Semantics and Judging Functions

In order to clarify some of the confusion about judging functions I would like to propose a semantic clarification.

Feeling functions make judgments based on value
Thinking functions make judgments based on truth

Value is “the quality (positive or negative) that renders something desirable or valuable” or “the degree of importance given to something”

Truth is “conformity to rule; exactness" or “genuine depiction or statements of reality”

Introverted functions produce subjective judgments and extraverted functions produce objective judgements.

Subjective is “experienced by a person mentally and not directly verifiable by others”

Objective is “based on observed facts”

Having clarified those semantic points I propose the following as an easier way to understand judging functions;

Introverted feeling produces subjective judgement of value. Fi seeks to clarify what is moral.

Extraverted feeling produces objective judgement of value. Fe seeks to clarify what is ethical.

Introverted thinking produces subjective judgement of truth. Ti seeks to clarify what is rational.

Extraverted thinking produces objective judgement of truth. Te seeks to clarify what is empirical.

Now let’s look at each of those terms;

Moral is “conforming to a standard of right behavior; sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience”

Ethical is “relating to the accepted principles of right and wrong”

Rational is “agreeable to the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences”

Empirical is “provable or verifiable by experience or experiment”

So just to wrap it all up in a nice bow;

Introverted Feeling (Fi) determines the degree of importance given to something based on a standard sanctioned by one’s conscience.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe) determines the degree of importance given to something based on the accepted principles of right and wrong.

Introverted Thinking (Ti) determines statements of reality based on the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments and inferences.

Extraverted Thinking (Te) determines statements of reality based on what is provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Please feel free to add, criticize and critique with credit.

anonymous asked:

As a deaf person with limited/no context for how words sound, I'm finding the conlang community's fixation on starting with sound to be a huge stumbling block when trying to learn how to make conlangs that aren't signed. Do you have any advice on how to work around that?

Two three actually four things:

(1) “Phonology” doesn’t simply refer to sound. (I mean, etymologically it does, but not in linguistics.) Phonology refers to how a language uses unanalyzable, meaningless units (phonemes) to create larger chunks that do have meaning (words or affixes). In a spoken language, this refers to spoken phonemes (e.g. /p/, /b/, /d/, etc.). In a sign language, this refers to places on the body, motion, and handshape. If you know ASL, compare the sign for APPLE to the sign for ONION. These are almost exactly the same sign. You put your hand in the 1 handshape with the first two segments completed curled under, you put it up to your face and twist a couple times. The difference is whether you put your hand up next to your eye, or up at your cheek. That’s the only difference between those two words. Thus, the difference between APPLE and ONION in ASL is the same difference (quantitatively) as the difference between English “meet” and “mitt”. I share this example to show you how the principle behind the arrangement of both systems—signed and spoken—is the same. They differ in their expressions (i.e. through speech sounds and through movements done with the hands and body in particular places), but the notion is that there are certain things that have no meaning (for example the place next to the eye in ASL), but you can use those things in combination with other bits that have no meaning to form meaningful units.

There aren’t a lot of signed conlangs because many conlangers aren’t as familiar with sign languages as they are spoken, and also because they are very difficult to record on paper. Any hearing person who’s studied ASL will be familiar with this: You go to class and learn, but what do you write down? I imagine every learner kind of tries to invent their own notation system to help them remember, but ultimately you just have to memorize it. That doesn’t really work for someone creating the language, though. Video is the best way to capture a sign language, but it’s not super practical (though it’s getting easier). I tried to create a phonetic transcription system for sign languages called SLIPA. I’m not sure if anyone has used it, but I think the principle is sound (or sound enough). Plus, as with the relationship between narrow transcription and romanization, I think it makes sense for the creator of the language to create a more streamlined system for use with their language that can then be explicated in a page with SLIPA.

(2) There are still other conlang types that make no reference to sound but aren’t signed. I made one called X. It’s a purely visual language (think hieroglyphs but with no phonological component whatsoever). There’s a lot to be done in this area of conlanging. You can go the picture/glyph route I did, or you could just do something totally different, as with Sai and Alex’s UNLWS. You could also do something like this:

  • #$% = cat
  • #$%* = cats
  • ##$% = big cat
  • ##$%* = big cats
  • #$$% = small cat
  • #$$%* = small cats

After all, even letters are just symbols. They can stand for whatever you want, or nothing at all! As long as you can describe what’s going on, that’s all that’s necessary.

(3) To your main concern, saying “the conlang community’s fixation on starting with sound” is, to put it mildly, unfair. I start with the sound system in the spoken conlangs I do, and I mostly do spoken conlangs. If I’m writing a book on how to create a language, that’s where I start, because I’m writing it. But just because I do it that way doesn’t mean most do. Even if you go to a forum or mailing list and you see most people falling into that pattern, that doesn’t mean that’s representative of the community either, because there are any number of people who simply aren’t replying or aren’t volunteering their methods. We’ve had the discussion within the community time and time again about where one starts a conlang, and there’s a significant chunk that start with the syntax. They’ll use English words or just nonce forms to realize the grammatical idea they’re interested in, and only grudgingly turn to the phonology after they’re done. Some don’t even get that far, because their interest wanes when it comes to phonology. This split even exists in linguistics, where we refer to P people (phonetics/phonology) and S people (syntax/semantics). Ask any linguist: these camps don’t always understand one another. The same is true in conlanging. A P person sees an S person’s awesome subordinate clause marking system with a makeshift phonology and says, “Is that your phonology? It’s a little unrealistic.” An S person looks at a P person’s incredible naturalistic vowel harmony system and says, “Why waste your time on that if you’re not even going to speak it? It obscures the morphology. I can’t make heads or tails of it. Just show me the interlinear.” And these are all hearing conlangers! If you’re only finding conlangers who are talking about phonology, then you need to look for other conlangers—like the Jeff Jones and Gary Shannon type of conlangers. This was, admittedly, an easier task when the community was smaller—before social media, ironically. But I swear to you: There are TONS of conlangers who share your interests.

(4) There are also lots of spoken conlangs that don’t bother too much about phonology. There are minimalist conlangs which, by definition, don’t really have a lot of material to work with, so there’s not much to design/learn in the way of phonology (e.g. three vowels, seven or eight consonants, no consonant clusters). There are also a priori auxlangs or otherwise non-natural spoken languages where you don’t find assimilation or dissimilation, or anything like that. If there are five vowels and ten consonants with ©V© syllables, then there are 555 possible syllables (if I counted right), and every syllable is valid and pronounced exactly as it’s supposed to be, and can occur next to any other syllable. Then there are other conlangs with complex but non-natural phonologies, where there are many distinctions to be made (many of which wouldn’t exist in a natural language), and the speaker must make them. I’m thinking of Ithkuil. There, is admittedly, some small amount of variation is allowed, but otherwise the way that sounds are arranged is almost mathematical. There is no concern for how the sounds fit together, or whether two words sound too similar: The grammar says what sounds go where, and that is that. Any type of project like I’ve described above incorporates aural phonology but in a way that I think makes a little more sense to an S person.


If you have a particular project in mind but the approaches you’ve seen don’t match it, do a little digging and find a similar project, and see how they got going. If you have the start of something and want to know about a similar project, just send another ask, and I’ll see what I can find (most of the early conlangers have websites that are still up. Btw, newer conlangers: Even though no one does websites anymore, we need a way to see your work! Hunting through Tumblr posts/tweets/FB group posts doesn’t work!). But if I can add a tl;dr to this: THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO CONLANG! You’re good, I swear! And hey, if no one can approach the way you want, why not invent it yourself and detail it? You may be creating a method/approach that will be a great help to others down the line!

We say the map is different from the territory. But what is the territory? Operationally, somebody went out with a retina or a measuring stick and made representations which were then put on paper. What is on the paper map is a representation of what was in the retinal representation of the man who made the map; and as you push the question back, what you find is an infinite regress, an infinite series of maps. The territory never gets in at all. […] Always, the process of representation will filter it out so that the mental world is only maps of maps, ad infinitum.
—  Gregory Bateson

If you see someone refer to the chanukah candelabra as a menorah, never, NEVER correct them to tell them it is called a chanukkiah. The traditional word is menorah. In the talmud it is called a menorah. In the jewish code of law it is called a Chanukah Menorah. The word chanukkiah was invented around 70-80 years ago by people who wanted to distance themselves as much as possible from traditional judaism and alienate people who wanted to stay closer. Please spread this so that people know. Thanks.

How Emotions and Feeling Relate

Conflation is a pet peeve of mine and I’ve noticed Tumblr has a really really strong habit of conflating Emotion with Feeling in Jungian cognitive functions. As I clarified in an earlier post, the Feeling functions make judgments of value. To explain further, I’m going to try to explain the relationship between value judgement and emotion. Since I believe most arguments end up with arguing semantics, I’m going to start out by providing a few definitions.

