[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ad Yurii Gloriam (Was Re: maize in ancient india: strong transpacific links are indicated)

(Good.  No big flames yet, but do not tell anybody.  Shhh.  I am speaking only 
in parenthesis, so I can pass unnoticed...;  OK, OK, I am always unnoticed, 
put I also have the right to practice some delusion!)

(Anyway, I have been left baffled by the complexity and simultaneous brevity 
of Mr Gardner's followup. who by the way addresses Mr Allison's comments on my 
post, and not my post itself.  I only want to ask a question to Mr Gardner, 
after he says...)

In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.970111165912.2947A-100000@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>, Milo 
Gardner <gardnerm@gaia.ecs.csus.edu> wrote, addressing Mr Allison:

>your view of rhetoric seems to assumes bivalent logic. a real life 
>situation may be trivalent - as one language - Aymara - of the New World 
>used as Inca priests. That is define rhetoric - there are many types -
>some that work - and others that do not - depending on the issue.

Very true, I am sure (oops, forgot my parenthesis, so I will put another one 
just in case (but I cannot understand a thing.  The last sentence says a lot, 
I am sure, but my limited reading abilities cannot grasp but the generality.  
And the first sentence seems to suggest a bivalent logic (which may be true 
for all languages), and also seems to indicate --adding a word or two, as a 
gesture of charity toward the reader-- that Inca priests spoke Aymara, which 
would be news for me, no expert in Inca liturgy, anyway, but having understood 
all the way that the only thing the Incas really did impose was their 
language, which of course was not Aymara.))



Domingo Martinez-Castilla