Patrician linguistic book recs?

[Anonymous No.11602615]

[Anonymous No.11602628]

do you want actual technical linguistics works, because they can be no more "patrician" than a microbiology textbook can be. If you want something adjacent that's patrician pick up a philosophy of language anthology. Any major one will do. Assuming you have rudimentary knowledge of formal logic

[Anonymous No.11602631]

>>11602615
Learn Latin, then Greek. Then we can talk.

[Anonymous No.11602644]

>>11602628
Either or works....leaning more towards the philo aspect.

Please list some titles.

[Anonymous No.11602646]

>>11602631
English please, for the moment.

[Anonymous No.11602650]

>>11602631
Unless you know of any good “intro to” Latin books for a pleb.

[Anonymous No.11602663]

>>11602650
Lingua Latina is the obligatory recommendation. And sufficiently plebeian.

[Anonymous No.11602671]

>>11602663
Will check, thanks.

[Anonymous No.11602701]

>>11602644
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Language-P-Martinich/dp/0199795150

this one's standard


Be sure to read these pages if you need background.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descriptions/

As always it's good to check out a syllabus from a respected institution.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-251-introduction-to-philosophy-of-language-spring-2005/readings/

^That is MIT's, which, by coincidence, uses the same anthology I recommended (it was the one I used in undergrad as well). Follow the recommended essays. Know going into this that analytic philosophy of language is not easy. It's a fascinating field but one in which every step taken by the major minds is unbelievably measured and deliberate. You need to take heavy notes. Most of the foundational work is done by logicians trying to solve the question of "if sentential logic represents sentences in natural language, and sentential logic has true statements, what does it mean for a statement to be true in natural language". It's about as technical as the field becomes outside computationalism in philosophy of mind or places where philosophy intersects with current fields like in interpreting contemporary physics.

[Anonymous No.11602896]

>>11602701
May god bless your heart, seriously. Thank you so much. I begin my journey.

[Anonymous No.11602979]

Mandatory

[Anonymous No.11603040]

>>11602701
Holy fuck I was expecting that shit to be analytic oriented, sure, but Kripke and Frege/Russell as the main substance of the course? JL Austin in fucking 2018?? Tarski? Are you trying to ruin this dude's life? Is this syllabus from some stodgy throwback's class in the '70s?

I will never understand how analytics took "the post-critical metacritical post-metaphysical linguistic turn" and turned it into a PRE CRITICAL METAPHYSICS of language. They adhere to the rigid typologies and monolithic systems of of talentless hacks like Austin and Kripke like they're dogma.

>>11602896
For all you know the other guy is totally right, and I'm the retard, but just take both sides with a grain of salt as possibilities. The other guy is recommending you sign on board with a ship that has been already sinking for so long it's barely even visible above the water anymore. Even beyond the fact that the philosophies of Frege and Russell have an astonishingly, embarrassingly atavistic conception of language, only of historical interest since the '30s and the death of Vienna positivism, even beyond the fact that Austin's heyday ended before your parents were born, and his whole philosophy is 4% of Wittgenstein's later philosophy (which eclipsed it completely), even beyond the fact Kripke is just as out-of-date and only of interest to doddering 90 year olds who still think Vienna positivism is in swing, and as proof that autistic savantism and a calculator-like mind apparently does not guarantee an ability to read or understand complex concepts, beyond all of this: analytic philosophy is dying. Especially of this very outdated sort.

If you're going to be analytic, at least go for Sellars, or later (not early) Wittgenstein.

