|
 |
Computer languages \ Spoken Languages | ||
Tags: Computer | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room |  | |
| Captain Haddock Diglot Senior Member Japan kanjicabinet.tumblr. Joined 6768 days ago 2282 posts - 2814 votes  Speaks: English*, Japanese Studies: French, Korean, Ancient Greek | Message 17 of 22 23 May 2008 at 7:46am | IP Logged | ||
|
Heh.
Try this one on then. A language can take any concept imaginable by a human, and describe it. A language relies on nothing more than a human mind to work. A computer algorithm or mathematical formula has no meaning in itself; it relies on rules given to it by humans using language to achieve the outcome the human wants from it, and it can only describe the things humans have consciously designed it for. So while Perl and Cobol might be computer languages, they are a second-order construct; human language is a first-order construct that works directly in our brains. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| DaraghM Diglot Senior Member Ireland Joined 6151 days ago 1947 posts - 2923 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: French, Russian, Hungarian | Message 18 of 22 23 May 2008 at 8:17am | IP Logged | ||
This doesn't apply to mathematical concepts. One of the key problems, on writing popular texts describing theoretical physics, is the attempt to translate the mathematical concepts into plain language. While the written text can convey some of the concepts, it cannot capture the essence of the problem. Roger Penrose attempts to address this is his work, "The Road to Reality", by bringing the reader up to speed on the maths itself. It's not an easy read, compared to his other works. To say that mathematical concepts are meaningless compared to language, is a philosophical problem. Unless we know a language, it is as meaningless as a mathematical concept. Both maths and language suffer from the existential problem,in that meaning has to be assigned at some point, outside the system. I can describe green turtles, but any language I use to do so, has to have some non-linguistic reference in the real word eventually. I believe this awareness led to the development of Semiotics. Edited by DaraghM on 23 May 2008 at 8:18am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sennin Senior Member Bulgaria Joined 6034 days ago 1457 posts - 1759 votes 5 sounds | Message 19 of 22 24 May 2008 at 4:26am | IP Logged | ||
Yes, this is a relatively good one :). But do you know why? ;p If natural languages can be defined as a way of communication between two intelligent entities (ex: humans), then we have to anticipate a similar property in formal languages - intelligent communication. At least if we want to claim that they are essentially the same thing. But if computers show no intelligent activity whatsoever (personally I think they do ;p) it will be difficult to substantiate this claim. In that case there will be no communication but rather a flow of instructions going only one way. Furthermore, even if something intelligent comes back it is not in the same language. The thing about mathematical formulas having no meaning on their own... rubbish :) I mean no language has a meaning on its own - the question is if it has the ability to convey a meaning. Edited by Sennin on 24 May 2008 at 4:53am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| dmg Diglot Senior Member Canada dgryski.blogspot.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 7011 days ago 555 posts - 605 votes 1 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Dutch, Esperanto | Message 20 of 22 24 May 2008 at 8:35am | IP Logged | ||
Having a background in theoretical computer science, I claim that whether we use computer languages to "talk" to computers (whatever that means) is irrelevant. I use algorithm descriptions as a concise notation to talk to other humans. To quote the great Edsger Dijkstra: "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." and "The question of whether computers can think is like the question of whether submarines can swim". 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sennin Senior Member Bulgaria Joined 6034 days ago 1457 posts - 1759 votes 5 sounds | Message 21 of 22 24 May 2008 at 11:21am | IP Logged | ||
|
Then here goes another interesting question :). Are programming ability and talent for natural languages related? If the two are so similar there should be some connection. Or maybe there is no connection whatsoever... Edited by Sennin on 24 May 2008 at 11:23am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| DaraghM Diglot Senior Member Ireland Joined 6151 days ago 1947 posts - 2923 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: French, Russian, Hungarian | Message 22 of 22 26 May 2008 at 4:34am | IP Logged | ||
Unfortunately, from personal experience, I would have to say programming ability and having a talent for languages are not directly connected. However, some of the same faculties apply when dealing with written language and programming. The obvious connections are,
From my school days, I was very good at Latin, but not good at French. It was the aural and oral components of the language tests that threw me. 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
