Monty, vB doesn’t support Dance Writing so I had to translate.
It should also be noted that the last ::jiggle, jiggle:: hurt my back.
Language certainly can be meaningless. What is your criteria for “meaningful” that language fails to meet? Otherwise, I think hazel-rah said the rest of my piece.
I’m just trying to figure out what combination of factors led to this stunning revelation at 2:06 a.m.
I guess my birthday party must have shifted into high gear after I toddled off to bed, snug in my new jammies.
Maybe he’s not in Chicago.
What am I to assume you intend to communicate when you choose the word Chicago?
I respond we are all, in one sense or another, in Chicago. And since that statement is ambiguous bordering on the nonsensical, and language is meaningless, I am not sure how you could contest that?
And a hearty Yeh hindel axoid to you, my friend.
Ah. Smurf.
Or rather, the noun form of smurf. Quite smurfy, really.
So let’s do away with logic and language since they are so meaningless. It works for the president.
DaLovin’ Dj
This discussion reminds me of the time one of my roommates tried to convince me that the practice of assigning names to things (“Bob”, “table”, “fruitcake”, etc) was just a needless by-product of mankind’s need to feel dominant over the world, and that we could communicate just as effectively without them. In a nutshell, definite nouns were useless. Presumably, “Could you get me the keys from the table in the bedroom?” could be just as adequately phrased as “Could you get me the things on that thing in the place?”
I can imagine trying to perform surgery…
“Hand me the thing. No, you fool, the THING! Not the thing! You trying to kill him?”
I swear, some of the most surreal conversations of my life were had in that house…
Jeff
Wvr 5t3gvsx fdbgdfg sada rprq21, Futile Gesture. R43gs sdfw wdcv 43fsd sdfv4 sada rqrq2.
*fefsvd ver43 v3g34 The Pit!!
ElJeffe, much meaning is bound in the context in which a specific word is used. I’m sure we can get by with a much smaller vocabulary. Why we would choose to do so eludes me, but it is quite possible.
Could you guys PLEASE give it up? Clinton is NOT president anymore.
Lib, that was beautiful.
You started a thread about linguistic incoherence and you didn’t invite Justhink?
For shame! You should be locked up in solitary confinement until death.
Bryan: Please, please, please warn someone next time you post something that hilarious!
I thought the OP was Justhink, until I checked the name.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say language is meaningless, Pythagras. Any thoughts as to what would we use in its place? It does seem to have its problems, though. From an author I like to check out on such matters (Edward de Bono):
“Language is an encyclopedia of ignorance. Words and concepts become established at a period of relative ignorance - which each period must be, compared to the subsequent period. Once the perceptions and concepts are frozen into the permanence of language, they control and limit our thinking on any subject because we are forced to use those concepts.”
well if your’e trying to say that language doesn’t dictate the way we think I have to disagree. our native languages dictate thought patterns to a large degree. assuming your’e a native english speaker ask someone fluent in spanish how many Tenses there are, as in past present future. they have 4 and no I havent a clue what the fourth is.
you can’t even read the koran in english correctly because some words/ideas don’t translate properly.
as for a smaller vocabulary I suggest a quik read of 1984 to tell you the only reason for reducing the number of words available to us
I don’t think that the conceptual boundaries that language imposes (or tries to) are necessarily firm and uncrossable; how many times have you had trouble explaining a concept (in your native tongue)? - Regardless of whether this is because it was an nbelievably complex thought or just that your own language is limited, I’d say that either way it is an indication that your thought processes were not entirely dependent on language.
That’s my feeling anyway; I often end up trying to describe the ‘shape’ of an intangible concept.
At least Clinto could speak well . . .