Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Positive terms or terms of endearment etc.
Pussy cat
Lion
Honey Bunny
Chick
Hen
Duck
Duckie
Stud
Cheeky Monkey
Stallion (maybe that’s just me)
Pet Lamb
Dogged
a terrier
Doe eyed
busy as a bee
strong as an ox
quiet as a mouse
political animal
etc. etc.Big surprise, human beings use animals as part of their lexicon of description, we also use other things like body parts in the same way
Point taken.
However it suggests that the common usage of the word language implies that in that usage language is usually limited to certain forms of human communication.To put it into perspective the range of what we call as noise and behavioural displays has been found to be at a maximum of 150 separate displays.
The average adult English speaking human has around 20-30,000 words.
Not only that humans can generally utilise Recursive compositionality (combining combinations of words to create new meanings)
Humans can also create neologisms relatively quickly.
I’m not saying that non human animals cannot communicate, they clearly can. Can some of them do it through the use of sound, obviously. Can they communicate through non verbal communication, again obviously.
Is this a “language” it depends upon how you define language.
Does it matter what word we use to differentiate between the very complex range that humans have developed and the other forms of language other animals have developed, not a jot
Encyclopaedia Britannica definition
“Language, a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves. The functions of language include communication, the expression of identity, play, imaginative expression, and emotional release.”
Cambridge dictionary definition
“a system of communication consisting of sounds, words, and grammar:”
Collins definition
“A language is a system of communication which consists of a set of sounds and written symbols which are used by the people of a particular country or region for talking or writing.”
Sounds like you should follow the advice you offered:
“Loose thinking leads to the loose use of words, but the loose use of words also leads to loose thinking.”
Re Lizzie 45’s comment about the “C” word (welcome back from your journeys, by the way)
“ Use of the word as a term of abuse is relatively recent, dating from the late 19th century. The word appears not to have been taboo in the Middle Ages, but became taboo towards the end of the 18th century, and was then not generally admissible in print until the latter part of the 20th century.
Which just goes to show how language changes over time”
The change of the view of the C word also resulted in the terms we use for rabbits. We used to refer to a rabbit as a coney (hence Coney Island). This sounded a bit like cunny, a derivative of the C word. So in polite society the term rabbit (previously generally used to refer to a baby coney), or bunny began to be used.
Whilst I understand the offence taken by people by the use of the C word, the N word, etc. part of me agrees with Lenny Bruce “it’s the suppression of the word that gives it power”
“ The fact that you mention speech and voice box only confirms that you are interpreting the word language only in terms of the verbal.”
So why then did I use the term “verbal” language??
Given that BSL is the second most commonly used language (which I have a small but useful knowledge of), it would be a silly thing to say.
The problem is that you have conflated language with communication. A punch in the throat may well communicate feelings, it’s not necessarily a language.
To reduce that further, if we replace the word language with the word communication, then basically what you are saying is:
“All social animals use communication”, which is fairly obvious, because if they didn’t they wouldn’t be bloody social, would they?
But will Dr Doolittle talk to the head lice?
And sadly DJP will have to take the trilby out of the air frier, hat is off the menu tonight
No I didn’t say that language was always spoken, I also know that an octopus is a cephalod not a fish.
Head lice communicate does that mean that they have language.
By your definition and for of communication is language. Trees communicate, does that mean they have langauge?
Fish live in social groups, they don’t have any verbal language, it’s quite difficult to speak without a voice box or lungs.
ALB mentioned Socialist Resistance and them being part of one of the Fourth International, I thought I’d check which one as it is a bit confusing.
