John Page

jp - Many thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Errr, um, your definition is a little incomplete. There needs to be language in order to think about language or have thoughts of language. If language is the means of communicating a thought, how does this necessitate thought requiring language?

This is why I wanted to tie down the definition of the word "language" to be used. What is someone says "I listen to the wind and hear the sadness of the trees talking to me of their long and weary journey...", do you categorize this as an instance of language? IMO all the associations have been made in the mind of the listener, but clearly something has been communicated by the wind. Again, please confirm whether or no we are debating language usage defined as "the intentional communicating of information by use of shared symbols and signs."
Here's an analogy for you. A computer has a main processor (CPU) and a communications processor (UART). The CPU has "thoughts" of which it wishes to communicate the resulting data. That data is passed to the UART which uses a communications protocol and electrical power to propogate a signal from which the data can be extracted by a UART. The data is thus available to another CPU which may or may not be able to understand it (depending upon the shared use of the communicated signs and symbols).
Not a great analogy but I'm hoping to make clear that processes dealing with communication can be segregated from processes that deal with the subject matter itself. As before, the brain appears to have specific areas dealing with language, both natural and formal.
Please see above that the existence of thoughts about language or of language predicates the existence of language and its involvement in those thoughts.
I didn't assume so, what I hope I have done is to draw out an argument from you that implies that language does not contain the meaning - external reality contains the meaning and this drives thought at the "primitive" level - not language.

I stongly disagree with the assertion in the passage you quoted that "There is, he argues, a mode of conveying meaning beneath the level of thought...." The only way this makes sense to me is if the statement is restricted to conscious thought.
No, why should it?
Yes, but subject matter is important also. What metrics would you put on sophistication?

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John Page

Miscommunication.............pit falls of language or let's just say linguistic relativity (whorf...may he RIP)

Errr, um, your definition is a little incomplete. There needs to be language in order to think about language or have thoughts of language.

sigh...what part didnt you get ? When i asked the question about language and thought...i meant - language as means of communication....what else definition you need ?

And what do you mean by - there 'needs' to be language in order to think about language? Human beings 'created' language....

If language is the means of communicating a thought, how does this necessitate thought requiring language?

Err...who made that statement?

Regarding changing definition....it was in the direction of : if we want to change the definition from "means" of communication to language could be one's own private language or natural language or language of thought or mentalese........................................

This is why I wanted to tie down the definition of the word "language" to be used. What is someone says "I listen to the wind and hear the sadness of the trees talking to me of their long and weary journey...", do you categorize this as an instance of language? IMO all the associations have been made in the mind of the listener, but clearly something has been communicated by the wind. Again, please confirm whether or no we are debating language usage defined as "the intentional communicating of information by use of shared symbols and signs."

Oui....now answer Umm ...what is "means of communication" that you are referring to here? When you say communication can take place without language are you pointing out to non-verbal communication, body language ...etc? Are you stating that "all communication" can take place without language? If language is nothing but a shared resource off signs and signified and symbols and meaning...wouldnt sign language also be a 'language'?

Here's an analogy for you. A computer has a main processor (CPU) and a communications processor (UART). The CPU has "thoughts" of which it wishes to communicate the resulting data. <snip> processes dealing with communication can be segregated from processes that deal with the subject matter itself. As before, the brain appears to have specific areas dealing with language, both natural and formal.

Nope [i] What is difference between these two types of thoughts? How do thoughts perform verbalization and is language used for rationalization before we say something? [/b] Any papers you are referring to ?

I didn't assume so, what I hope I have done is to draw out an argument from you that implies that language does not contain the meaning - external reality contains the meaning and this drives thought at the "primitive" level - not language.

Sigh your example does assume...all i did was point out the problems

So And say if we go by your above hypothesis....your explanation still doesnt establish that multiple languages indicate that some thoughts will have to be in a different language. Why do you say?


I stongly disagree with the assertion in the passage you quoted that "There is, he argues, a mode of conveying meaning beneath the level of thought...." The only way this makes sense to me is if the statement is restricted to conscious thought.

???????

Yes, but subject matter is important also. What metrics would you put on sophistication?

