Hacker News Reader

Comment by ta1234567890 | Hacker News Reader

This article only talks about the structure of writing in languages, which is a pretty different thing than "all human languages".

The definition of language is (according to Google), human communication.

For there to be communication, you need a recipient. Which means that mere written words have no meaning without someone reading and interpreting them.

You can analyze syntax and structure all you want, but meaning depends on people's interpretations, which are subjective and depend on multiple other factors.

For instance, if I'm angry, I'll read a text message or an email and interpret it in a completely different way than if I'm calm. The meaning I interpret will also depend on who sent me the message. Neither of these things are captured in the syntax of the messages.

View on HN

That's a puzzling take. I see where you went with it, but I'm inclined to think of writing as already including the recipient. Such as when I write notes for myself. Often, I'm keen to do this in instances where I find a thought worthwhile but also quite subtle or nuanced and therefore forgettable. Sometimes, when I reread these notes quite a while later, I'm surprised at what was occurring to me at the time and happy, sad, amused, or even befuddled at what was going on in my head at that moment. My rereadings are also colored by the context shifts you mention. But in those instances where I didn't succeed in conveying my meaning in a way I can reconnect with later, I don't think I'd consider that note not language, but rather a use of language that failed. It's still language. Even if its communication value is less than desired, it's a message built with the same tools as the messages that do work and pass your communication test. The fact that the intended future reader is there in the mind of the writer makes me think of it as language even before it's read, if it ever is. Otherwise, what is a written message that isn't read? It exists, but as what? How would you characterize it?

Thank you for your very thoughtful and insightful reply.

> what is a written message that isn't read?

Imagine an ancient civilization that left written symbols, but the people are long gone, there's no one that knows how to interpret them anymore.

During the time the symbols were not being seen or interpreted by anyone, what would you call them?

But more important than that, is not that the symbols can't mean anything, rather that the meaning will be assigned by the reader when they read it (not just by the syntax of the symbols, which is what the article seemed to imply). And that meaning can be very very different than what the writer intended it to be.

What I'm basically saying is that meaning/interpretation of communication/messages is fluid/dynamic. It depends on the writer, the symbols, the reader and a lot of context. It is not fully contained or captured just by the symbols in which we express it.

Using your comment as an example, your "rereadings are also colored by the contexts shifts".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com