|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy - Meta Forum » natural signs ?
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| tohentoon |
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
It has been held a plain matter of fact that there are 'natural
signs'
like ' thunder signalling a flash of lightning '
It has been held too as a "working hypothesis" while conceding that
it is rather obviously contrary to (historical) fact,
that language signs were in most cases 'signs by convention' and only
in special cases say "onomapoetic" ( spelling ? )
Opinions ?
Regards |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil W Rickert |
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tohentoon <tohentoon@googlemail.com> writes:
Quote: It has been held a plain matter of fact that there are 'natural
signs'
like ' thunder signalling a flash of lightning '
There are no natural signs.
That's what I just gave. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tohentoon |
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 15 Mai, 03:03, Neil W Rickert <rickert...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
Quote: tohentoon <tohent...@googlemail.com> writes:
It has been held a plain matter of fact that there are 'natural
signs'
like ' thunder signalling a flash of lightning '
There are no natural signs.
Opinions ?
That's what I just gave.
OK, imop too, this is a way one may put things.
But what about the other ?
Is there a significant relation between 'signs of natural languages'
and 'signs by convention' ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