That would be subjective...but it could "knowledge base"...or understanding of reality and ability to manipulate the same to improve living conditions.....material wealth....dominance over other societies...so on and so forth

John Page

No disagreement here (assuming were talking about the same thing, of course!).
I need something that enables me to define whether language is occurring and, extracting from my prior posts, the following questions/issues arise:

1. What types of thing are communicated using language? Ideas, information, thoughts, energy?
2. Are we saying language provides communication between people when a message is formulated and intentionally transmitted?
3. Does language (between people) only occur when the intentionally sent message is received and understood by one or more recipients? e.g. does there have to be a listener?
4. Does language occur when a series of signals is received that appear as a message to the recipient, even if those signals were not produced intentionally to convey a message? e.g. does there have to be a speaker?
5. Is there any restriction on the means of communication or can any material effect provide the "transport layer"?
6. Is language defined as the use of signs or symbols as the means of communication? If so, in turn, how are these defined?
7. e.g. If I look at an object, say, a chair, light conveys to me a representation of that chair - do you consider that language is involved in the resulting pictorial representation from my eyes? If not, what is the point at which language becomes involved - I'm suggesting it is when we internally verbalize the scene and muse to ourselves (i.e. internally) "There is a chair".

Its not a statement its a question, I'm trying to probe what you think is the dependency between language and thought.
In which case there is a 1:n relationship between reality and languages. Yes?
So when I hear the noise of the wind and mistake it for speech, the language communication is purely internal to me? (Because there was no external entity intentionally communicating and sharing symbols with me). Ergo, language has occured internally. Do you agree with this deduction?
Respectively:
1. Something that enables a message to get from A to B (is the means of communication).
2. Communication can take place without language as in the non-intentional example of the wind and the trees. They (as objects) have communicated (with me) through force of sound waves. That the thought occurs to me "The trees are sad" requires language within me to "verbalize" the meaning of the wind noise. a.k.a my anthropomorphism w.r.t. trees.
3. No, some communication requires language.
4. Sign language is a language by definition!! However, if the meaning of the signs is not shared, or if the signs are not intentional, then sign language does not occur (under the definition of language we're working to where you said "oui").

I acknowledge the imprecision of language but if the word "beer" did not have a commonly understood meaning then nothing meaningful would have been conveyed - but there is a multiplicity of instances of language (Hungarian, Russian, Maltese teehee not mentalese). If beer, sort and peva did not have some common meaning then language dictionaries would appear to have no function. Cogito, same object, many words; ergo commonality of word meaning.

Do you have any examples of what the author was getting at - IMO the thought is required for a meaning to come about so I'm mystified how meaning can be conveyed "beneath the level of thought".

To finish, let's go back to miscommunication. To clarify what I conceive of using the words "communication" and "language" I provide these two links -
Communication and Language & Music . I'm not saying my conceptions are correct or that anyone has to accept them, just trying to build common ground so that our use of language to discuss our thoughts about language doesn't trip up the conversation.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

I need something that enables me to define whether language is occurring and, extracting from my prior posts, the following questions/issues arise:

Lets see, when you popped the first question i said "Language => The very means moi is using to convey this thought to you"

Let's see how your questions stack up in light of this statement -

1. What types of thing are communicated using language? Ideas, information, thoughts, energy?

Obviously not the last one. I prefer to conserve my energy

2. Are we saying language provides communication between people when a message is formulated and intentionally transmitted?

answered

3. Does language (between people) only occur when the intentionally sent message is received and understood by one or more recipients? e.g. does there have to be a listener?

Umm...without a recipient there can be no communication...thats obvious right?

4. Does language occur when a series of signals is received that appear as a message to the recipient, even if those signals were not produced intentionally to convey a message? e.g. does there have to be a speaker?

Without "phaedrus" typing that message, the above statement of mine could have been anyone's. Without a speaker, the recipient could have for all you know received signal from martians. You will have to be more clear here...unintentional communication could be....a person trying to hide something but the body language giving some signals....etc

5. Is there any restriction on the means of communication or can any material effect provide the "transport layer"?

??? Are you entering into pyschic land now?

6. Is language defined as the use of signs or symbols as the means of communication? If so, in turn, how are these defined?

You are able to read and understand these "signs and symbols" right? There is your definition

7. e.g. If I look at an object, say, a chair, light conveys to me a representation of that chair - do you consider that language is involved in the resulting pictorial representation from my eyes? If not, what is the point at which language becomes involved - I'm suggesting it is when we internally verbalize the scene and muse to ourselves (i.e. internally) "There is a chair".

