challenging chomsky

read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8365799.stm

think about it

then read this:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaxAzGo3CISTZGZnZDJtbjhfMmNua2NyZmN6&hl=en


i've been working on a project that's been growing and changing for a few months now. what started out as an innocent foray into the basis of language has grown to become an exploration of the interaction between humans and the signs we use to represent our experiences. there is much to be done, but i'd like to introduce you now in the hopes that my signs of progress will be somewhat intelligible to you.

essentially, i'm building a new language, or trying to, at least. language has been defined in terms of a set of rules, or a grammar. the roles of a grammar are to decide explicitly what is in the language and what is not, as well as to provide a means of pronouncing and understanding any sentence encountered. sounds simple enough, but here's the catch: each person has idiosyncrasies within the rules of his language's governing grammar (vocabulary and pronunciation, eg) and as such, has a specific, personalized version of grammar. the larger point to take from this is that language is not totally socially constructed, and that although rules exists, individuals are capable of creating and observing their own.

i'll leave you with one final thought, which you'll hopefully keep in mind as you watch my project progress. conventions require two or more people to create and maintain, but rules only require a single individual. the goal is for the logic of the rules i'm creating to develop appealingly enough to facilitate public consumption. here goes nothing..