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