a joke about two pere ubuists

[David Morris]

--- Cyrus <cyrusgeo at netscape.net> wrote:
>
> In my understanding, first comes language, then come the rules.

I'm no expert, but I think your above statement could be extensively debated as
a chicken/egg question.  My brief brush with Lacan's view of the roots of
language suggests that some "rules" are inherited in the brain (unconcious is
structured as a language and language constitutes us as a subject thus ordering
our relation to the world).  But don't ask me to explain any of the details
(I'm barely conversant with these concepts).  And I'm not sure this is at all
about where this thread began.

> Rules are but a tool by which to examine how language works. Rules are
descriptive (much like the famous Aristotelian "unities" in theater). Using
them for prescriptive purposes is only valid in teaching, to  facilitate
learning.

Which is what I was focusing on, nor really the origin of language or its
rules.  But that is a wonderful subject.

>Standards are but temporary. Which is also true in the language of music:
There, rules apply only in specific periods, and each period has its own set.

Temporary, yes.  But "temporary" is a relative term.  "Continuity" also. 
"Evolutionary" might be the better way to see these two together.

David Morris

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/