Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA02708 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 11 May 2002 19:03:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c1f916$c3c5c740$01a3eb3e@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <F48A2E13-637C-11D6-ADCB-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Fw: Future languages Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 20:06:55 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Wade Smith <email@example.com>
> On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 02:12 , Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> > people developed a special, for everybody to understand,
> > language.
> Is this not what language _is_?
Sorry Wade, but this is drawn out of context, but yes of course this is
what languages are for.
But I have it here about those notions which Wilson P described as
" [ this] something we don 't use, some kind of content we can 't get a
handle on ".
That is what is meant by this ' special ' language I suppose_ all those
what I call ' nuances ' were left out and replaced by something which
everybody, seen in the context, could handle.
There was no misinterpretation, no misunderstanding left !
If those " somethings " should have rested in place, you could get killed_
and seen in the context, no.. their ( native) language was NOT something
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 19:14:59 BST