This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1CCE.D496CB9A Content-Type: text/plain Matt Kuzusko: "But this is exactly how language works." And with that, I think we have set a new record for most pretentious thread in the bananafish archive. (Or, is it naivete?) Despite the endless, earnest, arm-chair philsophizing and intellectual monkey-slapping of literary theorists, I don't think they have, or ever will have, any plausible basis for making the claim, "This is exactly how language works." Literary theory has certainly taught us just how vague, ambiguous, and meaningless literary theory can be. I don't think they've taught us much of anything about language in general. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Kozusko [mailto:mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 5:39 PM To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu Subject: 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 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1CCE.D496CB9A Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Matt Kuzusko: "But this is exactly how language = works."
And with that, I think we have set a new record for = most pretentious thread in the bananafish archive. (Or, is it naivete?) =
Despite the endless, earnest, arm-chair philsophizing = and intellectual monkey-slapping of literary theorists, I don't think = they have, or ever will have, any plausible basis for making the claim, = "This is exactly how language works." Literary theory has = certainly taught us just how vague, ambiguous, and meaningless literary = theory can be. I don't think they've taught us much of anything about = language in general.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Kozusko [mailto:mkozusko@parallel.=
park.uga.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 5:39 PM
To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
Subject: 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
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1CCE.D496CB9A--