Re: A question and introduction

>From: "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>
>
>But that's just the thing, though:  languages typically are not
>organized around anything more specific than being capable of
>describing everything that a given human culture feels the need
>to describe. As such, it's not so much a philosophy as an
>anthropological description.  That is, there isn't really an
>"idea" behind the language, since "ideas" are more or less by
>definition abstractions that humans impose on the environment
>surrounding them, including the social environment.
>
I would certainly agree with most of this - the idea of a "motif" for an
over-arching "idea" behind a language seems a little beyond what might be
considered realistic.  Natlang is by definition unintentional (well,
mostly), so philosophy may not be the right word - call it the "shape of
conciousness" for a particular group - their collective expectations and
assumptions about life.  Chances are, most people in the culture are unaware
of these assumptions, but they will still affect at least the use of
language, if not the shape of it.

Andy









_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Reply