** Low Priority ** ** Reply Requested by 3/12/2012 (Monday) ** suppos derrida and derriqua were joking, how do you recognize the sarcasm? >>> Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> 3/12/2012 2:40 PM >>> Walter wrote: "All symbolic languages are translatable into each other in that their respective semantic and syntactic features are in principle universally intelligible. This excludes the lion. Were he to speak, we would not understand him because we would fail to see how his speech coheres with chess, curling, etc.." But if we are able to recognize that lions use language, that is use symbols/signs to refer to things in the world, then it is possible to translate, to some degree, that language. We could observe the conditions under which the symbols/signs are used, the response of other lions, and the outcomes that follow from the language use. What else would there be that would cause us to not understand the language? One of my difficulties lies in the claim that we could recognize language use without being able to interpret it. This seems to imply that there is something essential about language use that is not open to see, that lies beyond the regularity of signs, the behavior of language users, and the conditions under which the language is used. It seems to me that if there was such an essential quality, it would be impossible to teach, and impossible to ascertain that one has properly grasped it. If that were the case, it is not simply that we could not understand the lion, but that language use would itself be impossible. Sincerely, Phil Enns ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/