> At the risk of being labeled a fool, too. My point was Shag's (sorry to
> hear of the accident, btw), linguistic natural selectionists are antisocial
> hyperdarwinists who have no concept of the coevolution of the indeterminate
> character of human nature in its dialectically and situated biophysical and
> sociocultural modalities. What is to be human is to make our own lives,
> together, under conditions not of our own choosing... how can anyone think
> otherwise? I doubt many here disagree but it appears many in the realm of
> linguistic study do (but I'm utterly ignorant of the field, which I why I
> wrote "appears".)
I think I must be the fool. I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.
> It strikes me that Shag's point, and that of the book (that I've not read a
> page of or anything off-list about)
You have the advantage of me. I was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, into reading a few pages of it on Google Books, and listening (on YouTube) to an hour-long reading the author gave. The fun part was the questions.
My advice: keep your virginity on this one.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org