Not at all - it all hinges on the meanings assigned to the verb 'move' and the
syntax of the question.
Language mediates all thinking - even internal thought.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
On 05/03/2012, at 10:22 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Even if I accepted that as non-bollox, Andrew (:-)), the question remains
> obscure when in relation to a language candidate.
>
> Chris
>
> On 5 Mar 2012, at 11:16, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
>> Simple. It's merely a convention to regard statues and other inanimate
>> objects as unmoving. Everything is moving in a relative sense.
>> The question does not imply volitional movement.
>> I have been moved by a statue, emotionally, and this is also consistent with
>> the phrasing of the question.
>> That takes care of physics and aesthetics - there are more I'm sure.
>> Andrew Fildes
>> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> www.soultheft.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2012, at 6:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>>
>>> How is the putative movement of statues related to languages, Nathan? :-)
>>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|