5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. 5.61 Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. So we cannot say in logic, ‘The world has this in it, and this, but not that.’ For that would appear to presuppose that we were excluding certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case, since it would require that logic should go beyond the limits of the world; for only in that way could it view those limits from the other side as well. We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either.-Wittgenstein The idea that language limits thinking is not a new one. But the implications of it have yet to be fully explored. From a philosophical, linguistic perspective we can understand how language encases expression and in so doing also entraps thought. From a political Orwellian perspective we can understand how restricting expression and erasing words can result in destroying concepts and the accompanying ramifications. From an artistic perspective we can understand that Wittgenstein’s rule forces us to acknowledge that all art is, is the expression of ideas derived from the perception of shadows on cave walls, while the essence of the perception or its object can never be appreciated. If 5.6 is to be taken as fact then what does it say about our present world and its declining linguistic aptitude? Furthermore with mans growing reliance on technology, which replaces much of linguistic expression with acoustic or visual expression, what will the declining linguistic artistry mean for our species?
Wanderer, I should think that the most important aspect of this Orwellian pruning of the dictionary was not so much the removal of words but rather the desire in man to create new words. Slang words pop up constantly and the language is constantly being redefined, expanded. Remove words from the dictionary ala Orwell and normal man would simply take the words that remain and combine them in new ways in order to express concepts that are impossible with the bare lexicon. However, Orwell was pruning more than words, yes? He was also pruning grammar and syntax. But, even so, it is still within man's nature to create order in what doesn't exist. For instance, creole. Take parents that speak a pidgin language and pass that pidgin to their children. In a single generation those children will transform that pidgin into a full fleded language. Creole. With all the rules and syntax that a language implies. A word doesn't exist for a particular concept? A new word or usage of an old word will be adapted. Syntax and grammar are unknown? Irrelevant. Syntax and grammar will be forged. It is our nature. What is interesting about this is the thought that once the proper brain adaptations arose which led to true language, it likely arose rather quickly. The transition from protolanguage to full language probably occurred so quickly that evidence of the transformation will never be found. A pity. What is your reasoning that leads to the conclusion of 'declining linguistic artistry'? Street slang and bling bling? If anything, this should show that linguistic art is happening all around us, even now. You may not like it. It may not appeal to you. But it is there. And it is what man does and has done and will do. Cut out the words that lead to revolutionary thoughts and man will create bling bling and fo shizzle my nizzle and take back the concepts that you thought you had eradicated. Something more vital to man must be removed for a true decline of linguistic expression to occur. And what do you mean acoustic and visual expression? Acoustic as in speaking rather than the written word? Visual as in written as opposed to speaking? Or are you talking about body language, dance, etc...? I think that this is true. And to a large extent the reverse is also true. Language does limit thought. But, with innovation a limited language is able to... mate with itself and with thought to become more than what it was. So, you shouldn't look at this quote as what we cannot say, we cannot think. That would be a touch presumptuous.
invert_nexus I can see that a certain degree of linguistic artistry continues through slang and street lingo but I think in this type of language more basic concepts are reinvented in new symbolisms, whereas the artistry that I see fading is the loss of conceptual nuance. New words are replacing multiple old words and with the loss of this abundance the nuances that went along with each are lost from expression. It’s not that these new words are added to our repertoire but that they replace much of it by simplifying language. Language has been limited to the use of a few hundred words, at best, within the vast majority of the population where the same concepts are repackaged in new cultural symbols, as in the examples you offer. The degradation I perceive is in the over reliance of artistic expression on visuals. The same way music is degraded by its reliance on videos and literature is degraded in comics through its reliance on drawings. I am referring to what Neil Postman explained as the evolution out of the ‘Age of Exposition’ into the ‘Age of Show-Business’. Man learned about the world through language and so he could, in turn, express it using it. In the past ideas and concepts could only be expressed through linguistic artistry where the imagination was kindled through word nuances and sentence structure. The mind had to work through the subtle meanings of words and it saw language as the malleable art form that it was. Today there is a turn away from abstraction towards sensualization, where instead of just words images or sounds are used. Language has become mostly a rigid tool of dictionary definitions and syntax rules. Instead of being told we are shown or we are allowed to hear for ourselves and so the imagination is kept out of most of it. Now, at first, this might appear to be a positive progression since the experience becomes more immediate but then we have to consider how the ability to express the experience is lost in the process. We no longer need to express an idea if we can show it. It’s similar to the effect calculators and speed diallers have had on the mind. We no longer need to do simple math if we use the calculator and I, for one, don’t remember anybody’s telephone ever since I started storing them in memory-chips where I merely push a button to activate them. But that’s exactly what Wittgenstein is saying. I’ll repeat what I told a little puppy-dog once: A word IS an idea. If you cannot speak of something then you have no thorough conceptual understanding of it and you may only possess a rudimentary feeling about it which, since it cannot be articulated, is forced to be speculated over and hypothesized about. What a mind cannot speak or define through language it cannot grasp at all and can only speak about through metaphors that miss the mark. Words are the abstract symbols of what the mind knows or thinks it knows.
