>so its not actually a metaphor then?

that works on both primary and secondary levels of signification.


and language has no other
>qualities? so is language subjective then? or is that an
>objective fact that langugae is a system of communication that
>uses particular sounds and symbols to exchnage
>information...?

I completely think that language is subjective. This is the very crux of the argument. I think objectivity v subjectivity is a false dichotomy. More accurately it should be described subjectivity v subjectivity or even (as I have stated) 'degree of subjectivity'.


..oh wowee...we got from objective christianity
>to a Noam Chomsky reader in about 10 posts...really building
>up the knowledge here...

Have you actually read any Chomsky or do you simply like his name?