Print

Print


On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Ed Heil wrote:

> 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.

Ah, I misunderstood your point.  Pardon.

> 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 And after having dug through some more of
him, I realize that it is I who did not understand.  I was thinking
Rouseau and saying Derrida.  Easy mistake to make; they're both French.
;)

Back to Age of Innocence!

Fie, fie, fie!!!