[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 379 KB, 1208x800, tumblr_mb0fxcWEBG1r2nar0o1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7242370 No.7242370 [Reply] [Original]

>Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

What did he mean by this?

>> No.7242400

>hey there

>> No.7242417

>>7242370
He meant that syntax is a shitty meme that brings nothing into linguistics and is only ''useful'' in practical usage

Now stop making this meme thread pls anon

>> No.7242423

>>7242417
/thread

>> No.7242441

>>7242417
Only a superficial reading of Chomsky's work, especially syntactic structures could come to this conclusion. Read it again.

The actual sentence means something was his point, we simply haven't conceptualised it correctly and he was challenging us to do so.

Don't just get your opinions from wikipedia fam. Or do and remain a dumbass.

>> No.7242447

>>7242417
>syntax is a shitty meme
Holy fucking shit. Highschoolers googling linguistics

>> No.7242449

>>7242441
My uni professor claims this and so far I haven't been exposed to anything that would allow me to disagree with him, try the wikipedia meme in some other thread.

>> No.7242454

>>7242449
>don't just get your opinions from wikipedia
>
>
>
>Ok, I'll just appeal to another authority

Think. Retard.

>> No.7242459

>>7242454
>implying your own opinion isn't a rephrased idea of some of your own authorities
top lel

>> No.7242465

1. Languages have syntax unrelated to meaning.
2. Syntax doesn't consist of linear associations.

Now fuck off.

>> No.7242467

>>7242465
so basically >>7242417

>> No.7242469

Pretty straightforward. 'Colorless green' is a paradox; something can't be colorless and green at the same time. Therefore scientists often use this phrase to talk about paradoxical concepts that are in fact true. Most of our intuitions about the way the world works are false, we've discovered; the truth is counterintuitive. So for example a scientist might say, 'I've got a new theory, but it's a pretty hard sell, goes against everything we think we know," another scientist might say to him, "Well, don't worry maybe it'll turn out to be a colorless-green idea," which brings us to the "sleep furiously" part. Colorless-green ideas are often rejected at first and are "put to bed," but then as new research is done, it's surprising how often they're vindicated. This is what Chomsky means when he says "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," he means paradoxical ideas may be rejected at first, but they "sleep furiously," tossing and turning, being unable to be repressed for too long before they wake up and amaze us.

>> No.7242470

>>7242465
good thing you were here to read wikipedia for us.

goodbye faggot
>>7242459

oh dear

>> No.7242472

>>7242417
I thought he was saying just the opposite: That the fact that we can recognize a sentence that would never occur as syntactically correct proves that syntax isn't just a probabilistic model of word sequences, but an actual rule system.

>> No.7242473

>>7242470
>a meaningless moan will prove him wrong!

>> No.7242475

>>7242370
People say stuff about how we all need to do our part to be green and save the planet.
However, they're just saying this to look good, and not because they care about the planet, hence "colourless"
These ideas are almost never carried out because everyone's too lazy and the person who came up with the idea in the first place doesn't give a shit
Hence the ideas sleep furiously

>> No.7242478

>>7242472
actual rule system that still does not appeal to the meaning, yes. These two aren't mutually exclusive to him I think, my post was obviously simplified for /lit/ standards.

>> No.7242480

>>7242473
see
>>7242473

>> No.7242483

>>7242480
You did it first sorry

>> No.7242489

>>7242483
see
>>7242473

>> No.7242496

>>7242489
I like how you are at this point the only person ITT to exclusively shitpost, also see >>7242473 etc etc

>> No.7242499

>>7242417
what on earth do you think syntax is?

>> No.7242502

>>7242499
It's already been answered above, scroll through the thread fam.

>> No.7242505

>>7242496
keep digging little sheep

>> No.7242537

If someone doesn't suggest a convincing alternative then this is going to be the worst thread in /lit/ history.

>> No.7242543

>>7242465
so very wrong
>>7242469

this is closer

>> No.7242556

>>7242537
>a convincing alternative
Most christposting threads
Marxism threads
95% of 'Post your /lit/ OC' threads simply due to quality of the content

>> No.7242558

>>7242537
alternative to what

>> No.7242583

>>7242417
nice meme reading

for people who actually care, Chomsky is saying that we measure a sentence's acceptability not by whether it generates meaning, but rather by whether it is composed of all the necessary parts in correct grammatical relations. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is an acceptable sentence because it goes adjective adjective noun verb adverb, with everything properly conjugated/etc., and although it seems to mean something, you cannot get any coherent meaning from the way those words combine.

>> No.7242592

>>7242583
Yes, so basically what I said 27 posts earlier in /lit/speak fam.

