Re: The talking going on in one's head

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: rev. bob pigeon: "Re: "The Way of the Pilgrim""
• Previous message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: 20/20 List"
• Maybe in reply to: Matt Kozusko: "The talking going on in one's head"
• Next in thread: AntiUtopia@aol.com: "Re: The talking going on in one's head"

Steven Gabriel wrote:
 
> The above has absolutely no informational content.  Of course a real entry
> in said dictionary would probably read something like:
> 
> Dog -- Not cat, not bird, not tree, not love, not ....
> 
> Leading onward to all known objects, but this is silly as the definitions
> don't mean anything at all and they have no potential to leading towards
> any interesting system of linquistics.  What do I have wrong with this
> account of linguistics then?
 
Precisely nothing!  You've got it.  Very curious, too, becuase it took
a good many people a good long time, working entirely in earnest, to
reach exactly the conclusion you've arrived at here.  But this is
exactly how language works.

-- 
Matt Kozusko    mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu

• Next message: rev. bob pigeon: "Re: "The Way of the Pilgrim""
• Previous message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: 20/20 List"
• Maybe in reply to: Matt Kozusko: "The talking going on in one's head"
• Next in thread: AntiUtopia@aol.com: "Re: The talking going on in one's head"