Chompsky and other smart linguists talk about two conditions of language:
Lexicon (L) - The cat we mechanically understand where hearing or reading "cat." T o comprehend, we have to share Lexicon.
Computational Understanding (CU)- There are an infinite number of sentences that could use the word "cat". We must, then, also be able to compute meaning (as opposed to "knowing" meaning). This is, theoretically, also shared.
What of the L of "Green"? What happens when its CU is used in such variety that the meaning of the L itself changes? When people Compute the "true" meaning out of it? Can that happen?
Can Computational Understanding actually change the Lexicon? That's the root of the Language War.
One post down, you mention Hegel. Recall that Hegel's aging State restricts its vocabulary, at first to facilitate a common CU to coordinate the State's will among the various actors, then as a consequence of a dying culture.
Not to bum anyone out -- but like . . . you know. Green is green, like money. Hasn't that been the color of all empires? How much does an empire cost, anyhow? And who controls the CU in an empire?
(And for the optimistic rebels on the sly: What empire has gracefully survived an order-of-power shift in technology?)
Posted by: CLR | March 17, 2008 at 06:56 PM