>re: Prynne's comments on language:
>
>words themselves are neither innocent nor guilty. I find the endless
>medieval anthropomorphisms of Language extremely tiresome.
A mere tryo in this area: but I have to say my impression of medieaval
ideas of language are the reverse of anthropomorphic, rather tending to
the Logos as God, a wholly objective condition. Whereas the romantics
attempted to focus language on human usages, and used anthropomorphism as
one of their techniques.
I personally have a lot of trouble with the idea of language existing
outside human usage; though I see a lot of movement in its transitional
states from human to human. So perhaps there is an existence _between_
communications, aside from the mere object (the word on the page, unread
and unwritten) though I'm inclined to think it only exists in those
moments of communication. I do not think, either, that language is
_innocent_.
Best
Alison
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|