Umm....as you grow up in a society, you learn the signs and symbols that your fellow beings or your family use to describe the reality as we see it. We "created" language and the signs. And what do you mean by - there 'needs' to be language in order to think about language? Human beings 'created' language....

Its not a statement its a question, I'm trying to probe what you think is the dependency between language and thought.

Sentence construction needs to be different ...the way you phrased the question "If language is the means of communicating a thought, how does this necessitate thought requiring language? " indicates that this is what i implied. Now coming to thought depending on language...as i said...lets explore

In which case there is a 1:n relationship between reality and languages. Yes?

????

So when I hear the noise of the wind and mistake it for speech, the language communication is purely internal to me? (Because there was no external entity intentionally communicating and sharing symbols with me). Ergo, language has occured internally. Do you agree with this deduction?

Not language....an 'imaginary' communication occured. You interpreted the 'noise' as being 'speech'......say like those horror flicks show all those raspy sounds ;-)

2. Communication can take place without language as in the non-intentional example of the wind and the trees. They (as objects) have communicated (with me) through force of sound waves. That the thought occurs to me "The trees are sad" requires language within me to "verbalize" the meaning of the wind noise. a.k.a my anthropomorphism w.r.t. trees.

But was the tree or wind trying to "communicate" to you or are you merely interpreting noise as communication by the tree or whoever

3. No, some communication requires language.

Which communication doesnt need language

And "What is difference between these two types of thoughts? How do thoughts perform verbalization and is language used for rationalization before we say something? Any papers you are referring to ? "

I acknowledge the imprecision of language but if the word "beer" did not have a commonly understood meaning then nothing meaningful would have been conveyed - but there is a multiplicity of instances of language (Hungarian, Russian, Maltese teehee not mentalese). If beer, sort and peva did not have some common meaning then language dictionaries would appear to have no function. Cogito, same object, many words; ergo commonality of word meaning.

Again..."And say if we go by your above hypothesis....your explanation still doesnt establish that multiple languages indicate that some thoughts will have to be in a different language. Why (what) do you say?".

Do you have any examples of what the author was getting at - IMO the thought is required for a meaning to come about so I'm mystified how meaning can be conveyed "beneath the level of thought".

He is talking about the sub-conscious or non-verbal signs.....which play an important role in communication...read these lines in the quote "which is contained in the words just insofar as they are patterned sounds, as just the sounds which this particular historical language uniquely uses, and which are much more like a melody--a "singing of the world"--than fully translatable, conceptual thought" Every language as this certain nuances or accent or sound right?

laters

John Page

Phaedrus:
I hope the post below makes clearer my views on the relationship between language/thought/meaning/communication and I look forward to your comments.
C'mon Phaedrus, what types of thing would you say are communicated using language?
Ah, but the question is about language, not communication. I would argue that language is used by entities that either a) intentionally transmit a message or b) receive and interpret that message.

I hope I'm starting to make sense in that language is a type of thought (process) that takes place in the mind/brain. Language permits the encoding and interpretation of messages between entities given 1) a language process at each end and 2) a means of pysically/materially communicating the message between the two entities.

OK, by "unintentional" I intended to encompass all communication that is intended to convey a message - irrespective of whether it was not meant to be received by specific entities etc.
LOL. No, I'm seeking to elicit whether you consider a physical communication between two entities a language activity (conversation). This generally requires energy hence my probe earlier.
Not helpful - what do you consider the purpose and fucntion of signs and symbols in enabling language?
Well, our thoughts about language would be meaningless if language was nonexistent - pas vrai?
Do you believe there are many languages and one reality? (I need to establish this in order to have menaingful dialog).
Here we're diverging. The communication is real, the language (in the mind of the listener) is real. The listener has imagined that the wind is talking to him, impossible if "the wind" has no mind. However, the noise of the wind has communicated something to the listener.
Kicks Phaedrus.

