Re: USAGE: Circumfixes

En réponse à Garth Wallace :


>>   I don't understand quite correctly what you mean under "COntent
>>*is* form". However, there's a clear distinction for me between the
>>topic (=content) of the posting and the language (=form) in which
>>we express ourself. These two are separate things, and I'm always
>>surprised when the reflexions are about my language. (The language
>>that is, in this terms, just an auxlang for me.)
>
>I believe what he means is that when you're disussing grammar, the form
>of your examples is the important part.
Also, like with any medium, we have here only access to the *form*, i.e. to 
what people write, and we try to guess what they actually *meant* with it 
(that's what we do in any kind of conversation, since we're not telepaths). 
So the only way to get to the contents of a post is through its form. So if 
the form is misleading, we will infer a wrong contents. In this sense, the 
form *is* the contents, i.e. it's the only hint we have at what is actually 
meant (which is especially true with this medium since we have no access to 
body language or tone of voice).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.