<< trim >> > And so, we have two ideas for (b): the cultural anthropology of language > (the aspect that is given); and the capacity of the form of life > to contribute "on the field" to the play. (Note that the latter gets thrown > back into the former, which allows anthropology to change over time). > > Regards and thanks. > > SW > Interesting take on grammar SW. Taking my cue from "Slabs!" (the language game of), I sometimes force grammar to map to nothing smaller than a bread box, i.e. it's all about city streets and their layout, urban planning, what my dad did for a living, before he switched to education planning in Bhutan, continuing in Lesotho. I take my cue from 'On Certainty' that grammar and 'form of life' fit together, and from the PI that it's a superstition to think of language or thought as something unique. Nature follows rules and we are embedded within nature as more rule followers, so grammar pertains to the birds and the bees as well. Put another way, we would have our ordinary ways of talking without them, and extraordinary grammars, such as the philosophical and logical ones, really anchor to the ordinary ways, the public lay ways, to keep their bearings, not the other way around (is what I consider a substantial insight of the linguistic turn more generally). Kirby WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009