Re: LUNATIC again

On Tue, 10 Nov 1998 00:25:12 -0500, Logical Language Group
<lojbab@...> wrote:

>At worst (and probably true), I am guilty of taking a term with a jargon
>definition and presuming that this definition is intended by peopl who =
use it
>along with related jargon on this forum.  Where are the context clues =
that
>tell me NOT to use the jargon meaning of the word?  Some would think =
this
>is obvious, but I guess I am obtuse at understanding context then ( =
people have
>indeed accused me of having all the sensitivity to context of a ... well=
 maybe
>I won't get into that %^).
You're assuming that the particular definition of "language" you're
referring to is "the" definition of language as used as a jargon word =
among
linguists. You haven't come up with convincing evidence that that is the
case. "The" in English doesn't usually mean "one of many". Furthermore, =
the
definition of "language" you choose to use is one that makes no sense in
the context of this list, and appears to be chosen to provoke antagonism.
It serves no useful purpose on this list, unlike the majority of =
borrowings
from linguistic jargon, which are useful (if not essential) for =
describing
conlangs.

I may be mistaken, since it's been a while since I studied linguistics, =
but
I've always thought that phonology, morphology, and syntax were the
defining characteristics of language. ("Phonology" implies spoken =
language,
but written and sign languages have similar structure.) I don't recall a
definition resembling yours at all. But I'm not all that familiar with
recent trends in linguistics.