A quick word before I go to work : Bullshit. Words are the concrete expression to others of what the mind knows.
Now here’s that puppy-dog I was talking about. Fenris Wolf Quit true if one limits knowing to sensual interpretation. Even then the other must take it on faith that the mind that claims to know something it cannot express actually does so, since no proof can be offered either way. Faith is a dangerous thing. For example many religious minds claim to know God and to know of His existence, yet cannot express the reasons for verification. They feel it. What about abstract concepts in general? How does the mind conceptualize the abstract if it has no symbol/word for it? What the mind cannot label or define it does not know and cannot know. I can perhaps know a tree without being able to express it through language. In other words I can have a sensual representation for which I possess no abstract symbol for but this can only be true, if even that, for sensual representations that can be verified through empirical means. What about abstract concepts like, nobility, liberty, honesty, stupidity, intelligence, etc.?
One would have to be insane to think that words are "concrete expression." In fact, most people do believe this, or at least they don't take the time to think about it and this false trust in words consumes them. Whah? I can't believe that you stepped down from your position so easily... Words cannot be concrete even if we do limit ourselves to sensual interpretation. Words are always limited and always abracted from what "we think we know." At best they are vague interpretations of what we actually see... For instance: I urge you to try this experiment. ----- Part 1: Buy 20 oranges. Then pick one orange out and write an essay about it. Write everything you could possibly say about said orange. Remember to add as much detail as possible -- try to be concrete. Use all five of your senses. Write as best you can. Then replace the orange to the bunch and lay them all on a table. Part 2: Give your essay to another person and have them pick out your orange from the bunch. What do you think will happen most of the time? ----- I see what your shooting at he, but it is you that "misses the mark." Although you are right when you say that "words are the abstract symbols of what the mind knows or thinks it know," you are wrong when you say that metaphors miss the mark. Metaphors, on the contrary, are closer to the mark because they are closer to our subconscious [or as you put it: "What a mind cannot speak or define through language"]. Of course all words are metaphors for what truely exists.
Oh, and about Orwell... Orwell meant to show that his totalitarian state was actually moving backwards... He limited the language to control the populace from thinking - "restricting expression and erasing words can result in destroying concepts and the accompanying ramifications." I couldn't have said it better myself. --- But Newspeak is also a metaphor for the direction in which a society is headed that is limited in thought. Winston Smith is a good example of this -- he is a recluse, and a wimp. The limiting of words is the limiting of man's potential. I would imagine that the highest persons in the Party did not even bother with Newspeak, other than as a means by which they could stupify the masses. Remember Winston's friend Syme. He is portayed as an intellegent, outgoing man. In fact, Winston believes Syme is too intelligent to stay in the Party’s favor. Yet he is a head worker on the Newspeak dictionary... Why, because it takes intellegent people to lull and control the masses.
sevenblu I agree. I conceded that minor point much too fast. As I progressed in my reply I began having doubts about it but decided to postpone my re-evaluation until I received some feedback. I guess I was admitting that some sensual interpretations can be known visually without having a linguistic symbol attached to them the same way an animal can know things sensually without possessing a language for expressing them. I can just point to it or visualize it in my mind without a word. Yes, words are abstract symbols of supposed external phenomena. They are general internal labels for mental interpretations. Everything misses the mark. This is why reality becomes so elusive and indefinable. A metaphor is a description of reality’s shadow so it as well misses the mark. My position here is not that language is perfect or precise but that it is the only means of expressing a thought and sometimes of having a thought. Metaphor might be closer to the subconscious but it is the conscious that knows and understands using reason and logic, besides this even a metaphor must be expressed through language or some type of abstraction. The question is: If a mind cannot convey an idea at all, using any method of communication or expression, does it really understand it? If we accept that there are multiple ways of acquiring information besides reason and logic then we must also accept that if this information that becomes intuitive must be comprehended and evaluated through the conscious mind before it becomes practical. This experiment only proves that everything is a generalization and that what some call specificity is but a generalization that can be conceptualized.
