Sin respuesta

En los últimos años, el número de visitas y visitantes a este blog no ha hecho más que disminuir, probablemente acaparados por una revista del corazón llamada Facebook y un mercadillo de baratijas llamado Twitter. Gracias a ellos, el zen que se respira en este espacio es ahora impagable y, al ahorrarme la necesidad de pensar en mis lectores, me anima a publicar, simplemente, lo que me da la gana.

En mi ya dilatada búsqueda de interlocutores acerca de mis divagaciones, han sido muchos los que ni siquiera se han molestado en contestarme, o me han contestado con una arrogancia que delataba su paupérrimo nivel intelectual y humano. De todas las preguntas que he enviado en estos últimos lustros, hay cuatro cuya ausencia de respuesta me parece particularmente intrigante. Uno está tentado de pensar que no han respondido porque uno ha dado en el clavo, pero quién sabe. Tal vez mis interlocutores se murieron de repente, o tal vez mis preguntas eran dignas de un oligofrénico o de un principiante. Por si a alguno de mis inverosímiles lectores le interesa, aquí va mi botella arrojada al proceloso océano:

Carlos París, catedrático de topología – noviembre 2010

[Ciertas estructuras semánticas] están descritas en términos de denominabilidad: puedo representar una categoría sólo en la medida en que contiene rasgos que yo puedo denominar. Por ejemplo, un segmento sólo contiene tres rasgos que puedo denominar: el segmento propiamente dicho, y sus dos extremos. Si uno esos dos extremos para formar una circunferencia, sólo necesitaré un símbolo para denominarlos y, en el momento en que la circunferencia esté construida, el punto en que se han fundido los dos extremos no será ya un punto privilegiado de la circunferencia, y no tendré razones para denominarlo.

Esta manera de representar categorías parece reflejar muy bien el criterio utilizado en topología para clasificar las formas geométricas: podemos deformar cuanto queramos un toro, pero en el momento en que su circunferencia interior se funde en un punto nos encontraremos en la frontera entre un toro y una esfera. Sin embargo, hay formas que son conceptualmente diferentes aunque topológicamente idénticas: un triángulo, por ejemplo, es topológicamente idéntico a una circunferencia, pero no es denominable como circunferencia, ya que advertimos en él tres puntos privilegiados o vértices. Por lo demás, podemos deformarlo cuanto queramos sin que su estructura experimente un cambio cualitativo hasta el momento en que aparezca un vértice adicional, o hasta que uno de los vértices deje de formar un ángulo.

Los conceptos de conjunto cerrado y abierto describen satisfactoriamente el concepto de adyacencia pero, si rompemos una circunferencia, el objeto resultante será un conjunto abierto en un extremo (es decir, sin punto de acumulación), mientras que conceptualmente seguirá teniendo dos extremos privilegiados, tanto si son abiertos como si no.

Todo esto me intriga. Para el tratamiento de las categorías y de sus estructuras he desarrollado un formalismo de composición y descomposición simbólica que explica tanto la sintaxis como la semántica del lenguaje, pero me gustaría poder utilizar conceptos de la matemática ya existentes. De otro modo, los referees que lean mis artículos me seguirán considerando un freaky y seguirán rechazándolos, ya que utilizo un formalismo que no entienden. ¿Se te ocurre alguna sugerencia al respecto?

[Nunca me contestó]

**************

Ray Jackendoff, renombrado lingüista - febrero 2011

In the first chapter of your book Foundations of Language, the term "conditions" refers rather to *conventions* implicitly established by the users of languages. However, if the sentence (b) below is the agreed way to inquire about the object of the verb in (a):

(a) Beth ate bread
(b) What did Beth eat?

there is no reason for the second sentence below to be ungrammatical:

(1) Beth ate peanut butter and bread
(2) What did Beth eat peanut butter and for dinner?

except for the fact that it has never been used (before you), and is therefore a construction not expected by the receiver. Besides, (2) is the *only* way to ask about the word 'bread' in (1). A remedial construction such as:

Beth ate peanut butter and what?

follows the rule implied by

Beth ate what?

and not the rule used to consistently construct (b) and (2). An important thing to be aware of is the fact that languages are incomplete and conventional. Languages evolve, and not only morphologically. In Footnote 2 to Chapter 5 of his "Syntactic Structures", Chomsky wrote in 1975 "...many would question the grammaticalness of, e.g., 'John enjoyed and my friend liked the play'". Such constructions are nowadays generally accepted, as were passive English forms at some point in time, but not before the end of the eighteenth century. More complex constructions such as "he was given a book" were also for a long time inexistent and, therefore, deemed ungrammatical in the past.

The incompleteness of natural languages is an essential fact that may make appear as objective certain concepts about language that are actually subjective or merely conventional. Human languages are very effective compressors of information, which makes formal syntax relatively irrelevant, except as a tool to disambiguate and predicate by combining individual words and word groups. Expressions such as "place cheap eat" (as asked, for example, by a foreigner) are perfectly understandable English. They are still language, and they can be analysed in terms of information, but not so much as a grammatical production, whatever the grammar rules may be, given that such rules can be almost arbitrarily changed. That different approach of you may be the reason for your skepticism.

[Nunca me contestó]

*****************
Sándor Darányi, investigador en semántica distribucional - abril 2017

Expressing B as a particular case of A implies a relation between A and B. Or, if you do not like the wording, just define the relation that links A and B as the pair (A, B). In any case, such a relation can always be labelled with a symbol. In natural language, however, relations are expressed not only as words, but also in terms of order (e.g. blue ball) or as morphological features (e.g. via Romae). How does [the distributional semantics] model account for such denotational disparity?

Besides, the apparent differences between nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc., can be questioned at a semantic level. Is the word 'through' in 'a through person' a noun or a preposition? You may refer to A as being strong, but you can also refer to the strength of A, implying the same meaning. And how is the occurrence of a travel in the past different from the meaning of 'traveled'?

Does [the distributional semantics] model account for both the above polymorphy and the denotational disparity, or is it based on a formal proof that such features are implied in word clustering relations?

[respondió que no tenía respuestas a mis preguntas]

****************

Gert Korthof, biólogo molecular - mayo 2017

After a number of mutations, a species U with no stinger evolves into a species W. The species W has: (a) a stinger, (b) a very specific venom, and (c) an area A of its neural circuitry that can use the stinger in a very specific way, i.e. implementing a complex algorithm that involves external and internal sensory input, and spatial orientation. Both the chemical composition of the venom and the precision of the algorithm are vital, as otherwise the species W would most likely not survive. My question is: did there exist a number of intermediate *surviving* species having a rudimentary stinger, producing a poorly effective venom and implementing an inaccurate algorithm? Or are those features just the result of a single concurrent mutation that just happened to hit the target?

Because my second question is tantamount to the problem of the chimp randomly writing 'A tale of two cites', I am left to wonder how a (presumably very long) series of *unsuccessful* mutations could consistently lead to a successful one. Could this question be answered by decoding the DNA of the species W? Is it scientifically established that there is no epigenetics mechanism at a macroscopic level to explain such an unlikely transition? I don't know the answers to any of the above questions, but am sincerely intrigued about them.

[Hasta la fecha no ha contestado]

***************

(Sin duda, continuará).