Again, this is just another derivative of a meme thread and I don't get why do people expect serious discussion

>> No.7242594

>>7242583
embarrassingly superficial

>> No.7242608

>see chomsky thumbnail
>everyone's accusing each other of being memelords
kek

>> No.7242626

>Colorless
without colour
>green
young, new, immature
>ideas
concepts
>sleep
rest, state of unconsciousness
>furiously
with fury, angrily.

The sentence makes sense. It is describing how young and untested ideas (which I'm not sure how would have colour anyway, green or mature) are sleeping. Chomsky needs a better dictionary.

>> No.7242629

>>7242626
>The sentence makes sense.
trolled by Chomsky.

>> No.7242633

>>7242629
surely you mean wittgenstein?

>> No.7242634

>>7242629
>the sentence doesn't make sense
trolled by wikipedia.

>> No.7242637

BLUE MOVIES IN FULL COLOUR

>> No.7242643

>>7242634
>trolled by wikipedia
loljk wikipedia tries to prove it has one

>> No.7242649

>>7242643
better than Chomsky trying to maintain it has no meaning, when it has

>> No.7242658

>>7242649
Except Chomsky did it to tell us something. Come on.

>> No.7242678

>>7242658
absolutely fucking reky

>> No.7242689

>>7242658
>he was only pretending to be retarded
sure thing anon, it couldn't be that he came up with a stupid example which disproved his point better than providing no example would have

>> No.7242765
File: 119 KB, 620x413, chonskyquoet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7242765

>> No.7242776

>>7242765
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmdycJQi4QA

>> No.7242797
File: 456 KB, 1458x1080, chompy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7242797

>> No.7242799

>>7242797
embarrassing attempt at humour

>> No.7242811
File: 877 KB, 352x240, Chomsky.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7242811

>>7242776
>seriously replying to that

>> No.7242816

>>7242811
oh no you might learn something about language development be careful not to click that i'm sorry for exposing you to an event incongruous with your expectations

>> No.7242873

I don't understand how you faggots could possibly be debating about this. Chomsky explains exactly the point he was trying to make with that sentence in the book.

>> No.7242875
File: 541 KB, 768x576, Chomsky.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7242875

>>7242816
woah there kiddo

>> No.7242878

>>7242370
He meant that green is not a creative color

>> No.7242889

>>7242873
>implying anyone on /lit/ has actually read the book

>> No.7242894

>>7242873
IF he does and you get it, why not inform us of our enlightened opinion instead of just telling us it's obvious you posturing gimp

>> No.7242917

>>7242894
1. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
2. Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.

It is fair to assume that neither sentence (1) nor (2) (nor indeed any part of these sentences) has ever occurred in an English discourse. Hence, in any statistical model for grammaticalness, these sentences will be ruled out on identical grounds as equally "remote" from English. Yet (1), though nonsensical, is grammatical, while (2) is not grammatical.

>> No.7242928

He argue that the notion of "grammatical" cannot be identified with "meaningful" or "significant" in any semantic sense.

>> No.7242929

>>7242917
cheers slave

>> No.7242933

>>7242929
racist.

>> No.7242937

speaking of linguistics, what's a good introduction on the subject?

>> No.7242939

>>7242937
Ferdinand de Saussure

>> No.7242944

>>7242929
Huh?

>> No.7242945
File: 40 KB, 389x275, Chomsky quote5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7242945

>>7242799
embarrassing attempt at memery

>> No.7242949
File: 1002 KB, 655x745, fedora-anonymous[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7242949

>>7242929
You could not be anymore of a Chomskyite stereotype. Not only are you immature and perpetually upset that not everybody agrees with you and your unfounded claims, but you have spent this entire thread calling people drones and slaves rather than explaining why they are wrong, as if you are the only person here who could possibly understand the writings a popular political commentator read exclusively by undergrads

pic related, it's what everybody is imagining you look like. Notice how it is not Socrates?

>> No.7242959

>>7242945
lel, that one's quite good\
>>7242949
>implying i'm reading that lump of shit text

>> No.7242960

>>7242929
That's literally Chomsky's own explanation of it, friend.

>> No.7242961

>>7242878
sick reference bro

>> No.7242966

>>7242959
>implying you're even capable of it
There's a reason why you're still reading Chomsky

>> No.7242987 [DELETED] 

>>7242966
>>7242966
Why did you type it if you think i wouldn't even have been capable of understanding it

WEW
E
W

LAD
A
D

Keep em coming, this is too much fun

>> No.7242997

>>7242987
because I just wanted to troll you fam
>meme × 10

>> No.7243000

>>7242987
he seems to have typed it for everyone else's benefit. personally, kek'd

>> No.7243001

>>7242997
keep digging little man, keep on digging, you'l get there sometime

>> No.7243006

>>7242765
Universal grammar is a joke. It's fucking anti-science.

That he got away with this sham for so long is honestly a wonder and the scientific community should be ashamed of itself.