It depends on what you mean by understanding. If by understanding you mean the ability to communicate adequately enough to survive in a social environment... then the answer is yes. If by understanding you mean aquiring a map of the inner workings of each others minds and life experience through symbols... then the answer is no. People generally cannot even understand themselves, let alone the thoughts and experiences of others. Language is more of a cooperation then it it an understanding.
To me, these arguments seem pointless. Think about yourself, and the world as you see it. Then try to describe it with words. You will find that while it isn't exactly perfect, it's close enough. Using a mixture of words, one can convey how reality feels to them, or what ideas they have. It's true that words do shackle your thoughts, and your ideas. The increasing complexity of language represents, in some ways, the memetic development of ideas. The developed concepts of freedom, afterlife, justice, empathy, selflessness, basic universal human rights, empiricism, rationalism, ect, did not exist in primitive language or, really, primitive thoughts.
Still holding your little games dear, I see. Playing games with you is about as entertaining as inviting christians in for a chat for "fun". Far less painful than bashing my head against a brick wall, but the latter would be both more fruitful and shorter in duration. Sensual interpretation is the first step to knowledge. An idea cannot be expressed in language if it has not first taken form as a concept. If a concept cannot exist without language, how then did the concept of language arise? If you wish to interpret my comments as "limiting" language to sensual interpretation, then by all means continue to do so - you'll know when I get bored. This is especially true since other threads have covered this idea already in the past. Concepts of many things can be expressed verbally and still be false. I see evidence of that every time I log on here. Self-image springs to mind as an example. You're saying here that an idea cannot exist if the desire or ability to express it does not. A hunter might have had a thought. "We are hungry - I will go hunt". He was thinking of himself hunting alone, without need of assistance. Without language, he would simply have gone and hunted. He might, if in need of assistance, have picked up a spear and looked at another to indicate "we". Thus the concept of "we" and "I" existed without formal definition. Language simply evolved from there to formalise the transference of the idea to the group. You're basically telling me that a tree falling in the woods doesn't make any sound if no one is there to hear it. Abstract concepts are a refinement made possible by the use of language. Again, the concept must exist in order to be defined. Language is the tool facillitating that definition. You're saying here that an idea evolves within the framework of language. While this is true in order to communicate that idea to others, it does not consitute proof that the idea cannot exist without language. Someone might say to a child, "this is the colour blue". All he is doing by saying this is refining that concept - ensuring that child has the same concept he does. The first thinking men would have known there were colours. Only language could have ensured that the other members of the tribe knew that there were colours - but the proliferation of that knowledge in common arose as a result of the idea existing to begin with, along with the desire to communicate it. I will grant that a conversation can result in an idea being both expressed and formalised - but I would contend that the conversation would not be possible without a concept steering it in that direction to begin with. Language only facilitates the refinement and communication (or, in the case of a conversation, the communication and then refinement) of a concept. It is not the seed.
The above is synchronically, seen in a short-term perspective, true and valid -- but it is NOT true diachronically, in a long-term perspective. Namely, people do things, learn, change -- and language changes over time, too. If "We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either." would be ultimately true, then civilization could not happen at all. By the rule of "We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either." we should not be able to think of a certain computer device as "mouse". Our mind is capable of some "surplus thinking capacity" that allows for the thinking and language system to change. We can always do a little bit more than it immediately seems, and this "little bit more", this allowing for a temporary inconsistency is what drives progress. Wittgenstein seemed to have forgotten about that I would say the modern decline has to do with our disrespect and objectivization, reification of everything. In mediaeval linguistic (ie. what we would nowadays file under linguistics), the course of thought about language was quite different than today's: In those days, they thought of language as a speculum, a mirror of the world (hence the original meaning of the term "specualtive" -- 'mirroring'). And the Spirit of God was resting above the earth. Then, some wonderfully brainiac minds decided they don't need God, declared their own omnipotence -- and there was no room for wonderment and respect anymore. I swear, I can do a somersault but I couldn't describe you, or show you how exactly to pace your steps to gain the right speed. We can do a lot of things that we don't have the exact words for. Imagine a clear and detailed instruction of how to make a peanut butter sandwich. Write it down, and have someone work according to it. It won't work. -- Which only shows how much we depend on extra-lingual knowledge that we acquired via different channells, and it then instinctiualized itself into what we tend to call "common sense". (There really is no reason to think that "spread the butter on the bread" automatically implies 'to spread the butter on the surface meant for it -- the big flat surface, not the edge'. I know, the example seems obnoxiously trivial, but we did that once at language class and I saw how very relative language can be.)
