[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Artists book

>Ah, would that it were so!  Language is a consensus concerning useful
>ranges of unavoidable fuzzynesses, not sharp distinctions.  Symbols, not
>signs.  Words have denotations (usually pretty specific) but also,
>inevitably and quirkily and variously, they have connotations.  Try doing
>some translations, and you'll find out pretty damn quick.  Think "fuzzy
>set" - what we all agree about is in the middle of the set, but out toward
>the edges your definition of "red" and my definition of "red" are probably
>not the same, even if neither of us is color-blind.  Even within a small
>group of people there are disagreements and agreements about the specific
>meanings of language - the larger the group, the fuzzier the area of

This is very good, Judith -- about language and so much more. And I can't
imagine any linguist who would not agree about this fuzziness of language.



[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]