31. A language spoken in a
uniform metre.
Relationship between tools in a
toolbox.
“The meaning of a word: its role
in the calculus of language.” Imagine how we calculate with “red”. And then the
word “oh’ – what corresponds now to the calculus?
language spoken in a uniform
metre –
with quasi-words interlaced
between the words to maintain the metre
suppose we talked about the
meaning of these quasi-words
the issue might be avoided
completely if quasi-words are not regarded as words?
and if they are regarded as words
– then as quasi-words – you might think have a different status to real words?
in any case your account of
meaning will have to accommodate so called quasi-words
at a pinch – you would probably
say – their meaning is functional
language like a collection of
very various tools –
many tools can be classified in
terms of form and use – but the boundaries between these groups will often be
more or less arbitrary
so we have an arbitrary theory of
meaning?
as to the calculus – the point is
we can situate ‘red’ in terms of categories such as size – shape – quality – etc.
but what can we say of ‘Oh’ – how
do we situate it – where do we place it?
this points to a deficiency with
the idea of language as a calculus
in these three examples –
language as a uniform meter – language like a collection of tools – language as
a calculus –
we have models of language – descriptions of language
in general terms language
accounting for language –
what accounts for these way of
describing language?
more descriptions?
and what would account for these?
yes – we could go on –
the point is that there is no
accounting for language
all we can do is speak from within
and if you give up the notion of
accounting for language – with language – as fools gold
what is left?
really all that is left is to use
language –
and to accept that any
description of language –
interesting – and indeed useful
as it may be –
in the end –
is only another use of language
© greg t. charlton. 2014.
