h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If anyone ever paused to wait for 'full knowledge' of anything, they'd be waiting a l-o-n-g time. Human minds don't work on perfect knowledge. As far as we (and evolutuion) are concerned, good enough is good enough.

The words 'make' and 'sense', when combined into the term 'make sense', *do* have a different meaning than the individual words interpreted by themselves. However, you could say the same about countless other combinations of words that are commonly used together.

English is awash with phrases that mean more than the sum of their parts, with words that have multiple independent meanings, with words that have both general vague interpretations and also highly specific meanings in specific situations. Whilst no-one can deny the enormous practical usefulness of the language, it isn't exactly logical.

One could argue that it's just a matter of taking language to a different level. The meaning of an individual word rarely has much connection with the vocalistaions that make it up. Words constructed of similar sounds don't necessarily mean similar things.
Extending that to the point where the meaning of a phrase isn't entirely predictable from the meanings of the words making it up is a minor step, and presents few problems for the human brain. It *is*, however, more of a difficulty for people who would try to define common language precisely, and wrap it in the somewhat inappropriate straitjacket of logic.

that was exactly my point.

at one time, almost every phrase had an accurate meaning to it (it could be understood by the sum of its parts) because it had to have been created from those parts. as time goes on, the original meanings are lost, replaced by what everyone *thinks* they mean (which isn't a bad thing, as long as that knowledge is universal). i was merly trying to demonstrate how, even when misunderstood, some phrases maintain their original meaning and are still applicable to the situation at hand.

i play with logic. it can be fun. it can be a striaghtjacket, too, if you mistreat it, but logic and i have a very good relationship. expand your mind a little and look at something a new way. even if it's not entirely true, it can still be fun...

In self defence, I don't recall saying that it wasn't your point. I just made a series of statements, as it would have been rather hard to unpick your article to the point where I could comment on specific pieces (and that's not meant as criticism either)

In terms of phrases starting off with an accurate meaning, I suspect that what may sometimes happen in English is that an original long phrase does mean something predictable from its parts. If it's a sufficiently useful enough phrase to be commonly used, individual words may be dropped or modified over time, (either in the interests of economy, or possibly because the phrase just sounds better) but the original meaning retained. While from a strictly analytical point of view, this may seem odd, it won't seem at all odd to someone who learned the language in the natural way.

Also, given the initial evolution of English from multiple languages, and the subsequent importation of words when useful, I presume some phrases may simply be literal translations from another language where the phrase may make perfect sense, even to a linguist.

Presumably another problem for analysis may be that we don't necessarily know what the 'original' meaning of the words themselves was. I guess it's not beyond the realms of possibility that some 'odd' phrases may actually preserve meanings for their component words which subsequently fell into misuse.

um... in that case, thank you for restating my point.

Hi guys. As the forums I was in seem to be stagnating, I thought I'd go back to the start page and find something new (for me) So I dug up this old conversation.

I am surprised you agree on everything. As far as I could tell, Skie was analysing the semantics and going into the philosophy of the phrase "making sense" and Potholer (of whom I am a great admirer) was discussing solely the linguistic aspect. But you both came to the same conclusion. The discussion also put lots of my thoughts into words. Unfortunately, I only have school education to fall back on, but lots of practice with language (5 of them) and a husband who teaches Latin and has a good knowledge of Ancient Greek. (We once tried playing Call my Bluff with him, but the more obscure the words to us, the easier they were for him to interpret. It wasn't fair!!)

A good example of what you mention (phrases retaining their meaning but losing their original sense) would be

- to be clued up
- to be under way.

My father insists that these are sailing expressions, and "to be _clewed_ up" means to have the rigging all set for your course
and "to be under _weigh_" means to have enough "weight" of wind in your sails to get moving.

There are probably lots of examples from various trades which have gone over to common use, while we don't know why we say it.

To get back to "Making Sense". In recent years, in Germany, the expression "Sinn machen" - the literal translation - has been introduced, as there didn't seem to be an equivalent expression before. No doubt the literal-minded Germans never thought that anything would not make sense, and therefore didn't need to have to point out that it did!! Of course, there are other expressions, such as "das reimt sich nicht" - a colloquialism to mean that two circumstances do not logically go together, for example if a person says one thing and does the opposite. (It means "that doesn't rhyme")

On the philosophical level, a group of thoughts might "make sense" to one person and be illogical to another. This is inevitable at times, because of our individual experience with which we are measuring the logicality of the concept, but can also just be because we have an intangible difference in our way of thinking. Which, really, is why most inventions and philosophies came to be.

This idea came to me once while having a conversation with the General Manager at the company Christmas Party. His life was based on such different morals/concepts/philosophies (can't find the word) that we got down to a point (alcohol helps!) where it was not worth discussing further. To illustrate this more clearly, a friend of mine (an American living in Europe) was talking to her sister (an American living in the States) about children watching television. To the American, there was no question of children not watching television, while in Europe, the option was still open as to whether to have a television at all. So this discussion just fizzled out, because the two women were not starting from the same basis.

So the questions are, as you so rightly point out (I think!!) - Skie: Can it ever be decided whether something makes sense or not, as it is, in the final instance, an entirely subjective conclusion.
Potholer: Can we ever communicate precisely enough to understand exactly what each other is implying, as well as saying. In other words, do both communicants read the same imlications and connotations between the lines as each other? Are we always comparing identical things?

