--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:16:28 +0000, "S.Kalyanaraman"
<kalyan97@...>> wrote:> > >In French linguistics, langue is
distinguished from parole. Roughly, > >the terms may be defined:
langue 'language'; parole 'speaking'.>
> That's not correct. The Saussurean "parole" can also
be 'writing'. The> distinction between langue and parole is not
between written and spoken> language, but that between language-in-
the-abstract and concrete linguistic> performances. "Parole" is an
individual speaking, or writing. "Langue" is> the abstraction, the
system, the structure, that can be deduced from the> "paroles" of
all the individual speakers (provided they speak the same> "langue":
some circularity cannot be avoided).
>
> "Langue" is the main object of linguistics. This doesn't mean
that the> "parole" is entirely irrelevant: we can only reach
the "langue" object> trough its "parole" instances, and the "parole"
is the active principle> that drives historical change.
>
Thanks for correcting Prof. Broden's wrong translation of parole
as 'speaking' in: http://www.revue-
texto.net/Inedits/Broden_Evolution.html
The evolution of French linguistics afterthe war: AJ Greima's
conversion to 'SAUSSURISM' by Thomas F. Broden Purdue University,
USA.
This makes parole as a driver of 'historical change', a good
methodological tool for evaluating IE--IA contacts -- back and
forth -- and the many Prakrits using both the lexical items and
the 'written' hieroglyphs. The main difference between Egyptian
Hieroglyphs and Sarasvati Hieroglyphs is that the former are
representations of syllables while the latter are representations
(rebus) of words -- examples of what Miguel calls 'parole instances'
(both written and spoken). I think I have mentioned the example of
the glyph: kuduru 'lizard' rebus: portable gold furnace; a glyph
which is common to Gundestrup cauldron and also Sarasvati epigraphs.