Thinking without language?
paul.sampson at zztradezone.co.uk
Thu Jan 20 04:35:36 EST 2000
Leo Smith wrote in message <38850B19.28874DA0 at shaman.co.uk>...
> Paul Sampson wrote:
>> gregh wrote in message <7DLg4.4926$3b6.23145 at ozemail.com.au>...
>> > "Paul Sampson" ... wrote in message news:3883471c$1 at runswick.octacon.co.uk...
>> >> Adrian Ian Skilling wrote in message <85v35b$5nn$1 at trog.dera.gov.uk>...
>> >>> ... surely its obvious that it is
>> >>> hard to express a concept or emotion that we don't have a word for. How
>> >>> could it be any other way !!
>> >> That's odd. I don't have a word for - and afaik *english* doesn't have a
>> >> word for - the left testicle of an orang-utan born on any sunday in an
>> >> odd numbered year of the fifteenth century BCE. So I suppose I'm unable
>> >> to express such a concept. Oh dear. That's that then. Rats.
> Don't be dumb. You have a whole sentence for it. Which serves. ...
Sigh. I know.
> But what if that Orang-Utan had a grobbulator dysfunction? How would you treat it?
Since the device in question is manufactured exclusively in Germany I imagine I'd
treat it with the Graubelmacherschmerzaussauger designed exclusively for that purpose
of course. Why'd you ask?
>> > Strange. Looks like you just DID express it. Sometimes it isnt a WORD but an
>> > amalgamation of them that does the same job.
>> Now I'm confused. Were you missing *my* irony, or am I now missing *yours*?
>> Troubling. Very troubling. :)
> I think its you that are missing it. ...
It's apparent that *you* have missed it. Allow me to assist - imagine a
smiley after the word 'Rats' in the above. I was demonstrating how
*easy* it was to express a concept that we don't have a word for, thus
challenging Skilling's 'obvious' assertion. Followups pointing out to
me what I've already shown are hardly necessary. Rude ones even less so.
BTW, I'm a 'who' and not a 'that', if it's all the same to you.
More information about the Neur-sci