Information in Names

[imatfaal]

Very Off topic (apologize in advance)

 

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world. And if most languages have "red" in the bird's name, you know the bird probably has something red in its appearance

 

Dekan - love your sig. Brave to counter St Dick

 

Not sure that he isn't still correct though. You might know something about the bird or you might know something that is completely erroneous

 

http://translate.definitions.net/hippopotamus

 

now the majority of these words from around the world have derivations from "river horse" and contain the word "horse" in one language or another - so clearly the hippopotmus is a form of horse! I am sure given enough time I could find a bird example - but my brain is on go slow today

 

 

 

[Dekan]

Very Off topic (apologize in advance)

 

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world. And if most languages have "red" in the bird's name, you know the bird probably has something red in its appearance

 

Dekan - love your sig. Brave to counter St Dick

 

Not sure that he isn't still correct though. You might know something about the bird or you might know something that is completely erroneous

 

http://translate.def...et/hippopotamus

 

now the majority of these words from around the world have derivations from "river horse" and contain the word "horse" in one language or another - so clearly the hippopotmus is a form of horse! I am sure given enough time I could find a bird example - but my brain is on go slow today

 

 

 

 

Thanks Imat. I just thought Dick "O'Ring" Feynman was going too far, in claiming that a bird's name has zero information content.

 

Names are invented by humans. And humans usually have a reason for giving a particular name, to a particular object. Usually, the reason is the way it appears to humans. Which at least gives some information.

 

The "hippopotamus" name you cite rather confirms this - it means, as you rightly say, "Riverhorse". This tells us two things:

 

1. The animal is probably a fairly large one, else it wouldn't be compared to a horse.

 

2. The animal probably lives in, or near water - but not the sea, else it would be a "Hippothalassis". So, probably it's in a lake, or river. At any rate, an inland watery environment. Not up a tree.

 

So the name "riverhorse" gives us some indication as to the nature of the beast, and is not absolutely devoid of information. The same applies to most bird names. Hence O'Ring was, IMHO, going too far in his assertion.

[imatfaal]

I like your argument - and it makes a lot of sense. It is of course why the sea-horse and the river-horse are so similar! I think my point is that any deduction from the name is actually an ex post facto rationalisation from what you know of the bird being confirmed by the peculiarities of the name.

[Dekan]

I like your argument - and it makes a lot of sense. It is of course why the sea-horse and the river-horse are so similar! I think my point is that any deduction from the name is actually an ex post facto rationalisation from what you know of the bird being confirmed by the peculiarities of the name.

 

Well yes, the apparent counter-example "sea-horse" swam into my mind even while writing my previous post! But you must admit, the sea-horse does live in the sea, not on land. And its head does look very like a horse's head. So the name is not some random collection of syllables.

 

Therefore, I am still defending my front-line trench against the attack by Feynman and your goodself, that names do not contain any information, and don't allow us to make any deduction about the object named.

[imatfaal]

Well yes, the apparent counter-example "sea-horse" swam into my mind even while writing my previous post! But you must admit, the sea-horse does live in the sea, not on land. And its head does look very like a horse's head. So the name is not some random collection of syllables.

 

Therefore, I am still defending my front-line trench against the attack by Feynman and your goodself, that names do not contain any information, and don't allow us to make any deduction about the object named.

 

A little learning is a wondrous thing,

Sip once, and sample the upwelling Spring:

There shallow draughts do irrigate the brain

And fertilize a future Nobel gain.

 

And now you are making a pastiche of pope in addition to making a farce of feynman!

 

No one said names do not contain potential information - the problem is that from a position out of context and without prior knowledge we cannot determine what is false information and what is true; and that is not information in the real sense. so a horse chestnut is a a nut that looks like a bosomy horse?