Just as a data point, my guess is that a very small minority of English-language speakers would define the term as broadly as you do, at least in a context relating the concept to analytical thought processes. At the very least, I think most people expect that language is used actively, such that pheromones wouldn’t fall within the definition. (And actually, that’s reflected when you say language is a means “you can use”.) Likewise, a slap in the face certainly can be interpreted, but slapping doesn’t seem like a means of communicating in general—because a slap only communicates one thing.
It's also doubtful that thinking about the concept of analytical thought processes is something most humans do either, at least not in these terms and this perspective.
Should we expect experts in cognitive science exposing their view in a scientific publication to stick to the narrowest median view of language though? All the more when in the same article you quote people like Russell who certainly didn't have a naïve definition of language when expressing a point of view on the matter.
And slapping in general can definitely communicate far more than a single thing depending on many parameters. See https://www.33rdsquare.com/is-a-slap-disrespectful-a-nuanced... for a text exploring some of nuances of the meaning it can encompasse. But even a kid can get that slap could perfectly have all the potential to create a fully doubly articulated language, as The Croods 2 creators funnily have put in scene. :D
I'm not sure it's that fringe. Popular addages such as 'language is a vehicle for thought' and 'the pen is mightier than the sword' reveal that language is sometimes implied to be tool-like, with many of our unspoken acts carrying linguistic meaning (e.g. ghosting, not answering a call, sign language, gesturing, nodding, etc.).
Even tools present us a certain 'language', talking to us via beeps, blinks and buzzes, and are having increasingly interesting discussions amongst themselves (e.g. subreddit simulator, agent based modeling). Recent philosophers of technology as Mark Coeckelbergh present a comprehensive argument for why we need to move away from the tool/language barrier [0], and has been part in informing the EC Expert Group on AI [1].
I think what you’re saying supports the view that language is structured and actively used—which excludes pheromones. But I don’t see how you get to the next step, of characterizing unspoken acts as carrying linguistic meaning. That is, sign language and not answering a call aren’t obviously in the same category, precisely because not answering a call fails to communicate any particular concept, and because people don’t use various modes of non-answering to communicate various things.
There is usually no technical reason why you can't, but any vegetation needs labor to maintain, a source of water, soil that is actually suitable and not poisoned. Then this vegetation would make the property hard to visually see or traverse, and it would likely be destroyed by the buyer anyway. There may also be zoning restrictions against growing tall vegetation on random land, leading to fines and fees. If you create visual obstructions, homeless people might also start squatting on the land or littering, leading to further headaches.
As cool as it sounds to just whimsically plant flowers, vegetables, and trees everywhere, this does create problems for people. Just because someone has property and you don't doesn't mean you have a divine right to tell them what to do with it. It could literally be owned by an old granny who is trying to sell it with the least amount of headaches, or someone who intends to build on it as soon as they save enough money to do so.
It’s nothing special. The fridge is just leveled so the hinge is slightly higher on both sides. The door then naturally swings closed. Do French refrigerators have some kind of mechanism that would prevent this? Like a latch of some kind?
I don't know. When I google this question in French, I see people whose fridge door does close on its own, asking for how to solve this issue; so they must find it inconvenient.
You seem to be using “actual” in a way that suggests proportion to population is a key part of the definition. But although a company that served a market for 20 million might well have failed as the market shrank, it also had the opportunity to survive and continue serving an actual market with an actual demand for 7 million actual horses.
They’re also voting for the policies that enable safe wealth accumulation and preservation, so “steal” seems like the wrong word—though there may well be some wealthy people who feel stolen from inasmuchas they’d rather live in a less secure society where they could try to be the winning warlord. Most capitalists see the value of a stable consumer class, though, backed up by a legal system and economic policy that injects money to prevent the collapse of their income-drivers.
They're literally plotting policies of "wealth redistribution" in the EU at least. The idiot bureaucrats can call it what they want, but forcibly redistributing your assets more and more to other people makes it thievery.
The longer people will call it communist plot and insist on not paying taxes, the higher is the probability of having the actual communist plot and being exiled to the Moon by a popular vote.
Maybe if we don't strip poor people of any chance of getting out of poverty they won't turn to communism.
If you chase an animal in the corner, it will fight back. You can shoot it and win but don't be surprised if the situation repeats.
The problem is that communism (as it is practiced) forces everyone into poverty, except for the tiny fraction of the population who comprise the elite of the politburo.
Yes, communism is horrible, I totally agree. What I am alluding to is that some form of social democracy can bring long term stability, thus minimizing the risk of people radicalizing.
Revealed preference at play again, and everyone knows that whats the whole communist thing really is about anyway - crippling jealousy and wishing to kill off the people who've put more effort in their life than you.
