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,
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
the m.o. of the likes of Stephen Pinker and Daniel Dennet, you
_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