The purpose of speech

[scratch]

The purpose of speech is to convince.

[pantablo]

or communicate.

[scratch]

But, by communicating you are still trying to convice the other person of what you are saying.

[Kasumi]

Unless said speech is rhetorical.

[scratch]

But, then who are you trying to convince?

[Kasumi]

But by starting this topic are you trying to convince us that the purpose of speech is to convince or are you infact been rhetorical.

[scratch]

I am in fact being rhetorical in presentation, but the statement is still trying to convince you, and myself, that the purpose of speech is to convince. 

I had a freind, an engineer, try to convince me that "uh" was not considered speech.  Or, that a caveman grunt was not considered speech (it's not, it's a sound).

[frankieG]

one of the greatest posts ever

[Kasumi]

But if we are looking into the issue of the purpose of speech being to convince have we correctly defined speech, Some would consider "Uh" as ago old speech, it contains meaning, the meaning would have to be convinced upon the listener, would this infact also prove it was speech?

Brilliant post i can see custom titles coming from this.

[frankieG]

or communicate.

it is the only reason for speech or any noise in the animal world which we all belong.

[scratch]

But in communicating, your statement is going to convince the other person/animal that:

You got the message
You understand there is danger near
You're convincing the other person that the meeting is a 10:00...

You are informing.

If I inform you of something, am I not convincing you of that something?

"Uh" is definitely convincing in that it conveys to the listener that maybe you really don't know what you want to say next.  Or, it is used to get one's attention (thus convincing that person to look at you).

But, if you say, "uh", as in the caveman sound, it is just that, a sound.

Let's say you say, "uh" to the ground.  Are you trying to convince the ground of something, or is it just a sound?  Or, are you trying to convince yourself that you are saying something to the ground?  What is it that you are trying to say?  Until you assign it meaning, it is just a sound.

Let's look up the Webster's definition of speech:
1 a: the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words b: exchange of spoken words : conversation
2 a: something that is spoken : utterance b: a usually public discourse : address
3 a: language, dialect b: an individual manner or style of speaking
4: the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

So here, it states nothing of the purpose of speech, but it does state what speech is, or is used for.

When you whistle, is that speech?  Or, a sound?  If you whistle at someone, what are you trying to do?

[Kasumi]

But could it not be argued that to inform and to convince someone are slightly different.

If you were, for example, to "inform me" (tell me) of the aforementioned meeting at 10.00 you are simply dictating to me details of a meeting that as far as i know may or may not happen. To convince me would you not need to provide proof of the meeting to back up the claim of the meeting happening at 10.00

For example the cavemans' "Uh" may be just a sound but if they made the "Uh" sound and pointed at a rock could you be convinced that "Uh" meant rock or involved something to do with rock. If you have thus put meaning and convinced a meaning to the sound "Uh" would that not reclassify it as speech - a way of communicating or convincing.

Moving back slightly and with a counterpoint - inform and convince being separate meanings - in our culture today could it be said that if you informed someone you have in turn convinced them, simply due to the factor that we have learned that to coexist we have to trust and therefore if you informed me of a meeting at 10.00 i would likely be convinced as i had no reason to doubt you. This does not necessarily have to have applied forever though. We often work on the principle - innocent till proven guilty, or true till proved wrong. Unless i saw good reason to not believe you i would default to being convinced.


Edit: to answer your edit.

When you whistle you are making a sound using your lips, if the sound is for yourself, your own tune and not interacting with anyone else or the environment then its a sound. If you whistle at someone would you not be implying meaning in your sound, You whistle at a passer by you are implying a meaning to your whistle, however i wouldn't classify this as speech,  although you have communicated a meaning you haven't convinced the passer by of the meaning, in this situation where you don't know the whistler you would default to convince yourself of your own belief of the meaning of the whistle.

[PuddleJumper]

Dude??

Dude!!!

Duuuude.

[CndnMax]

i whistle to get my dog to come over, wouldn't that make it "communicating" therefore speech?

[pantablo]

But in communicating, your statement is going to convince the other person/animal that:

You got the message
You understand there is danger near
You're convincing the other person that the meeting is a 10:00...

You are informing.

If I inform you of something, am I not convincing you of that something?

If I communicate to you through speech or text that your thread sucks, I am not trying to convince you. I am only informing you of my opinion.

[Kasumi]

In the case of dogs (and many other creatures) i believe it wouldn't be considered speech.

You conditioned the dog to respond to a whistle, the whistle is a trigger, when the dog hears the 'sound' i.e. the whistle, they have learn't that they must come to you. However if you met a dog that wasn't conditioned to do this and you made a whistle the dog would have no idea as to the meaning or purpose of the sound and would react in a way you couldn't predict only guess. Thus you havn't communicated with your dog you have taught the dog a basic task which is to be completed on the whistle.


However if the dog whistled back then that would be communicating. 

[frankieG]

since my ma had her stroke about 2 weeks ago she can not speak well.   i can not imagine that happening to me

[Kasumi]

But in communicating, your statement is going to convince the other person/animal that:

You got the message
You understand there is danger near
You're convincing the other person that the meeting is a 10:00...

You are informing.

If I inform you of something, am I not convincing you of that something?

If I communicate to you through speech or text that your thread sucks, I am not trying to convince you. I am only informing you of my opinion.

And we have no reason to trust shifty pablo therefore we would not automatically be convinced by your opinion and would choose to believe that this thread rules.

[Kasumi]

since my ma had her stroke about 2 weeks ago she can not speak well.   i can not imagine that happening to me

Will the care she gets be able to help her recover her speech?

[frankieG]

with the state of health care in the country i honestly dont know.  more than half of the 3 trillion spent on health care in the world is spent in the USA.  yet this country is 37th on the list of countries when it comes to care.  the private companies who steal the money of the healthy and leave the sick to die are the true evil