Douglas_Knight comments on Generalizing From One Example - Less Wrong

259 Post author: Yvain 28 April 2009 10:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (386)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 05 March 2010 03:08:28PM -1 points [-]

You could use the same argument to start speaking lojban.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 05 March 2010 03:40:47PM 2 points [-]

la lojban spofu ma

(Sorry, I had to. Translation: 'What's wrong with Lojban?' or, literally, 'Lojban is not-useful (broken) for what?')

Comment author: Clippy 05 March 2010 03:44:37PM 1 point [-]

do

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 05 March 2010 03:47:36PM 0 points [-]

Well, yes, but I suspect that that's only because I'm not even close to fluent yet. And even so I find it surprisingly grokkable. :)

Comment author: RobinZ 05 March 2010 03:39:37PM 0 points [-]

You're right - but "start speaking lojban" is refuted by "the people I want to talk to wouldn't understand it". A statement which is, in fact, the justification for the convention of speaking English. Why should we quote the words of an author's character as if they are the words of the author?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 06 March 2010 01:19:18AM *  -1 points [-]

I should have noted that "Someone is wrong on the internet" back on your Wilde example.

I take the Burkean position that the innovator should justify the old system. Natural language and natural conventions work. They exist for reasons, if only because stability. Even if I grant your claim that your changes have improvements, have you looked for costs? In my experience, most artificial changes to language impede communication, and, indeed, look to me to be intended to. On another note, have you backed up and asked Why is Yvain quoting people at all?

Comment author: RobinZ 06 March 2010 01:27:01AM 0 points [-]

Your remark has me entirely confused - Burkean? What? - but for a single question:

Even if I grant your claim that your changes have improvements, have you looked for costs? In my experience, most artificial changes to language impede communication, and, indeed, look to me to be intended to.

There is no clarity cost I can see in the proposed convention - the only cost I can see is to the writer, who will have to spend a minute or two sourcing their quotes. If this cannot be done in a minute or two with an Internet connection (Wikiquote is often of help), it is probably more accurate to cite the quotation as "attributed" anyway.