Here is a list of Fourth Internationals. Makes you wonder if there are more Fourth Internationals than there are Trotskyists. Here’s the list:
Fourth International (USFI)
International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
International Committee of the Fourth International (Workers Revolutionary Party)
International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) (ICL-FI), previously the International Spartacist Tendency
League for the Fourth International (LFI), split from ICL-FI
League for the Fifth International (L5I)
International Workers League – Fourth International (IWL-FI)
Trotskyist Fraction – Fourth International (TF-FI)
International Socialist Tendency (IST), post-trotskyist
Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) – claims to be refoundation of Committee for a Workers’ International (1974)
International Socialist Alternative, claims to be successor to Committee for a Workers’ International (1974)
International Marxist Tendency (IMT), previously the Committee for a Marxist International, split from CWI
International Revolutionary Left (IRL), split from CWI
Committee for Revolutionary International Regroupment (CRIR
International Socialist League (ISL-LIS)
Internationalist Communist Union (ICU)
International Trotskyist Committee for the Political Regeneration of the Fourth International (ITC)
International Workers’ Unity – Fourth International (IWU-FI)
League for the Revolutionary Party – Communist Organization for the Fourth International
International Bolshevik Tendency
Bolshevik Tendency
Permanent Revolution Collective
International Leninist Trotskyist Fraction
Tendency for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International
Internationalist Trotskyist Nucleus-Fourth International
Organising Committee for the Reconstitution of the Fourth International (OCRFI), split from Fourth International (ICR) in 2016
Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT)
Internationalist Standpoint (IS)
International Leninist Trotskyist Tendency
International Trotskyist Opposition (reconstituted)
Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (CERCI)Historic “Internationals”
Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI), 1974–2019 – split into Committee for a Workers’ International (Refounded) and International Socialist Alternative
Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International (CRFI)
International League for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (ILRFI), 1976–1995
Pathfinder Tendency
Fourth International Posadist
Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International (WIRFI)
Liaison Committee for the Fourth International
International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency (TMRI), 1965–1992 – rejoined the Fourth International (post-reunification)
Permanent Revolution
Revolutionary Workers Ferment (Fomento Obrero Revolucionario, FOR)
Trotskyist International Liaison Committee, 1979–1984
Tendencia Cuartainternacionalista
Fourth International (ICR), also called FI (La Verité) or FI (International Secretariat) 1981-2015
Socialist Network (Post-Trotskyist, split from IMT)I also disagree with your thoughts about Alonso. Needs a few years before he’d cope at Liverpool, it’s a big jump from Leverkusen.
But going back to what I was saying, rather than write another article about Lenin, I think we should let the old conspirator to rot without comment.
“Further, ONE of those links seems to be a sharing of Lenin’s method of attacking the man, not the ball, in political and philosophical debates.
Or, was that a trait of both Engels AND Marx themselves? If so, is it a good practice to continue? Does it further comradely discussions between democratic socialists?”
I think the point here is a good one. Marx, Engels and Lenin all had a tendency to go for the man not the ball. To be fair (taking the analogy a bit further) you have never been one to be shy to put the odd “reducer” in now and again, I have the broken shin pads to show! It may also be that I got my “retaliation in first” as well. That said, perhaps all of us could follow your advice (you included, my friend)
And whilst I can understand that people of my (and I assume) your generation, have a bit of an obsession about Lenin, considering the amount if time we have spent countering Leninist organisations over the years, my perception of things is that large sections of the radical working class have in practical ways moved beyond Lenin and his thoughts. I also think that one of the major changes is that classical Democratic (sic) Centralism and the Leader obsession has been massively challenged by modern organisational processes, especially by the rise of the internet.
To put it into context, I was talking to a work colleague who was active in the Labour movement in Liverpool during the rise of Militant. We discussed the way in which Militant continually manipulated and intimidated people as well as all of the cloak and dagger, behind closed doors deals within deals that Militant pulled off (including deals in Liverpool that were very financially lucrative for some of the leading Liverpool Militants!).
Now I’m not saying that this kind of skulduggery is not possible, but the whole process of caucusing small groups and corralling members to go the way the leader desires (which the Militant and their ilk are specialists at) is far more difficult than it used to be. Witness the difficulties the SWP are having in trying to lead “broad left” sheep into the slaughterhouse of Trotskyism across the Trades Union movement.
The spontaneous movements of resistance that the working class have been throwing up in recent years such as Just stop Oil, the Anti Capitalist Movement, Extinction Rebellion, etc. (regardless of the criticisms we could make about them) are far less leader obsessed than the Leninist/Trots. Because of this the Leninists are struggling to make any real entry points into these movements as they don’t generally rely on a leadership clique to make decisions. Let’s face it who is going to want to move from a generally open democratic movement to a conspiratorial clandestine grouping that denies your own ability to make decisions.
My view is that this is a clear vindication of Marx’s view that the working class will move toward genuinely democratic movements as a vehicle for social change and also that the ends that that social change aims to generate are absolutely linked to the means by which that is achieved.
Taking it a bit further, the question was posited about what the influence of Marx and Lenin would have been, should the Bolshevik coup have been thwarted. I have put my view forward about what Marx’s legacy would possibly have been in previous postings.
As to Lenin, my would guess is , is that he would be talked about about as often as Derek Hatton is discussed by under 35 year olds in Liverpool today. A sad footnote in the history books.
As to the rest of the Bolshevik old guard, I think, just like the Peter Taffes, Ted Grants, Dave Nellists, etc. they would have all fallen out with each other and ending up using the pitiful tactic of having to self publish their own memoirs. Just like them, Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin would look like Third Division Footballers trying to relive their moments of glory to people who had largely forgotten them!
