Auto-antonym
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
1. Produce the value X from the generator.
2. Yield execution to the calling context.
i.e. exactly the two meanings of yield.
Title was changed to be a bit less inflammatory now, or is it flammatory? I think they both mean the same thing...
Native English speakers (as with all languages) learn how to speak years before they learn how to read. This makes inconsistencies in letter sounds irrelevant to having good conversational English and leaves learning the inconsistencies later, where you learn common rules that cover most of the language and absorb all the rule breakers while reading.
One thing he notes was that originally there was no spelling consistency because there was no need due to limited written communication. Then as reading and writing became more widespread there became a need for consistency. This took something like 40 years to complete. Unfortunately half way through that period newspapers and dictionaries came out which resulted in some words being consistent and some not.
Such a nice day. I think I'll go out the window!
My dictionary says that "moot" as an adjective also has both meetings, but I don't recognize the 'suitable for discussion, under consideration' meaning. Wiktionary says that that meaning is current in the U.K. and "dated" in the U.S.; I'd never heard it before.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot
I was confused about that too but this clarified it.
For example, when you say something is "fast" you can only mean that its speed is high. If you say it's "stuck fast", fast is being used as a modifier (? my grammar lingo is rusty) of "stuck", and not as the actual descriptor.
1. Lack of assumptions. Words often have multiple meanings, don't assume you know all ways a word is applied, instead pay attention to how context alters the meaning(s) you are already aware of. 2. Immersion, a.k.a. throwing yourself in at the deep end. 3. Openness to new information. Could also be highlighted with the word 'playfulness'. Enjoy your progress.
Also, there likely is some truth in http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis.
As our skill with language develops, so too does our self awareness, which is a whole other can of worms, but the skills we take to start off are simple to summarise, in my opinion.
All three steps you mention are not nearly understood from either a philosophical or a biological view.
We don't know how an infant recognizes sounds: Is that some innate ability in humans or is that something that has to be learned as well? If the first, what are the basic building blocks of recognizing things? If the later, how is it learned? Think about that what we perceive as language is highly post-processed. A lot of filtering is done on sound before it becomes conscious language. Are those filtering rules innate? Are they learned? How does an infant know the difference between language and other sounds?
Association is even harder. We cannot really start to imagine how association and memory work.
Conversation is less tricky but still struggles with the question: Is it a priori knowledge we use to recognize a reaction?
All your three steps require seem obvious, but are incredibly hard to explain in full. I think you are oversimplifying the problem and only look at the most obvious parts of it. Consider a simple question: Why can infants learn language but not arithmetic given the same process you just described? Basic arithmetic is arguably a lot simpler and about as natural as language, but still won't be learned by most infants. If your answer somehow includes language as a fundamental building block of what makes us human, then you are also taking a stand on some of the things I pointed out earlier and have to unite your theories.
High level abstractions are valid tools for building a map of a specific domain. Please understand that having a high level map does not prevent you from exploring deeper if you find the subject interesting, nor does it rob you of the tools to do so... all you need to do is keep on asking 'Why?', 'How?', 'When?', etc... until you're satisfied.
"We don't know how an infant recognizes sounds: Is that some innate ability in humans or is that something that has to be learned as well?"
"How does an infant know the difference between language and other sounds?"
"Why can infants learn language but not arithmetic given the same process you just described?"
I grouped these questions, as I wish to answer them all together. Firstly, I would propose that the recognition of sensory stimuli is innate, which includes sounds. The roots of recognition can be traced back to the sensory stimuli we experience early on. Consider the sound of a baby screaming, which is typically the first sound they make after being born. A baby screaming in pain will typically be physically comforted shortly afterwards. Linking screaming with a subsequent response of comfort could easily be the start of our understanding of language, the senses working in tandem helping our early understanding of the world grow.
Arithmetic is more complex than the relationship between scream and comfort.
"We cannot really start to imagine how association and memory work."
We can 'start to imagine' that though, through neural networks, brain scans, etc....
Please understand, if you are interested in this subject, I appreciate other approaches (such as neuroscience) can help build a fuller picture, but high level approaches are still valid when building up intuition for a subject.
Even to the opposite, i'm not sure if there's a language where there are _no_ words with 2+ different/opposite meanings?
All in all, a delightful language to read and write if you know it, but a tar pit if you're trying to learn it.
They exist, but AFAIK they are all constructed languages. lojban is one example of a language where every word has exactly one meaning (as well as having audio-visual isomorphism, completely regular grammar, etc.)
Actually English is rather easy compared to most languages. No genders for objects, no declination, very minimal and rather consistent conjugation, no cases, etc. I wouldn't say it's confusing to learn (relative to other choices).
Notwithstanding the verbs' transitivity, they also have distinct etymologies. From the same Wikipedia article:
> For instance cleave "separate" is from Old English clēofan, while cleave "adhere" is from Old English clifian, which was pronounced differently.
...Oh the irony