Print

Print


Patrick Dunn wrote:
> Ed!  I suspected better than such Derrida-flavored crap from you!  Written
> language is no more artificial than spoken[...]

Yes, Pat.  I was trying to suggest that "having significant
differences from the spoken, conversational language" is too loose a
standard for designating something as a conlang, because it ends up
including all written language.

Derrida-flavored?  Surely if I *were* trying to downplay written
language as secondary and therefore unimportant, I would be doing the
*opposite* of Derrida, since he is notorious for considering writing
to be primary and speaking to be a secondary form of "writing" with
sound.


Ed Heil                                    [log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------