Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:49:13 -0800
From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: ...Events


Ingrid Markhardt wrote:
> 
> >Language, presumably, is not a pre-natal experience.
> 
> Just a note on this assumption:  The baby in the womb hears the
> mother's heart, breathing and other body sounds as well as her voice, and even
> the voices of others nearby.  This is one way the newborn infant "recognizes"
> its mother, a mutual recognition upon which everything depends. And the
> rhythms of heartbeat, breath, motion, rest, and so on may give the context
> for "learning" everything.  I think it is very difficult to say, then, where
> language begins.
> 
> Ingrid M.

-AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT--AT-

Hugh Bone replies:

It depends on what we mean by language.  If we mean words exclusively,
it would begin with understanding the meaning of words, whenever that 
happens.

A few decades ago we never heard of computer languages, but were
accustomed to the idea of sign language.  Some communication is possible
between persons who do not understand each other's words.

In Le Differend, Lyotard says silence can be a phrase.

You describe pre-natal interaction of mother and unborn child.  It could
be called a "transaction", which seems to me a way of characterizing
any transfer of "information", between two beings, human and/or
non-human.

A context for "recognition" and "learning" enables mutual communication
with pets.  We communicate with dogs for, example, using sounds,
gestures, silence.  They reply.

Wild dogs and wolves do the same.