>Distorted from what?
Conscious employment by the subject.
>The goodness. See [A] above. Also implied in [B],
>as indicated by my question: if language can be distorted in
>some general, universal way, then it must have some pure
>original universal godlike form. In the beginning was the
>Word, etc.
Nah. Just because when we speak to one another we assume that the potential for understanding exists does not mean that God guarantees this relation, not does it imply an original godlike form. If you go to fly a kite, you assume - through your actions - that flying a kite is possible. This does not at all mean that God guarantees for you that your kite will fly.
ken