File1307713520.png-(27 KB, 325x265, challenge-accepted.png)
That's an entirely coherent position. On the other hand, I am comfortable thinking of language as a mutable, incoherent, big ball of wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff. Sure, there might be an idealised form of 'English', like we're using at the moment, but that can't be the 'correct' or 'proper' English some aspies want it to be - it's just as valid as whatever the fuck it is that Yardies say to eachother, or West-country grunting farmers, or the technobabble techies talk to eachother. I find that that is a much more interesting explanation of language than, for example, the French model of having a list of acceptable words and how they're used, were there is a serious attempt to narrowly define language and ignore how it's actually used.
Maybe it's just the massive, raeging boner I have for Wittgenstein, but I feel that day-to-day language cannot stand on its own, that it is inherently irrational and irreducible. When language is actually used, I think that you do have to acknowledge that everyone engaged in the communication has prior experience and are more interested in getting the 'gist' of what's being said than in precisely understanding the technical aspects of their constructions.
Also, fuck grammar. Fuck it in the arse as a useless pile of incoherent gobblediegook. Fuck you, Latin.
Also, I have a degree in philosophy. I think this is the first time it's been useful since graduation.