It has been nice to participate in a civilised discussion on this topic, as in some other forums, people are having trouble understanding each other, partly due to Transatlantic language differences (or pan-European), partly due to misinterpretation of words, sometimes even due to spelling mistakes!

All this makes me wonder why I bother learning foreign languages, as I have just, in effect said, that there are as many English languages as there are English speakers. This theory probably applies to most other historic languages (i.e. excluding things like Esperanto or Pidgin). Making us a world of individuals, encapsuled in our little boxes of misunderstandings. Sad.

I'm unsure how accurate it would be to say we agreed on *everything* - to some extent, we were exploring different territories - Skie was taking a more linguistic/philosophical approach towards a few phrases, and I was tending more towards a practical viewpoint on the illogicality and limits of language in general.
Also, it would have been hard to comment on any particular small section of Skie's posting without seeming to take it out of context, or get into deep and/or fruitless arguments over the meaning of meaning itself. I *did* point out that many other phrases don't mean what a logical analysis would indicate, but that's only to be expected with a language as illogical as English.

(PS I'm deeply flattered to have an admirer.)

Re : "Potholer: Can we ever communicate precisely enough to understand exactly what each other is implying, as well as saying. In other words, do both communicants read the same implications and connotations between the lines as each other? Are we always comparing identical things?"

I'm not sure we are *ever* comparing identical things, though some of the time, with some people, we are at least comparing similar enough things that we could say they are practically identical

One way of analysing the situation is that if *I* can conceive of multiple interpretations of what I am about to say, then I cannot be sure which interpretations someone else will consider, nor which one(s) they will eventually decide upon.

For example, my friends are aware that my sense of humour includes occasional bursts of deadpan sarcasm, and though usually when I am amusing, it's deliberate, there has been the odd occasion where they have read humorous things into what I said that were unintentional.

Whilst it can often be highly amusing in mixed (ie friend / non-friend) company to be able to say things that have different meanings to people who know me, and to those who don't, (especially if it gives me the opportunity to insult someone I don't like without them realising, and to watch my friends trying to keep a straight face), the flipside is that when I write things, I'm sometimes overconscious that people may think I'm being sarcastic when I'm actually being entirely serious. It's not that *I* don't know what I mean, but that I have almost no idea which way other people may jump.

Considering your point about different philosophical outlooks, as a nautural engineer, I'm always coming from a different direction to managers. I try to anticipate and avoid problems, which means I risk being seen as negative, wheras managers are more positive, but rely on me to steer them round the obstacles they can't see.
If I run around and solve the problems they create, they get most of the credit for the original positive idea. If I *don't* fix the problems, I get most of the blame. Many of them simply can't see why I get frustrated by this. (Though if they *were* smart enough to see, they'd be engineers as well )

"The thought is dead unless awaken by a word". Therefore, each word "makes sense into being".Every time we speak , we create new implications or engender knew sense in the eye of the beholder, which might or might not be similar to that concieved in our minds eye. Make no mistake: the process of speach and the act of perception are different per se. What is percieved is not the verbatim copy of what is said. And yet the mechanics of the processes requires that everything be topped with unbending logic, to "make verbatim sense". The whole process had been perfected by trial and error over the stages in the development of a tonque.
Everytime we reccur to our former thought it comes out differently, like the spring of a year ever renewed yet different. After all our thouhgts are made up out of the brick-and-mortar of words. Yet an architect can build various things out of bricks:houses, mad-houses, hen-houses,hand-made houses,etc. That which we built is the world of our inner life,that is not a reflection of the real(outer) world, but the real world in itself.(or else how to explain that,indeed, the real-world houses which we see do not grow wild in nature, but first were concieved in the world of our thought (second world)).The concept of this second world of thought is in itself percieved through the agency of logic, which is a God-given tool, which He imparts on the blank-slate mind of a new-born ( For Unbelievers let it happen by trial and error).
All the same, one is willing to have proper bricks to start the edifice of their world. We simply cannot think without employment of words. The idea that vibrations of air that a teacher creates by his tongue are transformed into component parts of the building (for this is how we study in school) is nothing short of a miriacle. Only this miracle is to common, that we stop noticing it.
Some go further and claim that ,in fact, we inhabit 3 worlds: 1)the Material(proper) world,2) The World of thought and 3) the World of Words. For purposes of the discussion, I think that these latter two Worlds are closely related to the point of intermingling. And yet some subtle nuances draw them distinctly apart. For example, the previous sentence can very nicely fit in the texture of the World of Words (look into scientific books the world over written in many languages for illustration of the fact), yet it has no place in the World of Thoughts, where you can either "think" or "think not" , but where "thinking for purposes of the discussion" is nonsensical at best or amounts to depravity at worst. Therefore, at a certain juncture some collocations or words are nonce-words and no-right-meaning collocations.Sometimes,they make a precarious sense,for example, when a well-mannered lady , living in a garrison town, asks to show her a "powder-room".Or when The Good Soldier Schweik in the eponymous book by Jaroslav Gashek (or in any of the excerpts of it not included in the final version, I honestly do not remember) when commisioned to purchase "good Austrian vine" for his Brigade, ends up travelling all the way from Hungary , where he was then quartered,to Austria. But still a person who makes no sense of something is still making a nonsensical sense of it, right?