Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <2376@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 02:05:54 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2376
Posted: Tue Apr  2 02:05:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 02:58:38 EST
References: <824@druxo.UUCP> <269@mhuxr.UUCP> <2349@randvax.UUCP> <277@mhuxr.UUCP> <237@h-sc1.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 57

> > > Ed Hall: 
> > > Ambiguity in language is *essential*--it allows us to point to those
> > > elements of a statement which are important, and discard those which
> > > are not.  As a tool of our thoughts, it influences how we form concepts,
> > > and as the chief instrument of our social learning, it influences the
> > > very structure of our society.
> > Say what!!!! Ambiguous language does precisely the opposite. It prevents
> > those with whom one communicates from understanding the important points of
> > the communication, surely the opposite of the communicator's intentions.
> > Unless one communicates with the intent of deceiving or otherwise not
> > being understood, one should strive for as little ambiguity as possible
> > (unless of course, one is a diplomat :-)
> > 
> I think the original poster meant "generality", not ambiguity.  The use of 
> "they" promotes generality.  It also promotes ambiguity slightly, but I think
> the trade is worth it.
> 		Dave Harmon

I meant ``ambiguity'', as a *means* of indicating ``generality''.
You're right, so far as the implications of what I said, but I felt it
important to point out that AMBIGUITY CONVEYS MEANING AS TO WHAT IS AND
IS NOT IMPORTANT.  Marcel seems to feel that ambiguity implies some
failure of communication.  Things are quite the contrary--by avoiding
the superfluous specification of things that are not part of our message
we communicate our intentions more precisely.  This facet of natural
language--the ability to clarify what is important by making what is
*not* important ambiguous--is one of its most powerful features.  (As
an aside, I might mention that this is the source of many of the ``hard
problems'' in the artificial ``understanding'' of natural language.)

The ability to be selectively ambiguous permits language to be far more
than an instrument of documentation.  It allows language to be a tool
of creativity, a force for change, both a molder of culture and a product
of that culture.  It allows innumerable shades of meaning, permits
the generalizations from which many insights grow, and enables a process
of self-renewal--the ``evolution'' of which Marcel speaks.

I'm amazed at the arrogance some people have, speaking of language as
if they were its master--as if they had somehow invented it.  The fact
is, they'd be capable of little more than stone-age grunts and sighs,
and little of what we'd consider ``thought'', if they hadn't been given
the product of thousands of years worth of humankind's cognition--their
language.  How much of that entity we call ``society'' is language?
I guess its full signifigance is better expressed in the negative:
take away those parts of it which involve language as their chief
agent, and how much ``society'' is left?  Damn little.

Now do you see how the ``insignifigant'' neglect of half of the human
species by that very force which is most peculiarly human, *is* so
important?

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall

NOTE: For brevity, I've not completely addressed the point at issue--
the use of ``they'' as a singular pronoun.  I will do so in my next
posting.