| > Could we generally agree that language is instinctual and follows formal or formalalizable rules No, not without some evidence. ---- > First in it's immediate dismissal of any formalism inherent in natural language That's not what Dijkstra's article is saying. > the ease at which he dismisses the proposition without any real consideration Dijkstra provides several paragraphs of clarification. IMHO, these do provide useful context and show the reader why he has the opinion that he does (of course, we may just disagree here -- but that's okay). What do you feel is missing? > This subject should be under the purview of analytic philosophy and linguistics, not mathematics or computer science. Why? > To say differently is literally, demonstrably false. Why? Can you demonstrate that, or point to a source that does? > Many people in this thread are talking about the inability of plebes to express what they actually want. This is a fair point, but not a problem with language specifically. Why not? > Graduate of analytic philosophy Possible appeal to authority. > This is not up for debate Why not? > it's easily provable. Then please prove it, or point to something else that does so. > I could site dozens of linguists, Pinker immediately comes to mind offhand. Then please do so, and please be more specific than just giving us "Pinker". The more specific you can be, the more useful the citation is. I (and presumably others here) are not familiar with his work. |