 |
 |
Dear Terry, On 02/10/2014, at 13:42, Terence Love wrote: > A question (possibly very naive) comes to mind about how does semiotic analysis go with the idea that the use of nouns and verbs (objects and actions, entities and causes) isn't universal across all languages? Rather, it seems more to be a kind of structure that fits an entity relationship model that happens to be common to many of the languages of the developed world and also fits well with the idea of sequential causality. Some languages are exceptions both to use of verbs and nouns (and hence agents and actants) (e.g. Riau - which sounds like something my cat speaks) and some do not assume sequential causality (on which the idea of action depends). I don't think that question is useful. It's like when talking about cars someone asks how many miles per gallon a mule does. You are talking about primitive dialects that convey very little information and depend heavily on context for interpretation. Try to write your definition of design in Riau Malay. We would then need a Riau version of the Oxford Dictionary to interpret it, so I guess these exchanges would become more interesting but undoubtedly harder. Best regards, ================================== Carlos Pires [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] ------------------------------------------------------------- Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL Check the project blog: http://thegolemproject.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------