If this were true, wouldn't computer translation have made far more progress than it has? On 21/09/10 01:24, Ron Allen wrote: > > > Hi Walter: > Thanks for the wikipedia entry. > OK, so if the field linguist can't translate the newly discovered > language, then how does a baby learn the newly discovered language of > English any better? That's the point. > In what language on Earth do the speakers not have words that can > express "and", and, for that matter, can never express "and"? > If Quine is just pointing out the banal observation that we sometimes > don't understand the nuances, well, yes, then, that's right. But so > what? If I don't understand the precise nuance of 'simpatico', it > doesn't follow that there's indeterminacy of translation between English > and Spanish, even if I am the first to discover the hitherto unknown > language, Spanish. I go along using the term and eventually apply it to > a ticket seller at the opera. My companera points out to me that he > isn't really /simpatico/ to me, because I really don't know him well > enough and long enough to be able to say that, and I don't rely on him > for emotional comfort, and so forth. No, the guy just sold me a pair of > good seats for a steep price. > I think by the wiki article, Quine's point devolves into imprecision and > nuance, not meaning indeterminacy. As Wittgenstein pointed out, language > is a social endeavor, and the aberrations of the individual do not count > against the observed practice of the community. Where there is a > community of use, as Grice and Strawson insisted, it's reasonable to > talk of meaning. If there's a community of 'gavagai' users, then there's > a meaning for the term, and it can be translated, and it can support > supervening notions of synonymy and analyticity. > The devolution of Quine's thesis makes it an empirical matter. > Empirically, we have no substantive examples of translation > indeterminacy. When, in the last 400 years, has someone come up and > said, "wow, here we've been translating 'chien' as 'dog', when it really > means 'well-trained dog'" or something like that? Well, never. Watered > down, it washes away. Clean and dry, it's got some fundamental problems, > close to what Budd was pointing out. But, yeah, you're right: it's a > theory only a behaviorist could love. > Oh, I don't have a text reference for Searle against Sapir-Whorf. It was > a comment he made in class at Berkeley. Again, basically, what could be > an example? If someone has a different world view than me because of > their different language, how could I possibly describe their world > view? All I can do is use my own. > Thanks! > --Ron