> "Leo Smith" <Who.cares at shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:38850C18.4BDA8E48 at shaman.co.uk...>> > Oh for goodness sake. It depends what you define thinking and lanuage to
> be. As
> > far as I am concerned, my internal representation of these concepts to
> myself, for
> > my purposes, says that thinking is the silent exercise of language. By
> almost a
>> That is a good explanation for YOU and your needs but I have to ask you -
> have you ever been doing something and then an idea, totally unrelated to
> anything you are doing, occurs to you, no word thought having occurred prior
> to that point, on that subject?
Of course stupid. I don't define language as verbalization either. In this
context. Either our experience is the same, and we are just playing with words,
or our experiences are different, and no amount of wordplay will make us agree.
Pointless to continue either way.
> > matter of definition. But I wouldn't expect anyone else to have precisely
> the same
> > set of subtle attributes attached to those two words, so an almost
> infinite series
> > of responses by different people is likely if you start asking questions
> > this.
> > And it will reveal nothing about thinking, or language - merely how
> > internal representations of these concepts become externalised in yakking
> at each
> > other.
>> My own representation of that phrase was as a 4 or 5 year old and learning
> "The Lord's Prayer" and being frightened about being "suffered to come to
> thee". HEH HEH. I finally asked my father why I had to suffer. ;-}
And no one has finally ever been able to tell you....
>>> > God this thread is boring.
>> Depends on your meaning for "boring". No holes in my monitor! ;-}
>> Remove the anti-spammer stuff.