On 2006/06/06, at 22:49, Ted Winslow wrote:
> If ordinary language has a structure incompatible with what a more
> sophisticated inspection of our experience shows to be incompatible
> with the structure of reality, then we need to alter our language
> to incorporate this insight. For instance, if its subject/
> predicate form implicitly entails the idea of the universe as
> consisting of "substances" in the senses of Aristotle and Descartes
> and our experience demonstrates that, in fact, there are no such
> substances, then we need to alter the ordinary meaning of language
> to take account of this insight.
Do you mean language as a function or language as the implementation of the function that we see in natural languages ?
I cannot see how it is possible to alter the structure of the "function", and as far as altering the meaning/structure of natural languages, it seems to me having a plurality of natural language experiences is a very satisfying first step towards some kind of language "control" that can lead to its later alteration.
> Language is our creature.
I'd argue that monolingual people are mostly not able to really experience what the above means.
Jean-Christophe