Like I said, for all you know, I'm the retard and this is all bullshit. But at least put this on your agenda as a possible truth: analytic philosophy prior to its infusion by neo-pragmatism and the later Wittgenstein, and its subsequent "oh... we were wrong about everything, we should start reading continental philosophy" realization, is not only objectively bad and wrong, it is dead or on the edge of dying. If you get this way of thinking in your head, like a violinist being trained imperfectly, you can mess up your habits for life. Continental philosophy is full of plenty of horseshit too, but it has the subtlest and most cutting-edge philosophy of language ever developed:
>Heidegger's hermeneutic ontology, best represented by Gadamer's _Truth and Method_ and Ricoeur's _Rule and Metaphor_ (the latter includes a survey of philosophy of metaphor/language hitherto, including the analytic tradition with which Ricoeur was friendly, and including Wittgenstein, whom Ricoeur "got" long before the analytics)
>Late Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations, On Certainty, Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, etc.), as understood broadly by the New Wittgenstein school and Hacker & Baker commentaries
>various epigones like Derrida

[Anonymous No.11603043]

>>11603040
A book like "Groundless Grounds" by Braver is useful, though I personally think it's a lot of puffery over what should be obvious.

Once you understand these, you can reflexively understand the whole pragmatist movement subsequently undergone by analytic philosophy, while it politely waits for Kripke types to finish dying off. And you can understand Wittgenstein's nascent critique of Frege and Russell in his early period (Tractatus), which many analytics confusedly recommend for some reason despite it being a withering critique of the possibility of a philosophical logic. And fundamentally, you can understand logic as the current cutting-edge of our understanding, or even the threshold of the objective possibility of our understanding altogether, currently rests: as the necessarily immanent medium of all meaning and communication, meaning even the communication of meta-philosophies or meta-linguistics (including for example symbolic logic and any attempts to classify "speech acts"). This will allow you to understand analytic philosophy's bastard zombie offspring, like cognitive science and artificial intelligence (read: Dreyfus' _What Computers Can't Do_, and Jean-Pierre Dupuy's history of cybernetics and cognitive science).

From there, if you want to do some real cognitive science and figure out what language really "is," you can at least do it with a universal solvent in hand, from the linguistic standpoint of radical immanence and hermeneuticity.

tldr: At least one person in this thread is warning you against analytic philosophy as a complete waste of time, except to return to it later and understand how and why its fundamental, glaring mistakes were made. I would be deeply suspicious of anyone in the analytic tradition, any modern textbooks or intros written by those sorts, and of anything from cognitive science.

Chomsky for example has a perspective and certain insights that may be recoverable within a metalinguistic framework like Wittgenstein's, but he is philosophically retarded, and you can get lost in his half-thoughts for years if you just treat him like "guy who writes about language so I guess I should read them."

[Anonymous No.11603050]

>>11603043
>And fundamentally, you can understand logic ...

Meant to say, understand "language," as radially immanent. Or as anti-radically immanent, since it is "rootless," has no trans-linguistic ground to which we can gain privileged access or which we can clarify (which is what most logics and speech-act typologies seek, often without even realising it).

[Anonymous No.11603064]

>>11602701
Also sorry for coming off as an asshole, I meant to write a very short post being combative as a joke because it's 4chan with a few bits of real information for OP to consider but I ended up writing full posts so it looks like I'm a cunt who really insults people he disagrees with

[Anonymous No.11603162]

>>11603040
>>11603043
At this point it seems like I've come across the sentiments expressed in your posts a few dozen times on this board (even the part about how analytic philosophy can ruin one's thinking habits), so you are either one busy critic of analytic linguistic philosophy, or you are in good company. Anyway, you identified cognitive science and artificial intelligence as some of the offspring of this tradition, but I'd also be interested to hear your view on the state of linguistics (I ask partly because I am likely to declare as a linguistics major soon. Not OP by the way).

[Anonymous No.11603178]

>>11602615
Huge waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11604734]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11604748]

>>11602615
Linguistics is autism.

Read a bit of philosophy of language and leave it.

[Anonymous No.11605111]

>>11602615
Language of the Third Reich: LTI: Lingua Tertii Imperii - Victor Kemplerer

This book if fucking amazing. No joke.
I specialy like that Victor talks about his subject with a clear writting and based on real interactions in with he had while under the Nazi Gov.

[Anonymous No.11605174]

>>11602615
This is pretty patrish.
Also, not a book, but Silversteins "Hierarchy of features and ergativity"

[Anonymous No.11605180]

>>11602615
Learn Old Church Slavonic, Avestan, and Hittite. Then we can talk.