Thread:User talk:Armondikov/Cognitive-linguistic mapping essay/reply (21)

I'm just surprised at the amount of focus given to the need to be so precise. Having worked in academics, I've never had the kinds of issues you suggest, even when two or three of us are discussing issues about indian religion that you sense might have slightly different mental images. It's not really that relevant that you know EXACTLY what i am thinking, just that you know mostly what I'm thinking. Your own opening example of the beer bottles works only because you've set a situation where the word only means one thing and there is no confusion. But as you, yourself state, the second there is ambiguity, the mind realizes this (I think it sorta has a conversation with itself, first, when choosing words) and adjusts. "Hand me a bottle" works, when there are only 1 type of bottle. If there are more than one type, "hand me ANOTHER bottle" works if you have one in your hand, or "hand me a beer bottle" works if there are beer and cokes, or "Hand me the black one" or "Hand me a Blue Moon". And you don't really ever think "is this level of precision effective. Your mind has seemingly evaluated the situation before you even have to address it.

Yes, you have confirmation, but usually you don't even need to go that far, cause it's done before you've chosen your words.

When we look at far more abstract issues, I go into a lecture about Hopi Religion, and use words (again, without thought) based on my audience. When I'm writing something for a judge or jury about those same religions, my words change. I am aware of the level of ambiguity.

but the reason I find LW's arguments to be *either* an interesting thought game, or mental masturbation is that human language does not work the way they are trying to make it work. Of course you can manipulate language to sell something, but that is because you KNOW the audience will be confused. You don't choose to be precise enough. But when you sit with someone equally informed, words do not get in the way, the way that LW seems to suggest.

Even though you and I may never **exactly** understand the exact idea we are sharing. That level of exactness which can never be achieved is no more necessary than it is to know that the Red you see is not what I would see as Blue. When talking apples, we both say "that is red" even if our brain processed those colors in such a way that you see red differently than I do.