Actually we should just give up this noun dominated language that puts[snip]
people into objects and makes it impossible to define change and growth in
humanity. English is out of date and regressive and that is the problem
with America.
Perhaps another way to look at the problem is not that our language is "noun dominated", but that persons appear all too often as *direct objects* instead of as part of the *subject* of the sentence. (I seem to recall some persons objecting to our current linguistic practice turning nouns into verbs, e.g., "operationalize", "privitize", "Midasize" -- but I think there are better examples that elude me at the moment???)
I think that another problem is the occulsive-impersonal sentence structure, e.g.:
A lump of matter falls at a velocity = 1/2 the square
of the time (or whatever is the case).As opposed to:
If I/we conduct an experiment in which I/we drop a
lump of matter, I/we will see that its velocity
= 1/2 the square of the time (or whaever we see).A more verb-oriented language could optimize for the verb: "sacrifice", as in: Sacrificing sacrifices (Heidegger spoke this way some...). I fail to see how I am better off for being sacrificed as part of the verb instead of as a noun.
I think our grammar and our vocabulary are up to the challenge of sustaining a more human[e] world. It's our politics (economics, etc.) that seem to me to be retarded. Instead of the NASA-business, we could have The Lunar Society -- Newton did.
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
