Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language

From:Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...>
Date:Saturday, September 25, 2004, 6:35
 --- Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> skrev:

> > To be quite frank, _ordinary people_ consider things > differently even now! > Most people, for example, would say that a horse > is real and a unicorn is > not.
Hmmm again... Consider how many people believe in astrology, horoscopes, homeopathy, religions... and in the politicians they vote for. (BTW, when I was young, I worked in a factory for some time, and I once had a heartily discussion with a worker from Algeria - a very nice and friendly guy, about 40 years old. I tried to persuade him that the Earth was a sphere (Allah knows why we came upon that topic) and he absolutely refused to believe it. He said that if it was so, people on the other side of the Earth would walk with their feet up and their head down, which is impossible. That was around 1975).
> Plato's conceptions might be more apt. It will be > found that no single > coherent system can be constructed from his > writings.
What strikes me when reading Ancient Greeks, and even philosophical literature up to, say, XVIIIth century, is the terrible lack for methodology. Has it gone better now ? Well, by now, philosophical works are so hermetical that you cannot give any more judgement. BTW, I had an idea (of course, many people will prove me that somebody else had the same one a long time ago). One of the main problems when writing about philosophy, and probably even more about linguistics, is the confusion between language and meta-language, and the real meaning the words used by the author are suppose to carry. But the concept of domain names (is this the term ? I mean "espaces de noms", like in XML) has arosen already, so why not, when writing such a book, prefix all specific words that are supposed to be clearly defined somewhere by a special character representing the names domain ? For ex, all terms prefixed by $ would be defined on some particular URL, all prefixed by #, on some other URL, etc, the list of the definition URLs being given at the head of the book. And all words used in their current, common meaning would not be prefixed. Imagine how much time we would spare instead of arguing about what the author really meant ! (snip)
>
===== Philippe Caquant Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).

Reply

Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>CHAT reality (was: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language)