Thoughts occur in (or are process implemented by) the brain and language processes (language is a type of thought) can assist in rationalization. Here, from greatbrain.com referencing broca's area "Brain problems are often revealed in the Quantitative EEG (computerized Brain Wave Analysis) as one (or more) of the following brain wave categories: Focal slow waves or spikes in one or more brain areas. The EEG signature of localized brain damage or dysfunction (learning difficulty’s root), is focal slow waves. In those with Dyslexia, for example, slow brain wave activity can be found in one or more key areas: The occipital lobes at the back of the brain, where incoming visual information is received and processed; Wernicke's area, just above and behind the left ear, where the brain processes words for understanding; Broca's area, in the left front of the brain, where words are put together for expression; and the sensorimotor area, where speech is put into motion for verbalization of thoughts.
I think a misunderstanding here. I don't know chinese. There are chinese that don't know english. we both use language and can talk about the same kinds of thing (trees, sky, sea etc.). Assuming reasonably common brain physiology there is more than one word for the same concept - thus we must be able to "think about" (real) trees without being language specific. ANother example is that young children learn to recognize objects long befroe they acquire language skills.

If one pushes the "mentalese" idea IMO this is subverting the characteristics of language processes and imposing them on all thought processes without justification.
Still , sub-conscious activity is thought, yes?
Yes, arguably there is a component of language that operates at subconscious level - consistent with the fact that we are not consciuously aware of all the brain's language operations.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

C'mon Phaedrus, what types of thing would you say are communicated using language?

Isnt it obvious? You gave "Ideas, information, thoughts, energy" and i said obviously not the last one......

Ah, but the question is about language, not communication. I would argue that language is used by entities that either a) intentionally transmit a message or b) receive and interpret that message.

I hope I'm starting to make sense in that language is a type of thought (process) that takes place in the mind/brain. Language permits the encoding and interpretation of messages between entities given 1) a language process at each end and 2) a means of pysically/materially communicating the message between the two entities.

You will have to get more clarity. You said "Does language (between people) only occur when the intentionally sent message is received and understood by one or more recipients? e.g. does there have to be a listener?" This sentence implies that language is nothing but communication. Language doesnt 'occur', language is 'used' to communicate. Again you bring about the "type of thought process", elaborate as to what are different types of thought processes and how you can isolate a particular type of thought process and say this is 'language' with conviction. Language is not a thought process, it is a 'code book' of signs and symbols that is used for communication and understanding.

What is purpose of 'language', if not to communicate and understand? And in that sense, language will not occur until you 'want' to communicate

OK, by "unintentional" I intended to encompass all communication that is intended to convey a message - irrespective of whether it was not meant to be received by specific entities etc.

What ???????? How can anything be "communication" if there is no intension to 'communicate' a message. You can pass gas with sound effects involuntarily, but that doesnt mean you wanted to communicate an uneasy stomach to the world. As i put Without "phaedrus" typing that message, the above statement of mine could have been anyone's. Without a speaker, the recipient could have for all you know received signal from martians. or this could be equated to ghosts speaking...voices in the head....etc

No, I'm seeking to elicit whether you consider a physical communication between two entities a language activity (conversation). This generally requires energy hence my probe earlier.

what is "physical" communication???? touching each other or kicking each other??

Not helpful - what do you consider the purpose and fucntion of signs and symbols in enabling language?

Sigh ...sometimes i wonder.......the "purpose and function" is to enable 'communicate' mate

Well, our thoughts about language would be meaningless if language was nonexistent - pas vrai?

Lets put it this way......the issue doesnt arise since language and thought are 'entwined' enough not to wonder about the nonexistence of one of them. Where is the discussion on the entwinement btw

Do you believe there are many languages and one reality? (I need to establish this in order to have menaingful dialog).

Yes and most of the times, the way we 'interpret' this reality depends on our linguistic grounding which in turn depends on our cultural and historical grounding.... So while its the same reality, the way we percieve it could be different due to language and culture.

The communication is real, the language (in the mind of the listener) is real. The listener has imagined that the wind is talking to him, impossible if "the wind" has no mind. However, the noise of the wind has communicated something to the listener.

Nope, its 'imaginary' communication in the sense that the listener thinks the wind was talking to him/her, when there wasnt any intention on the part of the 'wind' to communicate anything. Look above, four people could be walking on the road and only one person thinks that the wind was talking. Same reality ...different perceptions.

Kicks Phaedrus.

?

