Re: Gender in language
- From: Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:38:19 -0400
* Nathan Sanders wrote:
Non-human animals do not use language, nor can they learn it. Newborn
puppies raised by English-speakers do not learn English [...]
Thus, if we can learn X and animals cannot, then (our ability to
learn) X must be "hard-wired".
Ok then, so is (our ability to learn) building airplanes?
The question is whether the language faculty is a separate faculty or
just an application of our general ability to learn.
--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way
is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
The first method is far more difficult. -- C. A. R. Hoare
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Gender in language
- From: Nathan Sanders
- Re: Gender in language
- References:
- Re: Gender in language
- From: Picasso
- Re: Gender in language
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: Gender in language
- From: Nathan Sanders
- Re: Gender in language
- From: John Flynn
- Re: Gender in language
- From: Nathan Sanders
- Re: Gender in language
- From: John Flynn
- Re: Gender in language
- From: Nathan Sanders
- Re: Gender in language
- Prev by Date: Re: Gender in language
- Next by Date: Re: Gender in language
- Previous by thread: Re: Gender in language
- Next by thread: Re: Gender in language
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|