> On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:19:42 -0600 owner-virus@maxwell.lucifer.com writes:
[CLIP]
> Wittgenstein did not have the vocabulary to describe the underlying
> processes which cause Alzheimer's disease or depression with any more
> precission than he could muster in describing the processes which give
> rise to bone marrow cancer or asthma. Ordinary language is great, but it
> doesn't make all the distinctions necessary to satisfy our need to know
> exectly how and why things work. You're going to have to introduce some
> new and as-of-yet unknown distinctions, and you're going to have to use
> some jargon.
I take it 'ordinary language' is the common language core which all of
the 'jargons' use?
Knowing Latin [as reconstructed, perhaps shakily] is not much
help when speaking English or French.
Likewise, knowing 'ordinary English' is not much help when one needs to
speak (in English) mathematics, physics, English analysis, economics,
and so forth. I think the distinction is close to practically identical,
formally.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////