I accept the ordinary linguistics which specifies at the most basic level that sounds must be distinguishable to be communicated. So the physics of language is acoustics, not gravity. One might use the words of Newtonian theory to describe the meaning of words in a language, but those words must be redefined. The actual physics does not carry over. The meanings given to sounds are arbitrary as indicated by different meanings given to the same sounds in different languages. Stafford's theory should apply to language, the ultimate form of communication, which is a prime example of the fact that definitions control the communications of sense impressions.

If you can figure out what I just said, let me know. I cannot. But there does seem to be somethingworthwhile in there somewhere.

Regards,

Richard

• The patterns, not the objects! - dolphin - September 1, 2002 - 06:32 UTC