>> No.7243007

>>7243000
>le direct reply was for everyone except the person that was being replied to

personally, kek'd

>> No.7243011

He's basically saying that a lot of syntactically correct statements are complete nonsense. That sentence is actually syntactically perfectly correct, even though it's completely meaningless. I think it's meant to illustrate the limits of linguistic theories, and it's also supposed to show that we can't completely understand language by only studying morphology, syntax, and phonetics: we need semantics too.

>> No.7243014

>>7243006
I think you're replying to a meme
personally, kek'd

>> No.7243015

>>7243011
nice interpretation, kiddo

>> No.7243016

>>7243007
>dat spacing
oh you're that prolific idiot. n/m buddy, we've been looking for a replacement for arrowgirl for some time. keep that post count running, lurking moar's never been a sign of a basedanon no matter what the haturz tell you.

>> No.7243023

>>7243016
dig, dig, dig

>> No.7243030

>>7243023
ikr, it's like i'm learning nothing from this conversation but just pushing the thread to bump limit with spam, how could i? surely that is some form of trolling and feeding it responses would be a bad idea for the quality of the board. i don't know what i was thinking either

>> No.7243033

>>7243030
jokes on you, I'm on to it and just playing along lol

>> No.7243034

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

>> No.7243039

>>7243033
>i'm currently only performing retarded
can't wait to see what you do in a thread on butler

>> No.7243042

Colorless green ideas talk slowly, but sleep furiously.

>> No.7243045

>>7243030
stunning critique fam

>> No.7243047

>are ideas still colorless when we are quoting them?

>> No.7243051

>>7243033
>>7243039
>>7243030
>getting so BTFO that you deploy decoy mes to attempt to win your argument by yourself


sad tbh m8, very sad

>> No.7243055

>>7243045
cheers m9 pls respong and subscribe

>> No.7243058

>>7243015
Is it flawed? If so, in what way?

>> No.7243059

>>7243034
PLEASE TEACH US HOW TO BE AMAZING LIKE YOU!!!!!!!

>> No.7243065

>>7243051
>i was only have a conversation with one anon
two different anons in that, anon. /lit/ must be in full attendance for a conversation of such import as this

>> No.7243066

>>7243055
and the dig continues>>7243058
I would tell you but i think it'd be beyond your comprehension if that's the kind of interpretation you're coming up with

>> No.7243069

>>7243059
Step 1: Stop shitposting back and forth

>> No.7243073

>>7243066
pls respond further. me and the other guy are hanging on your every word.

>> No.7243074

>>7243065
>lying


smh tbh

>> No.7243076

>>7243074
>lying about lying
we're going deep here

>> No.7243078

>>7243069
take your own advice friendo
>>7243073
see
>>7243069
This guy is wise beyond his years

>> No.7243080
File: 20 KB, 611x155, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7243080

>>7243051
sorry man

>> No.7243082

>>7243078
why? it's a shitty containment thread for idiots who can't think, your peer review is worth a response.

>> No.7243084

>>7243080
sorry for using photoshop?

yeh, it is a bit sad tbh

>> No.7243088

>>7243084
ok? that's fine with me

>> No.7243089

I am a linguist and this thread amuses me

>> No.7243090

>>7243084
lel
>tfw the other two posts
You realise this means two people know what an idiot you are for calling samefag and you're probably not going to gaslight them into thinking they're the same person. There's not enough people on /lit/ for you not to be an idiot to the majority of them after that.

>> No.7243098

>>7243090
Go edit a moustache onto a picture m8, you're losing the plot

>> No.7243103

>>7243098
>if I keep responding, he'll totally stop
kawaii

>> No.7243105

>>7243089
what kind of linguistics do you do?

>> No.7243107

>>7243103
see
>>7243103

>> No.7243109

>>7243107
see
>>7243107

>> No.7243114

>>7243109
see

>>7243089

>> No.7243115

>>7243107
>>7243109
see
>>7243107
>>7243109
>meme × 10

>> No.7243120

>>7243114
bah, you don't need to be a linguist to find this fun

>> No.7243124

>>7243115
>>7243114
>>7243109
>>7243107
WEW
E
W

>> No.7243131

>>7243115
>fractal meeming
we need to go deeper.

>> No.7243140

>>7243105
(formal) semantics

>> No.7243141

I created this.

You're welcome humanity

>> No.7243145

>>7243141
Hi Noam! Are you ever going to update Manufacturing Consent for web based news outlets?

>> No.7243150

>>7243145
I'm not Noam

>> No.7243151
File: 299 KB, 1024x1369, selfie 143.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7243151

>>7243145
fuck off scrub cunt

>> No.7243152

>>7243140
Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but isn't formal semantics out of vogue these days?

I thought all the cool kids were into cognitive grammar/construction grammar and cognitive semantics?

>> No.7243155

>>7243152
You thought wrong idiot

>> No.7243156

>>7243152
nope. where'd you get that idea?

