joanna wrote:
>
> But I am arguing
> against the need for private languages when the common mother tongue
> will do. I am extremely suspicious of unnecessary complication and of
> private languages.
Damn it, why do critics of "difficult prose" almost always have to turn the argument into an exchange of tautologies.
The whole debate is over "when the common mother tongue will do" AND WHEN IT WON'T.
(I'm leaving aside the weirdness of the concept of the "common mother tongue," which of course has no empirical existence.)
ALSO: Who in the hell ever said anything about "private language." I don't have the slightest idea what that means. No one uses a private language (except some kids who invent such by themselves).
The claim is that there are subjects out there in the world that really need to be discussed. That at least to begin with (and probably for quite an extensive discussion) can only be expressed in specialized and/or complex arguments (and specialized language is NOT a private language). Denying the legitimacy of specialized language is, of course, a STALINIST trick. It leads to sending to the real or virtual gulag anyone whose views differ from the given and therefore cannot be discussed in the langauge of the given.
Carrol