First, here are the definitions that I came to in my post on Semantics and Judging Functions with regard to the Feeling functions;

Introverted Feeling (Fi) determines the degree of importance (value) given to something based on a standard sanctioned by one’s conscience.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe) determines the degree of importance (value) given to something based on the accepted principles of right and wrong.

A Value Judgement is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, based on a particular set of values or on a particular value system.

From that definition, I would say that Fi uses a personal, subjective set of values, and Fe uses the particular value system relevant to the circumstances.

Emotion is a person’s internal state of being and involuntary physiological response to an object or a situation, based on or tied to physical state and sensory data.

So maybe emotion isn’t the right word to use here. I suggest using the psychology definition of the term “affect” in order to more accurately get at what we are talking about.

Affect is a subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus, especially as demonstrated in external physical signs.

And there’s that word again causing so much confusion; feeling.

For the sake of clarification, lets look at three definitions for feeling;

1. Emotion or Impression
2. Intuition
3. An opinion or attitude

Well that just confuses things even more! In secular use, the word “Feeling” can mean both emotion and intuition so what are we to think? Well, lets look at the Jungian definition and see if we can find a solution.

“[Feeling is] primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection.”

So Feeling has nothing to do with emotion according to Jung, it’s all about value. In fact, here’s another Jung quote differentiating affect and Feeling;

Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it gives rise to no perceptible physical innervations.”

So, going off of the above definitions, Feeling is clearly different from emotion and affect.

So Why is This Conflation So Common?

Partially, because of semantics. Words are confusing and have multiple meanings, interpretations and definitions. This is why its so important to make sure that any time you engage in disagreement, argument or debate, you start off with clarifying your definitions. 

But also because there is definitely an observable correlation between Feeling personality types and emotional sensitivity.

Feelers are characterized by having a preference for making judgments of value over judgments of fact. Therefore, it can be assumed that those value judgments occur in greater frequency than a Thinking type. 

Emotional theory gets complicated really fast, but I will do my best to keep this simple;

Emotions arise out of situations which call on prior judgments of value.

When you experience that moment of “I don’t know how to feel about that”. It is because you have not made a prior value judgment on that subject. Only after the value judgment is made does any emotion arise.

The higher the feeling function is in your stack, the more prior value judgments you are likely to have made.

The good news about all this is that no one type is inherently more emotional than another and there is a solution for highly emotional feeling types;

Practice suspending judgment as long as possible. Remember that you cannot truly know the value of something until after the fact.

Stay tuned for another post on how emotions arise from Thinking in relation to value. The Feeling function may lay the ground work for emotional reactions, but the Thinking function kicks it off.

Series: Nerdy Semantics

Semantics is so much fun!

“The symbol z indicates an introspective judgment that the sentence is ‘zeugmatic’. The traditional term for this figure of speech is ‘zeugma’ or, more accurately, ‘syllepsis’. ‘Zeugma’ originally referred more generally to cases in which a word is shared between clauses, regardless of whether it has different senses in each context, while ‘syllepsis’ specifically refers to those cases of zeugma in which the word appears in construction with two clauses ‘while properly applying to or agreeing with only one of them … or applying to them in different senses (e.g. literal and metaphorical)’ (OED entry for syllepsis, emphasis added) The term ‘zeugma’ is now often used in this narrower sense, as equivalent to syllepsis, and more specifically, for the application of one word in different senses; […]” (Wechsler 2015: 11–12)

17black-poetry  asked:

Can you write an imagine about Misses Styles giving birth to Harry's first child and make it all cute and cozy. Love youuuu ❤️

Rating: PG
Warnings: none!
Category: cute (i hope) pregnancy fluff
Word Count: 1,834
Request: Yes! Thank you for requesting, i liked this one a lot!!! Remember requests are still open! ❤️

Note: This pulled at my heart strings and the ending came to me while sitting with my mom scrolling through baby photos. If you guys liked this DO LET ME KNOW cause i have ideas for a full out pregnancy fic…

13. Baby, baby.

Time was surely going slower than ever. Maybe someone had stopped the world. Maybe someone turned out the sound, but turned up his heart, and your voice.  It felt like a scene from a movie, and he wasn’t the one in pain, or the one feeling anything, other than panic.

