Hi Daniel,
your analogy between language and a baseball suggests that 'language' is an
absolute from which use is applied. Also perhaps a set of rules from which
'hits' are garnered. Perhaps I'm completely misreading your sense of this
though. I'm personally defamiliarised from logical grammar in the sense
that it suggests 'language' as an immutable monolithic block (it also
suggests Chomsky?). That's not my understanding, defective though it surely
is, of the stories of languages, how languages change and how the uses to
which languages are put differs. I do believe that there are only languages
not 'language'. Poetry would seem to prove a differing series of cases than
prose. My own experience would tend to support strong mutabilities and
hybridities, many of which do not behave according to any sense of logical
grammar. I would have to ask 'whose logical grammar?'. Your own attention
to the gendering details inside of what you post would support the
pertinence of this question. It suggests that politics is present in your
assertion of an immutable as much as in the applications of that immutable.
I just tried to parse the final line in Frank O'Hara's 'Collected Poems' in
the type-logical grammar theorem prover:
PARSE RESULTS FOR: in the night and developing our own in salt-like praise
Input not recognized: praise
Input not recognized: salt-like
Input not recognized: own
Input not recognized: our
Input not recognized: developing
Input not recognized: night
No Parses Found
Maybe I ought to just ask, because I simply don't understand, what logical
grammar?
love and love
cris
|