Useage in a language develops--and shifts--on the basis of its use. Grammar
isn't general in that sense (i.e., the "philosophical nature of language"),
but rather specific a A language or language group. Germanic and Romance
languages, for example, handle gender differently, and the logic of those
grammatical developments can be traced to the history of the languages
themselves, including the politics at play among the various tribes and
burgeoning nations whose relationships shaped and were shaped by their
languages. If "thought" and the "grammar" proceeding from it and feeding
back into it were received whole and intact, as you seem to think, it would
have had to happen three times in the case of English alone ("o gawd," as
cris cheek says!).
Candice
----------
> We are talking at cross-purposes here. My statements were referring more to
> philosophical nature of language. How it stands in itself, not how it used.
> There is a big difference. The use of language, that is, the intention of
> the user, acquires all sorts of ends and means but this has nothing to do
> with the logical grammar of language as it is. It is similar to the
> different uses one can get out of a baseball. One can play baseball with it
> or one can throw it at someone.
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:59:20 -0500, John Kinsella <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> language is made by the use of language, therefore, if the use is
>> political then so is the language...
>>
>> best,
>> jk
>
|