Thoughts occur in (or are process implemented by) the brain and language processes (language is a type of thought) can assist in rationalization. <snip> and all the broca things

Wasnt talking about neurolinguistics mate. We can go about mapping of the brain and the broca/wernicke.. my question was "How do thoughts perform verbalization and is language used for rationalization before we say something?" What are thoughts and how are they constructed and how are these thoughts formulated into linguistic terms?

And with regd to the biological origins....an interesting paper....
The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area

I don't know chinese. There are chinese that don't know english. we both use language and can talk about the same kinds of thing (trees, sky, sea etc.). Assuming reasonably common brain physiology there is more than one word for the same concept - thus we must be able to "think about" (real) trees without being language specific. ANother example is that young children learn to recognize objects long befroe they acquire language skills.

The "ability" to think with being language speicifc and the existence of many languages STILL doesnt say anything about "some thoughts being in a different language"

If one pushes the "mentalese" idea IMO this is subverting the characteristics of language processes and imposing them on all thought processes without justification.

????

laters.....

jp

John Page

I did read your post and it is not obvious to me what you are counting as obvious! This is not a trick question, I just want to understand you proposed conception of language - one does find some unusual ideas in this forum.
Without thought, the code book is not a code book, its just a lump of material. The code book only has meaning in relation to one's thoughts and language is the process of mind that enables us to codify.

Yes, the purpose of language is the effective communication of ideas etc. If language is "used" it must "occur", right? In which case we come back to the issue of what is language.

Other types of thought process can be those involved with visualization, quantification, emotions, motor-control etc.
So you agree deliberate farting is non-language communication? (Kicks Phaedrus again).
No. There is a physical element to communciation, such as the soundwaves we use to transmit the message we have codified in our minds. Again, I'm merely seeking to delineate what you consider described by the word "language" - does it include the means of transmission?
Communicate what, though? A state of mind, thought.... It appears there are non-language ways of communicating things but language, the (intentional?) intersubjective sharing of symbolized information, can be far more powerful and precise than other methods - although sometimes words do fail us!
Seems delayed until we have the terms "language" and "thought" better defined - see above you seem to reject "language is a type of thought" and I reject "language is a code book".
OK. My argument is that all words are adjectives used to describe a common reality. There can be two languages that use different words to describe the same reality. I reject the notion that language is used to perceive reality - it is used to describe reality. Now, I accept that languages will have different strengths/weaknesses and may introduce biases in our understanding of reality (no Eskimo word for the concept "desert" perhaps but twenty odd words for types of "snow"). However we can observe and analyze (viz. think about) sand and snow irrespective of our current lexicon as to reality. Therefore, thought precedes language and supposed entwinement confuses the subject matter with a communication related internal "verbalization".
More support for my argument immediately above and consistent with language being a brain (thought) process. If this were not so, how could the speech of the wind have been imagined?
Language (a type of thought process) performs verbalization giving rise to the possibility that language may be used for rationalization before we say something.
Yes, very interesting and supportive of model of mental reality I'm trying to push here. e.g. "The apparent lack of localization of certain basic combinatorial linguistic abilities may lead to the suspicion that they are distributed over the cerebral cortex. A survey of the neurological record shows that this is not the case. The cerebral localization of syntax as a whole is restricted to the left hemisphere. Moreover, a comparison between language and other cognitive deficits upholds what has become conventional wisdom among linguists: combinatorial aspects of language are distinct from "general cognition." and "The current record appears unequivocal: both the clinical and experimental evidence point to the functional independence and neurological distinctness of mathematical and linguistic capacities. "
I'm not sure what the issue is here. Language is a type of thought process, therefore, when a subject matter is verbalized it is necessarily "in" the language being used. Maybe we're tripping over each other here because I do not regard language as being "used" until it is put into play. The marks on this screen are meaningful in the English language which is what's going on in your mind.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

*restraining himself*

did read your post and it is not obvious to me what you are counting as obvious! This is not a trick question, I just want to understand you proposed conception of language - one does find some unusual ideas in this forum

Err...from where i am sitting the only thing unusual seems to be you, who wants an explanation of the 'obvious'. Trick question?? Naah i dont think you could indulge in such things

Without thought, the code book is not a code book, its just a lump of material. The code book only has meaning in relation to one's thoughts and language is the process of mind that enables us to codify.

