Re: [tied] Saussure’s idea of language (Lehman 1991).

At 11:56:34 AM on Saturday, May 24, 2008, mkelkar2003 wrote:

> "Saussure conceived of language as a system of signs
> rather than an orderly procession of meanings. One of his
> key insights is that the word dog has no intrinsic
> meaning: nothing in the word, its sound or its shape on
> the page suggests a barking animal, any more than does
> hund in German or chien in French. Language consists of
> signs, and signs are not independent entities that can be
> studies in isolation: signs can only be understood in
> relation to one another within a larger linguistic system.
> The meaning of a sign is a function of its difference from
> the others. Dog means what it does in English because it
> is not hog or bog. And this is true for concepts as well.
> The terms we use have meaning, Saussure reasoned, not
> because they correspond to an external reality and not
> because they reflect ideas, but because of their
> differentiation. It follows that the pairs of any
> culturally determined binary opposition define themselves
> in relation to one another (Lehman 1991, p. 94)."

> Thus the internal consistency of Rig Veda does not matter
> to comparative linguists. Word like ratha and chakra can
> be pulled out and compared in isolation with objects found
> thousand of miles away in completely different contexts.

Yet another idiotic non sequitur, never mind that Saussure
died almost a century ago.

[...]

Brian