Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!violet!cpshelley
From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: Help!
Message-ID: <1990Nov26.144729.1311@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Keywords: Godel logic evolution
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1990Nov25.223132.24431@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <4168@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <30217@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 14:47:29 GMT
Lines: 34

In article <30217@boulder.Colorado.EDU> bernstei@tramp.Colorado.EDU (mwb) writes:
>
>Has there been, with the evolution of mathematical thought and formal
>systems, a corresponding evolution in the way all people view the world?
>It seems to me rather likely that with the development of explicit logical
>systems, the "scientific method" and other formalizations of ideas about
>the world, there would be a corresponding change in the way people think
>and express themselves.  Consequently, the only reason that we can even
>attempt to express human thought in a formal manner is because humans have
>developed these same formal systems.  
>

I'm not sure this is really an answer to your question, so much as a
related observation, but here goes.  In the medieval languages that
I have studied (all european and not that many really) multiple negatives
can be interpreted simply as 'really negative' or 'really, really
negative' etc. rather than as we usually interpret them now - which is
in accord with formal negation.  I believe this is still the case in 
colloquial speech.  I recall seeing as many as five negatives in one
clause in "Tristan und Isolde" (GvS) which is made out to mean just
the same as if it had been four, or three and so on.  With the revival
of prescriptivist grammars on the latin model in the 18th century, we
were told 'the truth' about these constructions and every educated
generation since then has been trained to think of natural language
negation as being equivalent to formal negation.  Whether we actually
*think* that way is another issue, but it is certainly an example of
how developments in formal language have influenced natural languages.


--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Logic, n.  The art of thinking and reasoning
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu|  in strict accordance with the limitations and
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  incapacities of the human misunderstanding..."
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |				Ambrose Bierce
