From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 27 Oct 2002 - 21:07:59 GMT
----- Original Message -----
> And what about Horseshow Falls, or Angel Falls, or any one of a
> number of others? We could not even use the type-designation of 'falls'
> to describe them.
> >In Chinese, for what I understand of it,
> > people use a different sign for each waterfall they want to describe
> > or at least a combination of some signs. What is expressed is not
> > waterfall anymore, but ' a little waterfall ', ' a big waterfall ',
> > Niagara Falls, three different words...No !?
> No, they have names for sizes of waterfalls, but they also have names
> for individual waterfalls; however, all of them are modified by the
> Chinese fersion of the type-designator "waterfall". This would not be
> possible under Wade's schema.
So you have to find, work out each time for any different waterfall a
word to describe it, without refering to the word ' waterfall ' itself and
time you want to designate a name to it, it has to be without refering to
fall or to any other word expressing an other ' fall ' !?
Yes, indeed impossible to handle, moreover how do we remerber it,
learn and teach this....
Jus remerbered, what about the language two girls developed, I did
forget how it came about, but they were the only two who expressed
it and of course understood it. They were twins IIRC....
Their language would not refer to our type/ token structure I suppose !
Chair could be wxdfert.... of course they would have to use sounds
similar to ours, thus afterall a wrong idea...
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 27 Oct 2002 - 20:55:50 GMT