Hi Marcia,

  To be honest, I wouldn't use it. I don't mean that to be an unsociable
answer, but I would have to cede that effort to Francis or to someone
inclined to see more or better in the  relationship than I do. From where
I'm sitting, language debased may be like a biological entity; language
given its head is no such thing.  Forgive my brevity, just stopped by my
office on the way out of town for a couple of nights and must exit.

  Peace to all on this remarkable Sunday night.


At 04:13 PM 10/31/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>    If you were to consider using the biological analogy, wouldn't you
>think that phonemes, morphemes and sememes have a much stronger
>resemblance to the DNA of a language than words do?

>Ken Armstrong wrote:
>>I worry a bit about explaining language with biology as that seems to be
>>the m.o. of the likes of Stephen Pinker and Daniel Dennet, you know,
>>_Consciousness Explained_, a title (among many!) trumpeting its own
>>unknowing defeat, and which in the end boils down to old fashioned
>>materialism, be it simple or complex. So I ask.
>>>At 01:28 AM 10/28/2004 -0700, Francis Gavin wrote:
>>>Words are the DNA of language. It's also commutative. A virus is a