|
|
Re: Are we "special"?
Rohinton Collins (rohinton@collins.prestel.co.uk)
12 Dec 1996 17:27:54 GMT
wvanhou237@aol.com wrote in article
<19961211184800.NAA00993@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <32AE3009.5C4A@scn.org>, Phillip Bigelow <bh162@scn.org>
> writes:
>
> It would appear that PB does not find fault with the context in which a
> word
> appears but with the word itself. That, in itself, seems a rather closed
> way
> of thinking. As in, "if you use a word it has to have the meaning I
assign
> it ".
>
> To me that sort of thinking harks back to Soviet style science, or to the
> rigid
> dogmas of The Inquisition.
>
The only way we can have useful, meaningful and constructive exchanges Mr
Van Houten is if we all speak the same language, and use the same
vocabulary. This is the reason that 'jargon' is used in any specialist
arena. It is most important that the meaning of any words we do use are
well understood by all. This means that the use of palaeoanthropological
jargon is essential, since their meanings are unambiguous. Thus the
phonetic speech (with syntax) of modern humans may be said to be an
apomorphic or derived characteristic WRT hominoids. It may NOT be said to
be special. Indeed this word is not a member of the palaeoanthropological
vocabulary.
Learn up people,
Regards,
Roh.
Oh, BTW can someone tell me what saltatorial means.
|