From reid@xxxxxxxx.xxxx Sat Feb 20 09:14:20 1999 X-Digest-Num: 67 Message-ID: <44114.67.315.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:14:20 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Palmer > The lexicon is built up from primitives not by analogy with > > (prog)linguistic extra-(prog)linguistic context, but by the direct logical > > consequences of the primitves themselves. Metaphor is inherently tied to > > context, and proglangs are by design context-independent. > > You are assuming that there _are_ such things as primitives - I'm not so > sure (though {ba'a} Anna Wierzbicka would agree with you, not to mention > most philosophers of language prior to Wittgenstein's "Philosophical > Investigations"). {pe'i} if there are things we could call "primitives" > {ru'a} they exist at a prelinguistic level (iconic, tactile etc.). I meant proglangs have primitives, which they undeniably do. I didn't mean to make any kind of statement at all about natlangs and primitives, since I wouldn't know what I was talking about if I did. :^) > {ta'o} if nobody objects, I'll fwd this to the cogling list, to see what > the people there make of it. *groan* ---------(( Christopher Reid Palmer : www.pconline.com/~reid/ ))--------- the characters i am, made into a word complete -- Meshuggah