[yummyfajitas]

I'm inherently suspicious when someone says something like "conveys information", but then says "logic and reason" don't work.

Would it be fair to say that the particular phrase, rather than conveying information, causes a particular emotional reaction in the hearer? I may not experience what you experience and some particular phrase might simply be a short code for that feeling.

But that doesn't mean the information cannot be conveyed. I can explain fairly easily what 'orange' means to a blind person: "Objects and parts of objects are associated to unique colors, which humans can distinguish via vision. [geometric optics skipped.] One particular color is orange."

They haven't experienced orange, in the sense that the "orange" set of neurons in their brain hasn't fired. But that doesn't mean they lack information when I say "object X is orange."

[retroflexzy]

> I'm inherently suspicious when someone says something like "conveys information", but then says "logic and reason" don't work.

Actually, the study of semantics, which is highly logical, will often fail at describing the "true meaning" of an utterance. This is where pragmatics come in, and, frankly, a far more interesting area of study and occasionally even applicable in every day life.

The most useful thing I got out of my semantics course was that I never, ever, want to take that stream ever again.

[RiderOfGiraffes]

Well, I can't say much more really. Natural language semantics are tough, and I've clearly failed to communicate to you the idea that some phrases in other languages can't really be translated. They can sort-of be explained, sometimes, but even then I remain unconvinced that the true sense of the original can always be retained.

Personally, I've experienced it, and perhaps the fact that I can't explain it to you, who haven't experienced it, is more convincing than the attempts at explanations.