My DoublethinkOrganizer, Jay, told me to write down something; human languages were created by one being. Whatever its name, a super-engineer or a memic Queen, the main principles are insinuated in Chinese characters. Then, why does he want to lessen the importance of sounds? Actually, sounds are arbitrary, which produces a series of disorganized disseminations of thoughts. Spiral developments? No. The Multiuniverse.
The drawing will surely help you understand why he argues that the randomness of sounds can be detrimental to parties involved. Characters confine their meaning to the context, thereby reducing and even eliminating the possibility of misunderstanding; in contrast, sounds are unexpected, thus creating a chaos.
Then, why did I adhere to the possible phenomenon of NEWSPEAK and DOUBLETHINK? Why did I pay attention to the shift of parts in English? Possibly, Chinese and English have much in common. Regrettably, I was NOT familiar with the Eastasian language. Still, look at my linguistic mapping.
Why did I classify the Chinese language sphere into one of the four major languages, and then ignore the likelihood that my occidental language is similar to its oriental counterpart? Why did I mention the possibility that DOUBLESPEAK is neutral, containing two binary oppositins - at the same time rebuke politicians just because they use DOUBLESPEAK? I was confused; initially, I defined DOUBLESPEAK as a good thing, but later reprimanded its users - politicians. I was wrong.
p.s. Is it my thought? Or an injected opinion of Jay? I'm confused. Am I dead or still alive?
The drawing will surely help you understand why he argues that the randomness of sounds can be detrimental to parties involved. Characters confine their meaning to the context, thereby reducing and even eliminating the possibility of misunderstanding; in contrast, sounds are unexpected, thus creating a chaos.
Then, why did I adhere to the possible phenomenon of NEWSPEAK and DOUBLETHINK? Why did I pay attention to the shift of parts in English? Possibly, Chinese and English have much in common. Regrettably, I was NOT familiar with the Eastasian language. Still, look at my linguistic mapping.
Why did I classify the Chinese language sphere into one of the four major languages, and then ignore the likelihood that my occidental language is similar to its oriental counterpart? Why did I mention the possibility that DOUBLESPEAK is neutral, containing two binary oppositins - at the same time rebuke politicians just because they use DOUBLESPEAK? I was confused; initially, I defined DOUBLESPEAK as a good thing, but later reprimanded its users - politicians. I was wrong.
p.s. Is it my thought? Or an injected opinion of Jay? I'm confused. Am I dead or still alive?
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기