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!!!