[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Are we losing out because of grammars?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:14:12 -0600
The `communicative a priori' does not require
us vs them; it only requires one be *unaware*
that a subject of discourse in the process of
identification is already named. Choice of
order of method (choose the means to choose the
People are not of necessity or even proclivity,
arbitrary; they are often uninformed or engaged
in creating a community where membership is
known by secret ring decoders. Then they become
dogmatic. When two different groups that control
the same resources have different ring decoders,
a paralysis of decision ensues.
Which is why the lights in California may be
out for awhile.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:email@example.com]
But as in documents designed purely for human consumption, people have a
need to continuously invent new terms for otherwise common things. It is
both a way for members of a group to speak precisely about common knowledge
and as a barrier to entry for outsiders (for example medical terminology :-)