Again, according to WHOM?
on 2/13/01 9:55 AM, Daniel Jab at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I must say that you fail to have a good grasp on what the logical grammar of
> language means. You should refer to my second response to cris. Logical
> grammar is indifferent to which language. It is the foundation
> "intelligence" (so to speak). The logical grammar of language is the
> "reflection" or mirror that displays the order of affairs within events (the
> world) in language. It is indiscriminate and not subject to whims or even
> intention, therefore it is not something received from history but it is
> regardless of history.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:23:40 -0500, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
> dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
>
>> 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
|