Your hand was griping his with force, as he griped the steering wheel with his free one. He kept huffing out puffs of air, and his thumb caressed your palm.
“Breathe fo’ me, love”

Harry could perfectly pin point, and remember every detail of the day you’d asked him to join that useless parenting class. You were excited and he had not seen you this cheerful since week 4 of the pregnancy, he remembers sighing and rolling his eyes, the idea sounding so bland, and thinking why did he need to partake in this, but joining all together because he loved you and you were already hormonal as it was. He could perfectly remember being the only guy in the room, and the instructor congratulating them on it. He could perfectly remember all the other ladies gossiping about ‘Harry Styles’ being sat right there. He could remember having to think of anything but that, because you were there, and this made you happy, so he was going to take it and learn as much as he could. As much as it pained him to admit, he did learn a lot, and found himself deep in pregnancy magazines every time he found one – he might have subscribed for “Mommy Monthly” but, let’s keep that a secret – and getting documented on all the things this class has sparked.
“Baby’s about the size of a peach now!” He’d press his lips to your growing belly and smile.

Keep reading

On “True Synonyms” and why a thesaurus isn’t always your best friend.

There’s a writing tip I’ve heard a lot over the years claiming that a thesaurus can be your best friend because it can expand your vocabulary and help you avoid repetition. There are also posts floating around promoting the whole “said is dead” idea, bringing attention to the fact that there are many other words that could be used in place of “said.” While I think this is great and having an extended vocabulary is important, especially being a writer, this can also get you into trouble.

In lexical semantics (i.e. the study of word meanings), synonymy and antonymy are things that come up kind of a lot. One of the most basic ways that we humans conceptualize the world around us is by comparison–saying something is like something else, or the opposite of something. The same is true when ascertaining meaning. For example:

Person 1: So, what is a wolf?
Person 2: Well, it’s like a dog, but has x, y, and z features.

Person 1: What exactly does “day” mean?
Person 2: It’s not night, for one thing.

And so on.

One of the main features of language in general is that it’s efficient, or at least it tries to be. Taking this into account, it’s hard to believe that there would be two single words that express the same exact meaning. Even words that appear to have the same exact meaning, upon closer inspection, have subtle differences which makes them two separate words. They may belong in the same semantic field, but there’s still some tiny difference in meaning that warrants the existence of both.

Take, for example, the word scared. If you were to look this up in a thesaurus, you’d probably find words like afraid, terrified, and frightened. Sure, they all have the same general meaning of a feeling inflicted by fear, but they’re not all the same. Each word is a varying degree of fear. Even afraid, despite being almost the same as scared, can’t always be used interchangeably without slightly changing the meaning of the entire clause  it’s a part of.

It’s really important to take this into account when writing. Take those advice posts with a grain of salt. Sure, those posts can give you a hundred different substitutes for the word “walk,” but if you really mean walk, don’t say amble or saunter because they’re entirely different types of walking. True synonyms don’t actually exist. Write exactly what you mean, and don’t try to flower it up by plugging in a bunch of words you found in a thesaurus.

If anyone has anything else to add, please do!

IV. Suit and Tie Minus the Tie.

Also called: Suit Jacket Rides.
Prompt: You know how if you are a girl and you were to wear a man’s suit jacket, the shoulder pads would swallow you? Yeah, that.

In which Y/N is sleepy and cold at the after party, and Harry takes care of it, and she might return the favour after.

After award shows, the after party was a must. It was the place to mingle with people without the excessive flashes of cameras, the short time to walk the carpet, and of course, having already received your awards and feeling a bit more relaxed after a nice night. It was a nice environment to continue having a good time. And for some, it was the time to show off another really nice dress.

Harry and you attended to the grammy’s together and tagged along for the after party this year. Due to recording and the first parts of his first solo tour kicking off, it had been a while since he’d seen all his friends and you really enjoyed spending time with his friends as well.

You had to say, Harry looked incredibly good that night. Rocking a Gucci suit that fit him so nicely, and one that you kept tracing the pattern of with the tip of your fingers, after your fourth drink.
“ S’making me dizzy” you whisper to him, giggly and swaying a small bit from side to side.

You could still see flashes from the corner of your eye, knowing some paps got invited to these in order to cover everything about the gala. But these you didn’t mind much. These were paid to be here, by the Grammy’s. And you were a little bit too tipsy to care about cameras catching you devour Harry’s lips next to the bar.

Keep reading