Hi Richmond, I won't continue interacting about this... I don't want to make this thread into one of those ongoing things that everyone wishes would end. I just thought I should say this.
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
The problem is that a rigid one-to-one semantically mapped language cannot then be "unrigidified" in mid-learning process without considerable psychological fall-out.
First, I'm respectfully aware that I don't understand everything you meant in your post. Given that, I continue... In the above quote, it seems to me that you're saying that in learning a language: 1) words generally don't have both simple and abstract meanings, and 2) starting with the concrete and moving toward the abstract is a bad idea. I couldn't disagree more. 1) Words generally derive the color and depth of their abstract meanings from their concrete roots - their 'first meanings'. 2) What you call 'psychological fall-out' I would call 'learning' or 'growth'. I believe one's attitude toward the phenomenon (as in life generally) makes it into a 'discovery' experience or a 'disaster' experience (with shades in between, of course). On the other hand, if this isn't what you're talking about, well... maybe I don't understand *anything* you meant! Thanks - Phil Davis _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
