7.736, Disc: Languages in dreams, Millennium

[The Linguist List]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-7-736. Thu May 23 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  115
 
Subject: 7.736, Disc: Languages in dreams, Millennium
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Editor for this issue: dseely at emunix.emich.edu (T. Daniel Seely)
 
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Thu, 23 May 1996 09:34:38 +0800
From:  ellgupta at leonis.nus.sg (Anthea Fraser Gupta)
Subject:  Re: 7.720, Disc: Languages in dreams, Typology, Millennium
 
2)
Date:  Wed, 22 May 1996 22:00:11 EDT
From:  JudiLabath at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 7.729, Disc: Language in dreams
 
3)
Date:  Wed, 22 May 1996 13:34:47 CDT
From:  jkonopak at uoknor.edu (John Konopak)
Subject:  Re: 7.732, Disc: Millennium
 
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Thu, 23 May 1996 09:34:38 +0800
From:  ellgupta at leonis.nus.sg (Anthea Fraser Gupta)
Subject:  Re: 7.720, Disc: Languages in dreams, Typology, Millennium
 
>Bart Diels
>B.Diels at student.KUN.NL
 
>If I am right, Mr. Hoffman argues that the existence of dreams in which the
>dreamer fluently speaks a language he doesn't really master is an
>indication for the a-linguistic character of dreams. This does not quite
>convince me. If dreams would be totally a-linguistic, one could dream of
>speaking any language, but this doesn't seem to be the case: people seem
>to dream only of speaking languages that they more or less know. I guess
>that someone who doesn't speak a word of Chinese in real life will never
>be speaking Chinese in his dreams.
 
People's dreams must vary a great deal, as any discussion (e.g. about colour
in dreams, cross-gender dreams, dreaming as self, other, or omniscient
narrator) will reveal.  This presumably applies to language too.  I
personally have OFTEN dreamt "in" languages I don't speak at all (e.g.
Russian): the dream is deceiving me just as dreams deceive about who, where,
and when we are.  I "know" it's Russian, but of course it can't be....
 
Anthea
* Anthea Fraser GUPTA(http://www.nus.sg/NUSinfo/FASS/ELL/antheah.html)
* English Language & Literature            *                         *
* National University of Singapore         *           Tel: 7723 933 *
* Singapore 119260   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Fax: 776 3638 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Wed, 22 May 1996 22:00:11 EDT
From:  JudiLabath at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 7.729, Disc: Language in dreams
 
Interesting discussion, and here is a question for you to consider: if dreams
are a-lingual, why do some people talk in their sleep?  ASL is my second
language and my husband's first language.  We both sign in our sleep.  I
dream in sign still with fifteen years of exposure to the language. So, what
do you think, folks?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date:  Wed, 22 May 1996 13:34:47 CDT
From:  jkonopak at uoknor.edu (John Konopak)
Subject:  Re: 7.732, Disc: Millennium
 
 
Re: the millenial designation,
        Seems to me there are two--perhaps even three, now I think about
it--equally suggestive (semiotically) options. The first--the  "_aughts_"
- has precedent, inasmuch as that appears to have been how the dilemma was
answered at the beginning of the last two centuries. Semiotically, the
phonetic confusion with "ought" ought perhaps to be considered as a salutary
consequence of this choice--though I can hear the reactionary crowd's howls
now if it comes to pass. It'd surely be tabbed PC.
        The second possibility could be the "_double aughts_." While without
any linguistic precedent (as far as we know, anyway), this has the semiotic
possibility of being conflated with a shotgun marriage--or a shotgun
anything, for that matter, which given the apparent developments on the body
politics--concealed weapons everywhere, increased militancy, etc--strikes me
as possibly prescient.
        The third possibility presenting itself to me is the "_nuls_."
Again, this might be a label better applied in retrospect than in
anticipation; nevertheless, it may well capture the spirit and the
intentions of the Generation Xers and subsequent cohorts.
        All three possibilities appear IMHO to be fraught with potential for
both naming and characterizing the coming age.
        Cheery-bye
        John
 
 ____	____   _     _	
    |	|   \  |    /	
    |	|   |  |   /	
    |	|   /  |__/		John Konopak
    |	|--/   |  \		EDUC/ILAC--OU
    |   |      |   \		Norman OK 73019
|__/   _|_    _|_  _\_	
	jkonopak at uoknor.edu\\Ph: 405-325-1498//FX: 405-325-4061		
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-736.