The purpose of speech

[CndnMax]

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. 

Well havent we all been taught language? we have been conditioned that "come here" means go there, hearing "come here" also acts liek a trigger--technically haha

[Kasumi]

However we have the ability to interpret the situation, come here to the dog, it would come untill it was nearly jumping off a cliff (unless it was scared) If you said come here to me, you wouldn't have convinced me to come there depending on the situation. I think to communicate in terms of speech is to decide as to whether your convinced of what is being said spoken to you and to decide  of your response. We've learnt the meaning of come here but were not convinced of what come here means until someone says it to us.

[pantablo]

technically, speech was invented by a man to help him get laid.

[groff22]

What about questions? Are questions convincing? They ask for the users knowledge of a subject. The question asker wouldn't be convincing anyone, they are asking to be convinced by a statement / answer. I'm not convinced.

Edit: Damn, questions are trying to convince the reader that they know the answer... I'm tripping out on this... aaaah.

[spc]

The purpose of speech is the transference of thoughts, ideas and information from one subject to another.  This does not have to be in a persuasive manner.  If I tell a friend that I will be at the McDonalds at 10 AM  that is in no way trying to persuade him, it is only informing him of my intent to be in a certain place at a certain time.  That statement would be transferring information.

[scratch]

But it will convince him that you are going to McDonalds at 10am.

Any statement made would be to convince.  Thus, informing is still convincing.

If I merely say the word, "plutonium", even if there is no plutonium around, what is the first thing you think of?

[trumpetguy]

If I merely say the word, "plutonium", even if there is no plutonium around, what is the first thing you think of?

Sex.

[scratch]

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

Yes, but to inform someone you are still trying to convince them of what you are informing them of.  If I inform you that the sky is blue, or, it's raining outside, have I not convinced you that the sky is indeed blue and that it's raining outside (and not inside)?

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

See example of raining above.  Now if I say the sky is red, and you know it to be blue, are you convinced that it is red?  Of course not, but by me just simply saying the sky is red, that statement alone is trying to convice you, maybe by trickery, that the sky is red.

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.

Correct.  If you assign any sound a meaning, including whistling, is has become a form of speech.

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.

See my reply to spcterry

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.

It doesn't matter weather you believe it or not, it is still trying to convince you of something, and it could be anything, but you are correct in stating that without assigning a meaning it is only a tune.

[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?

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, your opinion is trying to convince me of your opinion.  Be it fact or not.

[Jake D]

technically, speech was invented by a man to help him get laid.

When that failed, they invented money.  When that failed, they invinted alcohol.

BTW, I agree with Scratch. 

[scratch]

What comes after alcohol?  Good looks?  A personality?

[groff22]

Big bikes.

[scratch]

Allright, inform and convince being different parts of speech.

Convince:
1 obsolete a : to overcome by argument b : OVERPOWER, OVERCOME
2 obsolete : DEMONSTRATE, PROVE
3 : to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action : PERSUADE <convinced himself that she was all right -- William Faulkner> <something I could never convince him to read -- John Lahr>

Inform:
1 obsolete : to give material form to
2 a : to give character or essence to <the principles which inform modern teaching> b : to be the characteristic quality of : ANIMATE <the compassion that informs her work>
3 obsolete : GUIDE, DIRECT
4 obsolete : to make known
5 : to communicate knowledge to <inform a prisoner of his rights>
intransitive verb
1 : to impart information or knowledge
2 : to give information (as of another's wrongdoing) to an authority <informed on a member of his own gang>

To inform is to communicate knowledge to, impart or give information.  Be it common knowledge or not, the words you have chosen are being used to convey a meaning.  The meaning of your opinion (Pablo), the meaning of a question, the meaning of all these statements are trying to convince each of us who reads them, no matter if they succeed or not.

[MrDan]

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

By that rationale, waving to someone would also be speech.  You are still communication.  Speech is a type of communication while communication is not limited to speech.  It's a square/rectangle thing.

I haven't finished reading all the posts yet so I may be repeating what someone said .

I would make the argument that speech cannot be defined by "to convince".  There are too many examples where that would not be the case.  When a cager cuts me off and I curse to myself, am I trying to convince myself that he was in fact in the wrong?  Or am I merely exclaiming my frustration and agreement with my already existent beliefs.  When you sing along with a song on the radio, or two yourself in the shower, whom are you trying to convince?  And of what?

Just catching the most recent reply, I would also argue that Speech cannot be limited to "to inform" either.  Sometimes, like my examples, speech can be merely and exclamation without requiring an inherent purpose or action.  Speech can exist for speech' sake. 

As to the caveman's utterances, that would fall under the broader scope of Communication (as would speech). 

[MrDan]

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. 

Well havent we all been taught language? we have been conditioned that "come here" means go there, hearing "come here" also acts liek a trigger--technically haha

Try this if you get a chance, using the exact same inflection/tone/expression/gesture, say something completely different to your dog and see if you get the same reaction.  Our dog is named Maynard.  We can call him that, or dumbass, or airplane, and as long as it sounds the same to him (the inflection/tone/etc), the words are meaningless - he'll still react the same.

[Kasumi]

Exactly MrDan. My girlfriends dog and i think most dogs are just like that. If you say "squizzle" as in squirrel the dog jumps up barks and runs to the nearest window to look for a squirel, if you say "christmas" in exactly the same tone the dog runs to the window - looking for christmas lol.

[Jake D]

Demonstrate is to convince as inform is to demonstrate.  This is circular arguement.  Scratch is correct. 

[scottpA_GS]

My girlfriends dog and i think most dogs are just like that.

Sooo..  You are saying you have an agreement with your girlfriends dog? 

[MrDan]

Demonstrate is to convince as inform is to demonstrate.  This is circular arguement.  Scratch is correct. 

Scratch has made a number of points - which do you think is correct?  His original (since amended) point that the purpose of speech is to convince or inform?  I still think that is incorrect.  If I walk up to you and say "Hi", what am I trying to convince or inform you of?  It does not convey any knowledge or alter any belief. 

Similarly, (as groff started to point out before editing himself), asking "How are you?" does not convince you that you know the answer.  You already know the answer so there is no change in your belief that would reflect "convincing".  And since I'm asking a question that is arguably rhetorical, I am not relaying any knowledge.  You could really stretch to say that some questions (for instance "How much is that doggy in the window?") might relay something to the person being asked (such as "He might want to buy a dog" or "He does not know how much that dog costs"), but you really have to stretch to make that argument hold on anything but a very small technicality.

[Kasumi]

My girlfriends dog and i think most dogs are just like that.

Sooo..  You are saying you have an agreement with your girlfriends dog? 

Lol we get on well! We agree about alot of things hehe.