Margaret, Mmmm indeed:
> > Has anyone read Pinker's book, "the stuff of thought"? > fascinating. It's about his theories about verb usage. > His belief is that (in more languages than just > english) verbs are conjugated differently > based on what type of physical activity is happening. And we > learn this during our earliest experiences learning > to speak at 2-5 years old. His research shows that > we are not just 'copying' our learned language from > adults - there is more to it than that - we learn > patterns of how to conjugate verbs and they all > have to do with the type of physics that is > occuring and how it is taking place in relation to our > body and our perception of space and time. > > Does sound fascinating. On a related note, on the news radio, top-o-the-hour broadcast tonight was a pair of relevant stories concerning pre-school education. First story was concerning recent research that any dvd or tv programming was worse than useless compared to simple parental interaction as far as toddlers are concerned and the second story was concerned a Manhattan Ma suing her 19k per year preschool for it's inadequate ivy league prep. Two stories which tickled my and my wife's funny bones. So basically, for me, exploring the subtleties > behind our use of language > is interesting in a 'striving' for better dynamic quality - > I don't want to have the same ol' relationship experiences, > with the same ol' ways of communicating. > > Well I dunno Margaret. We might be stuck with the same ol' palette, but that doesn't really limit our artistic creativity now, does it? > BUT- just for the record - I AM very much a > a GIRL too...and I do seriously appreciate/reciprocate the > knight in shining armour men/gestures...but I just don't > want to turn into the 'ball and chain' at home who > won't 'let' you go down to the pub with the guys... > > There's a lot of subtlety in the pattern you describe. I mean really, we're all free people here in the western world and making choices to avoid pissing off our partner, and then blaming THEM for that is nonsensical. And yet, hey, mea culpa. We seem to have some sort of psychological need for externalizing our choices. Ownership/non-attachment...what is static/what is > dynamic...all interesting items to > debate philosophically. > > mm > > Interesting indeed. As your posts always are, Margaret. As an another aside, my mom's name is Marjorie, and whenever my dad was mildly irritated with her or wanted to get under her skin, he'd call her "margaret" as an aspersion and that memory rises when I hear the name, funnily enough. But using his words against her was usually a sign that he was in some kind of losing battle, and honestly from my perspective, we men are usually the losers in the conflicts between the sexes and I think there's a hidden agenda of some kind there. We wouldn't be happy in a relationship where we didn't care if our mate was unhappy. Take care, John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
