Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: A question and introduction

From:Andy Canivet <cathode_ray00@...>
Date:Sunday, June 16, 2002, 22:17
>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

Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>language and philosophy [was Re: A question and introduction]