Bad Christian So you are saying that a subjective, partial and imperfect interpretation of the world is good enough? Fenris Wolf It began as a simple labelling of sensual interpretation. This is why I said this: “Quit true if one limits knowing to sensual interpretation.” What’s your point? Music probably began as two sticks hitting each other in rhythm. What these languages developed into is more interesting. Some animals can be said to have some primitive form of verbal communication where different sounds mean different things how is that relevant to concepts with no empirical representations or with more complicated empirical representations? Language is a shared abstraction of reality and reality is a shared illusion. The limits of language determines the limits of human understanding as it determines the limits of individual understanding. Understanding about what? Understanding of common, shared concepts that may or may not be true or real. At issue here isn’t whether language is accurate or if its meanings are transcendental, at issue here is to what extent language limits our conceptualization of the world we agree to consider real. Although the scary thought of making you bored has rattled me to my core I will suggest that if this topic is old news to you that you should go back to the important and interesting work you normally do. I’m sure there’s an unanswered PM somewhere awaiting your attentions. Isn't it terrible?! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm happy for you that your self-image is so close to truth. Since it is uncertain if you actually know what my self-image really is and all you have is what I pretend my self-image to be on this public Forum, I think that your assertion is absurd. I always enjoy listening to someone trying to tell me what I know about myself. Alternate methods of communicating simple concepts are possible but even they do not prove that the concepts of ‘we’ or ‘hunt’ exist within the mind. The difficulty arises when more involved abstractions are called upon. How does one communicate infinity or beauty or liberty or honour or trust? There’s nothing to point to, there's no gesture that can communicate it. The fact that we can conceptualize these abstractions leads to us having words for them. But then the question is: Are these concepts accurately and similarly used by all? Are these concepts real or figments of human imagination with no real substance? Could it be that the elusive definition of certain concepts is tied in with the fact that there is no real accurate concept of them and so the labels we use are mere approximations or descriptions of their shadows, and this is what leads to misunderstandings? Yes, but colors can be pointed to and shown. Not everything has a clear sensual representation. The absence of language may not constitute proof that this means an absence of a concept but it does constitute a reason to doubt that the concept exists. There could be knowledge of the world without words to label it but language is more than what describes the empirical world, it is a tool of expressing internal abstractions. When there is no word for an internal abstraction then the concept is lost. Language isn’t only used to communicate ideas to others it is often used to communicate ideas to the self and to store these ideas for further consideration. So the natural conclusion to an existing concept is that it is given a label to abstractly represent it. The lack of such a label can only mean that the concept is not yet fully realized or absent altogether. A concept can exist as a feeling or an intuitive sense but if it hasn’t been conceptualized by reason it has not been absorbed into comprehension. A seed is worthless if it does not sprout into a plant reaching for the sky. A seed existing as potential does not have roots to bind it to the land or a stem to rise above the darkness or leaves to absorb the sunlight and create fruits with other seeds. A seed lying dormant in the damp, dark soil is not equal to a plant, even if it carries the potential to be one. RosaMagika Huh?! But we can, so that’s why it exists. Who told you civilization is built on truth? Civilization is built on shared, agreed upon and common interpretations of reality. Whether these interpretations are true or false is what causes the clash of civilizations and their continuous rebirth. Wittgenstein didn’t define what the limits of language are; he just asserted that whatever and wherever the limits are, for each individual, was where the world ended for this individual. What cannot be conceived cannot be labelled and what cannot be labelled doesn’t exist for that particular mind. If it exists or not transcendentally is a question that cannot be answered. Any mind that needs God to remain disciplined and respectful is a hypocritical mind pretending to be what it is not, because of an external threat. The murder of God might be a focal point of declining mores but what lead to the murder has more to do with the absence of responsibility, coddling and the shielding of individuals from the repercussions of their own beliefs and actions. Of course the entire premise rests on how one defines the word ‘God’. If you are using the Christian definition then I am truly disappointed in that you need to surrender to something to feel that you belong to the world or to feel that you deserve existence. Perhaps the murder of God was a hasty act but in the long run god and gods must be overcome along with mankind. To show is more powerful because it avoids the middle-man. But how do you show someone how to think? How do you show someone how to believe? I don’t doubt the assimilation of knowledge through alternate methods. I actually wrote, in my ‘Intuition’ thread, about it. But once the information is assimilated how is it realized and/or communicated to others and to the self? I never argued that language was not relativistic.
