On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:59:33 +0100, And Rosta wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier, On 06/04/2011 16:37:
> > Hallo!
> [...]
> > Yep.  Grammars of natural languages are based on observations of the
> > actual usage of the language (often on texts that are considered
> > "authoritative" or "classical", but that is still "parole").
> We clearly live in very different universes, you and me. I don't deny
> that there is a flourishing, and extremely tedious, body of work
> describing parole, replete with mind-numbing tables of frequencies
> and so forth. But there is a vastly larger, and vastly untedious,
> body of work that describes langue, not parole.

We indeed live in very different universes.  You live in a world
of Platonic ideal forms, but how could such forms exist in a world
which is constantly *changing*?  The notion that every language
that was ever spoken or will ever be spoken, every lifeform that
has ever lived or will ever live, every invention that has ever
been made or will ever be made, every piece of art that has ever
been created or will ever be created, has been pre-formed since
before the "Big Bang" is ridiculous, isn't it?  Yet, that is the
consequence of Platonic idealism thought to the end.

I live in a world of constantly changing individual entities,
which may be in some sort of "morphic resonance" with each other,
but those "morphic fields" are not immutable but themselves undergo
change through time.  Fact is and remains that only the _parole_
can be observed directly, and that any _langue_ is an abstraction
drawn from observations of _parole_.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf