This is in our world not true because there  
is no King of France). But how can you say that "What a lovely evening!"  
is true?
Again, this is dangerous ground, because a too detailed description of our  
notion of language might raise the attention of linguistis. I know what  
I'm speaking about - they are very hard to be satisfied. So again I would  
vote for the short version Addison proposed.

-- Felix

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:20:29 +0900, Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>  
wrote:

> "Please give me the sugar" contains information about the fact that I'm  
> out of sugar,

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:36:30 +0100

+1 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: 14 July 2005 10:26
To: Martin Duerst; Randy Presuhn; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Introduction change: suggested text

Searle would say it is hard to descripe the proposition of "What a lovely
evening!". The proposition can be evaluated with regards to its
thruthfulness, e.g. you can evaluate whether the utterance "The King of
France has no hair" is true. (This is in our world not true because there is
no King of France). But how can you say that "What a lovely evening!"  
is true?
Again, this is dangerous ground, because a too detailed description of our
notion of language might raise the attention of linguistis. I know what I'm
speaking about - they are very hard to be satisfied. So again I would vote
for the short version Addison proposed.

-- Felix

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:20:29 +0900, Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>  >> But that would mean just the opposite of what you wrote: you would 
> count  >> only such speech acts as belonging to a language that 
> communicate  >> information.
>  >...
>  >
>  >Perhaps it would move this discussion along if you gave an example 
> of  >a speech act (or of language in general) that communicated no 
> information.
>  >
>  >I'm personally having difficulting understanding how communication 
> can  >exist without information; my only problem with the phrase 
> "communicate  >information" is that I find the word "information" 
> redundant, not that I  >find that it restricts the word "communicate" 
> in any meaningful way.
> We can say "What a lovely evening!", which is an expression of 
> feelings and impressions, or "I will", which is a promise, or "Please 
> give me the sugar", which is a request. (It would be artificial to 
> call an expression of emotions or a request acts of communicating
information.
> I think I'd see things a bit different. "What a lovely evening!" 
> indeed contains information.
> It contains information about the feelings of the speaker. Same for 
> the other cases:
> "Please give me the sugar" contains information about the fact that 
> I'm out of sugar, or that I'd really prefer my oponent to hand me the 
> sugar rather than to get up and walk around the table, and so on. "I 
> will" usually is rather low in information, because the propbability 
> of it getting uttered at the right time is very high.
> But a low
> information content, and no information at all, are not the same. The 
> additional 'moral commitment' or 'feeling' or 'request' doesn't take 
> out the information.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
>