In other words, it began as an attempt to label a pre-existing concept. Quite simply, that this : What a mind cannot speak or define through language it cannot grasp at all and can only speak about through metaphors that miss the mark. and this : What the mind cannot label or define it does not know and cannot know. Are, as I said, bullshit. Should I bore you with what I'm doing on my second pc while I'm talking here? I doubt you'd be able to follow. Let's just say you're a distraction, one better than watching a pc do "stuff". You should be proud that you're marginally more interesting than the digital equivalent of watching grass grow. I find more interesting your assumption it was you I had in mind at the time. There is proof in the fact that a means developed to express them. Thus language began to develop. We're going in circles here. We agree on this point then. Although I'm a little confused now, because you said earlier that "What the mind cannot label or define it does not know and cannot know." Of course not. Not only are there the limitations arising from the proliferation of different languages, there are misunderstandings even within a common language due to generalities of expression. It could also be that the language to express them does not yet exist - or that the one conceptualising does not have the eloquence to express them. A 5 year old might use the word "scared" to describe both being frightened bya slamming door, and also to describe the paralysing fear brought about by a nightmare. The concepts are different, the child would know they were different, but use the same word for both for lack of expressive ability. Certainly it leads to misunderstandings - but you're trying to tell me the concepts don't exist because they cannot be communicated, or cease to exist , in effect, for lack of expression. That same child might gain a greater linguistic ability later in life, remember the nightmare and use different words - in memory of a concept from years before. So... an absence of language does not prove that a concept doesn't exist. The presence of language still doesn't prove that a concept is truth. Such a quandary. The point that language limits communication as well as enhancing it has, as I said, been discussed before. Thats a grand assumption. Lost to who? Another assumption. Define "weltschmertz" in English. Is the concept then lost on english speakers who have no knowledge of the german word, and cannot articulate it in english? How poetic. Confucious would be so proud.
What do you have with these who-told-you's?! Uh. I totally don't know where you must have stood to see what I said from this angle ... I said, "The above is synchronically, seen in a short-term perspective, true and valid -- but it is NOT true diachronically, in a long-term perspective. In linguistics, there are demanding and troubling issues connected to these two perspectives and their comparison. For example, strictly synchronically speaking, the word formation principles for these words is thus: to peddle > pedlar, to beg > beggar, to hawk > hawker, to scavenge > scavenger, to edit > editor, to burgle > burglar -- they are made after the type to write > writer, ie. first the verb, then the noun. But diachronically, it is reverse: first, there was the word pedlar, and the verb to peddle was made from it, first there was the word beggar and then the verb to beg was made. And so on. Synchronically, you even have to say that first there is the verb to lase, and from it, the noun laser is made (which is totally not true). The point is that we don't have reliabale etymological information for all the words and how they came to be, what was there first. So a branch of modern linguistics decided to focus just on the present system as it is, and then within this system come up with word formation rules (and others, but the discrepancies are most visible in word formation) that seem presently feasible, but often clash with actual historical data (when that data is available). To a synchronist, "We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either." is true. While a diachronist will have counterarguments. Once more, this is a synchronism vs diachronism issue. Oh yes, tie us up, electrocute us, and throw us into the Grand Canyon! (Courtesy of Andy.) Sheesh, you're fatalistic. The prevailing idea seems to be that humans have *comparable models of reality* in their minds; and because these models are comparable, communication is possible. Information A has the net of connections A* -- in the mind of one person, as well as in the mind of the other person. Of course, all communication rests on the assumption that we (can) understand eachother; and this assumption is proven wrong only in the case of a misunderstanding -- otherwise we function on that assumption without even noticing it. I never said you argued that language was not relativistic. *** Because the community of people who speak German and the community of those who speak English (at least if we take the Britons for the English speaking community) have comparable models of reality, certain concepts (which we can metaphorically see as nodes of certain information or knowledge) can be transposed from one language into another. The foreign word gets loaned and the concept functions as a node of already existing information or knowledge. This is why it is so easy to loan words between similar cultures. However, some peculiarities may occur. For example, the concept "daylight saving time adjustment" is known to all those who change their time in accordance with the season, and the language doesn't matter. To an English speaking South African, "daylgiht saving time adjustments" are something foreign, while most people in the Northern hemisphere, Polish or Japanese, know them -- totally different cultures, but sharing that concept.
