Re: Classical languages: was: Re: Gothic language
|From:||Patrick Dunn <tb0pwd1@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, September 7, 1999, 22:00|
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Ed Heil wrote:
> Patrick Dunn wrote:
> > Ed! I suspected better than such Derrida-flavored crap from you! Written
> > language is no more artificial than spoken[...]
> Yes, Pat. I was trying to suggest that "having significant
> differences from the spoken, conversational language" is too loose a
> standard for designating something as a conlang, because it ends up
> including all written language.
Ah, I misunderstood your point. Pardon.
> Derrida-flavored? Surely if I *were* trying to downplay written
> language as secondary and therefore unimportant, I would be doing the
> *opposite* of Derrida, since he is notorious for considering writing
> to be primary and speaking to And after having dug through some more ofhim, I realize that it is I who did not understand. I was thinking
Rouseau and saying Derrida. Easy mistake to make; they're both French.
Back to Age of Innocence!
Fie, fie, fie!!!