Wake up !!!!!!!! Who said "the code book" exists without thought???? Code book is language mate. Language and code book are not different entities.

do you agree with this statement Language is not a thought process, it is a 'code book' of signs and symbols that is used for communication and understanding.

Yes, the purpose of language is the effective communication of ideas etc. If language is "used" it must "occur", right? In which case we come back to the issue of what is language.

Which we have addressed?

If language is a thought process, then which causes which?

So you agree deliberate farting is non-language communication? (Kicks Phaedrus again).

Sigh, what is "communication"?

No. There is a physical element to communciation, such as the soundwaves we use to transmit the message we have codified in our minds. Again, I'm merely seeking to delineate what you consider described by the word "language" - does it include the means of transmission?

Again i think your confusion stems from the fact that you seem to think language and communication are the same. Think that they are different, then it could become clear (hopefully)

Communicate what, though? A state of mind, thought.... It appears there are non-language ways of communicating things but language, the (intentional?) intersubjective sharing of symbolized information, can be far more powerful and precise than other methods

*shakes john* Your question was "what do you consider the purpose and fucntion of signs and symbols in enabling language?" and my answer was "Sigh ...sometimes i wonder.......the "purpose and function" is to enable 'communicate' mate " And now you go all over without any direction

Seems delayed until we have the terms "language" and "thought" better defined - see above you seem to reject "language is a type of thought" and I reject "language is a code book".

Sigh

OK. My argument is that all words are adjectives used to describe a common reality. There can be two languages that use different words to describe the same reality. I reject the notion that language is used to perceive reality - it is used to describe reality. Now, I accept that languages will have different strengths/weaknesses and may introduce biases in our understanding of reality (no Eskimo word for the concept "desert" perhaps but twenty odd words for types of "snow").

Read my post again, i said "Yes and most of the times, the way we 'interpret' this reality depends on our linguistic grounding which in turn depends on our cultural and historical grounding.... So while its the same reality, the way we percieve it could be different due to language and culture." Language of a society is dependent on its culture and the individuals perception is shaped by the historical grounding.

However, you in the end said However we can observe and analyze (viz. think about) sand and snow irrespective of our current lexicon as to reality. Therefore, thought precedes language and supposed entwinement confuses the subject matter with a communication related internal "verbalization".

Need more elaboration. Are you saying thought precedes language "all the time" and "language" only confuses the subject matter? What is the object and subject here. What is the difference between "thought" and "thought process"

More support for my argument immediately above and consistent with language being a brain (thought) process. If this were not so, how could the speech of the wind have been imagined?

You think that was an argument? "speech" of the wind is imagined coz the particular individual seems to be under the "delusion" that the wind spoke while others didnt "think" so. It means "same reality" and "different interpretations". Say out of four english speaking peolpe, only one imagined the wind speech...what does it say? And btw what did the "wind" communicate?

Language (a type of thought process) performs verbalization giving rise to the possibility that language may be used for rationalization before we say something.

And this is an answer to ""How do thoughts perform verbalization and is language used for rationalization before we say something?" What are thoughts and how are they constructed and how are these thoughts formulated into linguistic terms? " ????

Yes, very interesting and supportive of model of mental reality I'm trying to push here

Oh, you have proposed a "model" of mental reality ??? When? And how is that excerpt in line with this model

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Language is a type of thought process, therefore, when a subject matter is verbalized it is necessarily "in" the language being used. Maybe we're tripping over each other here because I do not regard language as being "used" until it is put into play. The marks on this screen are meaningful in the English language which is what's going on in your mind.

Go back and read your own lines, when you said "..."And say if we go by your above hypothesis....your explanation still doesnt establish that multiple languages indicate that some thoughts will have to be in a different language. Why (what) do you say?".

i am gettin a lil tired here

John Page

No.
From Macmillan:
Language is a form of communication that involves human thought processes. A system of language may be represented by code books and analyzed into its syntactic and semantic components etc.

Cheers, John

John Page

Deliberately, from farting. (Joke - )
So, deliberate farting is a symbolic act and such instance of farting is language? Can accidental farting communicate the same thing? Can deliberate fake farting noises communicate the same thing as real farting noises?

Assuming your answers are yes, yes and yes, where are the symbols? Answer: They occur in the mind of the perceiver of the fart (deliberate, accidental or fake).

Are you with me so far?

Cheers, John