Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.postmodern,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!usenet
From: dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson)
Subject: Re: Languages: Hard, Harder, Hardest
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ara-mac-211.itc.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <DvFn3F.Kws@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.1@ara-mac-211.itc.virginia.edu
Sender: -Not-Authenticated-[9087]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <31f09c4b.25641454@news.airmail.net> 
 <4squgi$318@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <4sr7ch$r0a@homer.alpha.net> 
 <4sshej$har@df <4tmprg$39k@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> 
 <DvEr0I.9z6@murdoch.acc.V>  <4to38i$dul@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 00:09:15 GMT
Xdisclaimer: No attempt was made to authenticate the sender's name.
Lines: 74

In article <4to38i$dul@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

> Religion groups snipped. talk.origins kept because I read talk.origins.
> 
> dcs2e@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) wrote:
> I really hesitate to respond to you Dave, because you will suddenly say
> you don't care about any of this and nothing has any meaning anyway. But
> I will stride forth anyway.

Screw your courage to the sticking point, as Lady MacBeth would say,
and who knows but what you'll manage to stride into the light of day.

> 
> >In article <4tmprg$39k@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
> >matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
> 
> >> I am also amused that you dismiss the translation as just "to accomplish
> >> communication". What do you think language if for? Communication seems
> >> to be a major role for language.
> 
> >To quote from "The Dead Poets Society," language is to woo women.  One
> >can COMMUNICATE with one's face or one's hands, for godsake.  One can
> >even do a lot with one's face, hands, etc., with women, but until one
> >says "you're beautiful," or words to such effect, one is drifting
> >through a pretechnological age.
> 
> Let me see if I understand you post. 
> 
> We use language to affect the world somehow ("woo women" was a sample,
> yes?). Agreed. 

Actually - to spell things out and drain them of flavor - I MEANT that
wooing women is as good an essential purpose of language as you're
gonna get, seeing as there ain't no such thing.


> 
> We can communicate through non-language means. Yes, but there is
> probably significant "language" in gestures.


Yes.  But I had in mind verbal language, which could include
sign-languages.  Seriously, you can kiss a girl a zillion times and not
touch her as closely as four or five words can.  That may not answer
any question you actually wanted to ask, but at least it's interesting.


> 
> Do you mean any of this to refute what I said? Because it does not. I
> said "Communication seems to be a major role of language." That does not
> mean that we don't have a purpose for the communication. It does not
> mean that we don't use other methods for communication.


We also think in language, which does not com-municate.  


> 
> BTW, I would like to propose a candidate for the role of simple
> language: Etiquette. We use the etiquette to send messages of status and
> position (among other messages). But there are many, many messages this
> language cannot send. Does this make sense to anyone?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> What is the scariest line you know? Mine is:
> 
> "Hi, my name is Number 6, what's yours?"


David

I wish I was a catfish. - J. Hendrix
