The power of Negation (or not)
I once, on another forum, advanced the idea that many words in any language are redundant because we can always negate a given word with "not" and convey meaning. If we were to do this it may be that nearly half of all words can be discarded.
An advantage of this would be less to remember and therefore freeing up memory space for other stuff. A disadvantage would be dilated discourse i.e. saying something or writing something would take longer and consume more space.
Some might say that our world is more nuanced and not just the black-white dichotomy such an idea suggests. However this isn't really an issue because all I'm saying is that we don't create words for the negation of an idea/concept. We're free to name and identify any shade in the spectrum that reality presents to us. Just don't create words for their negation. Use "not".
Is the above idea realistic/practical/good or not :wink: ?
An advantage of this would be less to remember and therefore freeing up memory space for other stuff. A disadvantage would be dilated discourse i.e. saying something or writing something would take longer and consume more space.
Some might say that our world is more nuanced and not just the black-white dichotomy such an idea suggests. However this isn't really an issue because all I'm saying is that we don't create words for the negation of an idea/concept. We're free to name and identify any shade in the spectrum that reality presents to us. Just don't create words for their negation. Use "not".
Is the above idea realistic/practical/good or not :wink: ?
Comments (15)
That seems like you're taking a brain/computer analogy too literally.
Who has a problem with "memory space" that's taken up by vocabulary?
You may be right. Our memory could be different from a hard drive.
Do you have any idea on how different the two are?
Ever notice that no person can be an expert on more than a couple of fields? I've heard of polymaths but they were all during a time when knowledge was at its infancy - less to remember. Where are the polymaths of now?
There are a lot of people who have graduate degrees and/or practical expertise in more than one field. I'm someone with graduate degrees in two very different fields.
:cheer: :clap: Wow!!
you’re right that more nuanced discussion would arise with the idea, but if it’d encourage word vomit, don’t you think the basic means of conversation be unnecessarily riddled in verbose and walking around getting to the point of what one is saying? this would cause a ton of confusion, and it’s sacrificing simplicity just for the sake of complexity. it’d free memory space for the sacrifice of time, but i feel like people would value communication in a time efficient manner over making room for more memory space to partake in inefficient manners of communication? excuse me if im misunderstanding something or thinking too linear, it’s early over here
I'm not advocating anything. I just want views.
well i guess my view would be is that it would increase verbosity at the expense of time due to lack of a word for it, i put time on a pedestal so the notion for me is inherently ridiculous, however i DO see the appeal in it for sure.
In English, and all other languages I assume, there are always at least several different ways to say something. Actually, maybe not exactly the same thing. Antonyms rarely have exactly the same meaning. Even if their definitions are the same, there are nuances, implications, moods that differ. That gives language a lot of subtle power.
Beyond that, "not good" is not the same as "bad."
On the other hand, one of my favorite word usages came from Saturday Night Live back in the 1990s.
oy vey
I like this idea. I once thought of creating a Philosophical framework where nothing was considered to be "bad" or "evil" and everything that was either "bad" or "evil" was just simply "not good". It may have been a worthwhile endeavor, but I did sort of give up on it.
I agree because the negation of x is simply what is not x. But not x consists of not one but many alternatives (nuances) and so must be named. For instance let's say we want to talk about what isn't hate. We could say not-hate but this category has within it sensual love, parental love, friendship love, etc. each requiring a name.
This OP is not not simplistic in its treatment of language.
Well, you can only get so far with a MadFool. Anyway if one considers logic we usually don't invent new names for a negation of a statement. To negate A we say ~A and don't use another name like B or C.