Deconstruction and modern linguistics

[Otto]

>> Saussure
> >is famous (among other things) for emphasizing the arbitrary relationship
> >between the sound of a word and its meaning. In itself there is nothing
>>so deepor remarkable about this observation: He was simply pointing
>>out that there was nothing special about the sounds d, o, and g that
>>makes their concatenation particularly suited to referring to domestic
>>canines. On the contrary, the sounds chien (French) or perro (Spanish)
>>or erhar (Mohawk) or ekita (Edo) denote
> >man's best friend just as effectively.
>

Outside a dog a book is a man's best friend.
Inside a dog it's too dark to read.
--Groucho Marx

While I have no objections against the *content* of this message, what the
linguist has to say about words and grammar, I cannot follow his conclusion
that the presented *content* says anything about the postmodern assumptions.
Does it prove that de Saussure is wrong in any way?

Does the author escape the binary opposition of word and meaning by relying
on the subject-object-polarity of grammar? In my opinion not.

Otto

----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: Deconstruction and modern linguistics