kenneth Collins wrote:
>> hi, Mr. Lee. as you are, perhaps, aware, folks whose 'language' is communicated via
> symbolic 'pictures' (as 'opposed' to an 'alphabet') show different post-stroke deficits
> than do folks who use 'alphabets', and vice versa.
>> which demonstrates that 'thought' must be 'elsewhere'... not in 'language', but, at
> least, a superset within the neural architecture.
Please learn something about what you're talking about before posting
something like this to sci.lang. There are no "pictures" ("symbolic" or
otherwise) in the logographic scripts that originated in China. What
neurological differences there may be between Japanese and English
agraphias (and this is where it has most been studied) have nothing to
do with "pictures" vs. "alphabets." It has to do with levels of
representation (morpheme vs. sound), for instance.
It would be better if this whole thread on thinking WITHOUT language
were to simply disappear from sci.LANG ...
Peter T. Daniels grammatim at worldnet.att.net