Re: Fw: Future languages

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sat May 11 2002 - 19:06:55 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Fw: Future languages"

    Received: by id TAA02708 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 11 May 2002 19:03:17 +0100
    Message-ID: <000901c1f916$c3c5c740$01a3eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    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
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Wade Smith <>

    > 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
    everybody understood.




    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 19:14:59 BST