RosaMagika Who told you I have somehting with 'who-told-you's'? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How would it be possible to say what cannot be thought under any circumstance? What counterarguments? From a general perspective I agree. But I was pointing to individual differences. Two people can speak the same language and yet have a different understanding of each word and attribute to it different nuances.
Sounds like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Quite interesting, really. Here's an article at Wikipedia. (Forgive me if this has already been brought up. I haven't read the thread yet.) [Thread=42370]Should there be a Linguistics forum? Answer here![/Thread]
The counterargument of language development. The counterargument that we are able to learn and to reconceptualize. Example: State 1: 50 years ago, there was no such thing as a computer device called "mouse", "We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either" applies. State 2: Now, we have the computer device called "mouse", and "We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either" applies. How do we get from state 1 to state 2? If it is true that in each of those states, "We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either" is true -- how do we get from state 1 to state 2? It must be that "We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either" needs some modifications. To get from state 1 to state 2, we were apparently able to think at least a little bit more than we could say. This may very likely not be a language issue at all anymore -- but an issue of personality psychology.
Invert Nexus: Like thinking. Look, you bring up good points about the creative spirit in man, but the 'bling blings' only prove that thinking is absent. "Fishwife" as opposed to "stupid bitch", look at the difference. Its the nature of this new "creativity"- if that is what we'll call the lingual slaughter of the "modern" author and blacks and P Diddy- that's at hand. Empty language is simply a reflection of the empty mind and the empty medium it was cultured in- look for example at the ambiguous terminologies of the bible. Words like 'the void' and 'the greater light and lesser light' or “spirit hovering over the waters” only betray the naiveté of the scribes who dared to write about what they did not understand. So they lied with the clever use of pretty words and labels- "tree of knowledge", what does that say? Absolutely nothing other than that its author did not put much thought into why it is that man is a moral animal other than his artistic need to convey the point. Creative or not, a black’s mind is limited with his language (and I use blacks here because you brought up the fo shizzle, this mentality applies to all idiots)- and therefore, his world becomes the incompetent inferiority complex that is his mind. It becomes a 'white man's' world. Its a testament to having been raised in an environment where everything is instant and microwaved. Why read Dickens or Hume when the video and the cliff note can be checked out at the library? And why even absorb any of it since you're only being forced to for school? Fenris: But what's not is whether the speaker even understands what he's saying. Its a world of difference hearing the careful and intricate vocabulary of science- describing the electric charge of earth's magnetism or hypothesis of a solar storm, say- as opposed to the airy nonsense by some "scientific” poet who had no clue what an aureole borealis actually was. In other words, chicanery. Rosamagika: Which is basically what the thread downgraded to. We can liven it up if you wish (drooling): Consider this. In Spanish the word for handcuffs is the same as that for wife- esposa. In French, mortgage literally means a deal with the devil. Hillarious. I live for things like this. Care to share?
WANDERER: 5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. --------------------------------------------------- THEN CREATE A BETTER LANGUAGE WANDERER: 5.61 Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. ------------------------------------------------------ FIRST DEFINE THE LIMITS THEN TALK ABOUT LIMITS THE LIMITS OF THE WORLD COULD BE THE LIMITS YOU SEE WHAT I SEE IS WHAT I SEE the limits of the world are also its limits. THE BIGGEST PHILOSOPHER !
