Re: virus: Language

C.A. Cook (coreycook12@email.msn.com)
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:16:52 -0600

Way out there, man.
Brett wrote:
>Say I *invented* a word (which would indicate the ontology of language
as it is usually thought of-- that is, this word would be the root of
all subsequent words used to refer to what I was referring to with this
"original" word). Say this word was then taken up by the populice.
Even assuming that I had no reason for inventing the word (that it
didn't look like something or sound like something)... the people who
chose to use the word fit it into their vocabulary by associating it
with other words they already used or somehow gave the word a personal
*meaning*.<

Are you sure? I will theoretically agree that there might be an
unconscious rational to the decision process regarding new
words (in fact, that seems to be the only rational involved), but
how do you know it is as powerful as you say. Is it possible
for a word to reach usage, with it's component letters containing
a message entirely different from its agreed upon meaning?

>I assume the attitude which refuses to accept the
form/function relationship of words is the same attitude
which assumes that words are just "made up" things that
could refer to anything these people choose.<

A possibly unnessessary broadside. Has the form/function
relationship of word been documented anywhere other
than here?

CA Cook, LF
coreycook12@email.msn.com