>> No.7243157

>>7243150
Hi not Noam!
>>7243151
Come on, sales figures from the 80s don't tell us about the times we live in. You could get a grad student to do it for you.

>> No.7243173

>>7243089
How accurate is my interpretation of Chomsky's quote (>>7243015)?

>> No.7243176

>>7243173
very, very far off

>> No.7243181

>>7243176
So why is it wrong? What did Chomsky actually mean when he said that?

>> No.7243192

>>7243181
he meant that you're dumb gimpy faggot

>> No.7243194

>>7243173
He's not pressing the need for semantics, but arguing for syntax's autonomy from it. He wants a notion of 'grammaticality' distinct from the folk notion of 'meaningfulness.' That is, sentences are well- or ill-formed on the basis of abstract structural principles that don't have to do with meaning or sense-making.

>> No.7243195

>>7243192
Oh shit that makes sense I totally get it now. Thanks anon.

>> No.7243208

>>7243194
I see. But still, a consequence of that is that if we want to understand human language to the fullest extent, we can't limit our study to syntax, morphology, etc., we also have to study semantics, correct?

I agree that he wasn't saying that we need to study semantics, but other than that, is my interpretation correct?

>> No.7243217

>>7243208
Yeah. It's in section 2.3 I think of Syntactic Structures, and he goes over it very quickly, so you can read what he says there in a few seconds.

Chomsky has never been so hot on semantics. Sometimes he seems to suggest it isn't worth pursing, or in some sense maybe isn't even real.

>> No.7243223

>>7243217
I know. I'm pretty sure he considers semantics borderline pseudo-science. I haven't studied semantics or done much reading on it though so I have no idea how accurate that is.

>> No.7243230

>>7243140
what do you think of categorial grammar?

>> No.7243242

>>7243156
Can't be bothered to go into detail, sorry. Don't mean to sound like a douche but I'm just really tired.

Sorry.

>> No.7243247

>>7243242
aka, you just spouted some nonsense without thinking about it and are now controlling damage.

>> No.7243253

>>7243247
and in a chomsky thread of all places!

>> No.7243255

>>7243242
no prob fam

>> No.7243257

>>7243230
It appeals to me as a technical tool, but I'm not well-versed enough in syntax to evaluate its empirical advantages.

Pedagogically, I think it's ideal for teaching semantics and even has a kind of geometric beauty to it.

>> No.7243264

>>7243257
thanks for the response

>> No.7243355

>>7242370
he meant that seemingly contradictory ideas can make perfect sense given the right structure, we can contrive an explanation like >>7242626 only because it is in a grammatical structure

for example, we couldn't get the same contrived reading from "furiously ideas green sleep colorless"

>> No.7243363

>>7243355
..I.. ..I..

>> No.7243390

>>7243363
Spit it out, buddy.

>> No.7243421

>>7242370
ITT nobody gets OP's joke and vitriolic argument ensues based simply on there being a pic of Chomsky in the OP.

>> No.7243432

>>7242370
my interpretation:

Colorless green ideas: a logical contradiction so 'false ideas'. could also be referring to greed (since green is the 'colour of money) so colorless green could mean 'dull greedy ideas', 'selfishness' etc.

sleep furiously: he's saying that these false and selfish ideas are furious (incensing humanity to ever greater levels of conceit, depravity and violence) but that they are also sleeping, that is, they are in our very unconscious, a pure ideology

>> No.7243433

>>7243421
>called 'meme thread' literally in the 2nd reply

>> No.7243438

>>7243433
everyrthing is called a meme on le ebin 4chan

>> No.7243478

you guys are such meemers

>> No.7243534

>>7243432
>sleep furiously: he's saying that these false and selfish ideas are furious (incensing humanity to ever greater levels of conceit, depravity and violence) but that they are also sleeping, that is, they are in our very unconscious, a pure ideology

it's the sleep that is furious, not the ideas

>> No.7243600

>>7243047
underrated

>> No.7243917

Thoughts on his 'debate' with Sam Harris?

>> No.7245054

>>7243141
protip: ask for a better microphone on your next speaking tour

you're welcome noam

>> No.7245060

>>7243141
broof tbh :DD

>> No.7245061

he was talking about green texting

>> No.7245078

>>7245061
>S --> ME ME

>> No.7245094

>>7243023
>dig, dig, dig
>>>/pol/

>> No.7245149
File: 7 KB, 225x225, fresh breath frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7245149

>>7242370
>colorless
>green

>> No.7246252

>>7245149
this, wtf lol

>> No.7246258

>>7246252
An environmentalist idea that's completely unimaginative.

>> No.7246308

>>7242370

>Green = new
>Colorless = Boring
>Sleep = Inaction
>Furiously = Intensive (sleep)

Boring ideas, even though they may be new, are still boring.