Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>]

la .and. cusku spuda la lojbab. di'e

> I know you hold linguistics in very low esteem, but the
> fact that linguistics has never had anything but the
> utmost derision and contempt for postmodernism might
> nonetheless be taken as suggestive.

la markl. spuda la .and. di'e

It's suggestive of the fact that some of postmodernism's
earliest texts attacked linguistics for "the error of
phonologism".  Phonologism (according to Jacques Derrida)
assumes that speech is somehow more basic or more primary
or closer to the "essential nature" of language than
writing is, & dismisses writing as a mere "supplement" to
speech.  The critique of phonologism offered by po-mo
thinkers has involved a fairly interesting exploration of
the history of ideas in Western philosophy, linking some
pretty bankrupt ideas with some of the positions taken by
de Saussure & other pioneers of linguistics.  IMO much of
the "derision and contempt" directed towards po-mo-ism by
linguists simply reflects the fact that linguists have no
defense, no substantive reply to this critique.  But
po-mo-ism has a bad reputation anyhow (in many ways
deservedly bad); so why should linguists bother to offer
a reasoned response?  It's easier to use empty ridicule
when your opponent is already the object of hatred among
intellectuals, in the media & among the people at large.

But even if po-mo thinkers were wrong about phonologism
(which they're not, despite being wrong about so much
else), Lojban's goal of cultural neutrality would still
require that po-mo expressions be _possible_ in Lojban.
Or do you hate po-mo-ism so much that you wish to see
all of its expressions banned from the language?

co'omi'e markl.