Omne esser human es creative in su capacitate pro
codificar nove conceptos in su lingua native e in
usar los de un maniera appropriate in multe differente
contextos de communication.  Ma il ha limites in
lo que le linguage pote exprimer.

Cata momento in nostre vitas diarie nostre ambiente
nos presenta multe information e experientias, ma
solmente un parve parte de isto pote exprimer se
in le linguage.

Iste limitationes sur lo que pote communicar le
linguage ha essite un preoccupation special del
philosophos linguistic basate in Anglaterra.  Un
ex illes, Ludwig Wittgenstein, del Universitate
Cambridge, assevera que "[l]e limites de mi lingua
significa le limites de mi mundo."

Ben que Wittgenstein non credeva que le linguage
pote revelar multo del realitate exterior a nostre
cerebros (specialmente in le caso del "realitate"
metaphysic, que ha inspirate multe essayos philosophic
incoherente), ille eventualmente poteva dicer multo
sur ideas que ille trovava inexprimibile.  E ante
su morte in 1951 ille habeva devenite un pauco plus
optimiste sur le capacitates del linguage.

Ma philosophos como Wittgenstein e Sartre esseva
convincite que il ha limites ultra le quales nostre
asseverationes sovente deveni
incoherente--specialmente
si nos parla sur ideas abstracte, como le essentia
del "substantia", del "democratia", del "justitia",
del "humanitate", del "veritate", del "libertate",
o de "lo que es bon o mal, belle o fede".

Ben que il es probabilemente impossibile precisar
iste limites, quando nos los ultrapassa, lo que
nos dice o scribe quando nos face isto es multo
simile a dicer alique como "Nostre assecrationes
non pote prodoxicar completemente le bridationes
inter nostre codexitores, le quales, infelicemente,
sempre es in un stato amblimentose de doxication."

(Multe academicos--duo exemplos excellente es Jacques
Derrida e le sociologo american Talcott Parsons--ha
formate carrieras academic multo prosperose scribente
iste typo de merda.  Ensjo mesme ha scribite un
breve essayo sur iste phenomeno.)

Le linguage anque non pote describer facilemente
multe aspectos del realitate concrete.  Un bon exemplo
esserea un photo de un paisage rural de autumno
con un sol folio dominante le 66% del parte leve
del scena.  Le folio es rubie e jalne, con tracias
de nigre.

Unes spatios inter su veinas ha foramines con un
geometria interessante ma complicate a causa de
insectos que habeva mangiate iste parte del folio.
Plus distante al dextra de iste photo il ha altere
folios simile ma differente al mesme tempore, e
on anque pote vider diverse arbores, omnes
simultaneemente simile ma differente.

Obviemente le linguage non pote communicar le
experientia de iste scena como un photo.  E le major
parte de nos non volerea exiger que le linguage
faceva isto.  Le function del linguage non es duplicar
le realitate ma convocar lo a nostre memoria e facer
predictiones sur lo que es iste realitate, lo que
illo va facer, e lo que nos pote facer pro manipular
lo.

---

All human beings are creative in their capacity
for encoding new concepts in their native language
and in using them appropriately in many different
contexts of communication.  But there are limits
in what language can express.

Each moment in our daily lives our environment
presents
us with a lot of information and experience, but
only a small part of this can be expressed in
language.

These limitations on what we can communicate in
language have been a special interest among linguistic
philosophers based in England.  One of them, Ludwig
Wittgenstein, of Cambridge University, maintains
that "[t]he limits of my language signify the limits
of my world."

Though Wittgenstein did not believe that language
can reveal much about reality outside our heads
(especially in the case of metaphysical "reality,"
which has inspired many incoherent philosophical
essays), he eventually was able to say a lot about
ideas that he thought were inexpressible.  And before
his death in 1951 he had become a little more
optimistic about the capabilities of language.

But philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Sartre
were convinced that there are limits beyond which
our statements often become incoherent--especially
if we talk about abstract ideas such as "substance,"
"democracy," justice," "humanity," "truth," "liberty,"
or "what is good or bad, beautiful or ugly."

Though it is probably impossible to identify these
limits precisely when we go beyond them, what we
say or write when we do this is very similar to
saying something like "Our assecrations are not
able to completely prodoxicate the bridations among
our codexitors, which, unfortunately are always
in an amblimentous state of doxication."

(Many academics--an excellent example is Jacques
Derrida and the American sociologist Talcott
Parsons--have forged prosperous academic careers
writing this kind of shit.  Ensjo himself has written
a brief essay on this phenomenon.)

Language also cannot easily describe many aspects
of concrete reality.  A good example would be a
photo of a rural scene in autumn with a single leaf
domininating two-thirds of the left part of the
picture.  The leaf is red and yellow, with traces
of black.

Some spaces between its veins have holes with an
interesting but complicated geometry because of
insects that had eaten this part of the leaf.  At
a greater distance toward the right of this photo
there are other leaves that are both similar and
different at the same time, and it is possible to
see various trees, all of them simultaneously similar
but yet different.

Obviously language cannot communicate the experince
of this scene the way a photo can.  And most of
us would not ask that language do this.  The function
of language is not to duplicate reality but to recall
it to memory and make predictions about what this
reality is, what it is going to do, and what we
can do to manipulate it.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/