[OT] The nature of language

[Phil Davis]

Hi Richmond,

I won't continue interacting about this... I don't want to make this
thread into one of those ongoing things that everyone wishes would end.
I just thought I should say this.


Richmond Mathewson wrote:
> The problem is that a rigid one-to-one semantically mapped language
> cannot then be "unrigidified" in mid-learning process without
> considerable psychological fall-out.
>  

First, I'm respectfully aware that I don't understand everything you
meant in your post. Given that, I continue...

In the above quote, it seems to me that you're saying that in learning a
language:
1) words generally don't have both simple and abstract meanings, and
2) starting with the concrete and moving toward the abstract is a bad idea.

I couldn't disagree more.
1) Words generally derive the color and depth of their abstract meanings
from their concrete roots - their 'first meanings'.
2) What you call 'psychological fall-out' I would call 'learning' or
'growth'. I believe one's attitude toward the phenomenon (as in life
generally) makes it into a 'discovery' experience or a 'disaster'
experience (with shades in between, of course).

On the other hand, if this isn't what you're talking about, well...
maybe I don't understand *anything* you meant!

Thanks -
Phil Davis