From: Wade T.Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 07:09:39 GMT
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 05:00 , email@example.com wrote:
> Language categorizes the objects and processes of the world according to
> common descriptions. These descriptions are type-descriptions, and
> each is
> apploed to many tokens of that type. You can ask Wittgenstein, Chomsky,
> Fodor, Benveniste, Lakoff, and any number of differing (on other issues)
> linguists and language philosophers; this is one they agree upon.
These are descriptions, yes, but are they what language is actually
> It is a different behavior to look at or speak of a different tree, so
> they cannot
> collectively be called trees any more
It _is_ a different behavior- each behavior across time _is_ a different
behavior- no-one or nothing can do in the next moment what they did a
moment ago. That moment, as well as the conditions of that moment, are
passed. And of course all trees can all be called trees. They _are_ all
trees. (But, call them anything you like, the tree remains.) Just as all
behaviors _are_ all behaviors.
I ask again, what do _names_ have to do with something? At all? Period?
The name of something _is_ a type/token object, yes, but it is not the
I fail to see what the categories of names has to do with the actual
process of the way language is physically happening in the brain.
"The name of the song is 'Haddock's Eyes', but the song actually is
'Sitting on a Gate'."
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 : Fri 01 Nov 2002 - 07:13:36 GMT