LINGUIST List 7.736

Thu May 23 1996

Disc: Languages in dreams, Millennium

Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseelyemunix.emich.edu>

Directory

1. Anthea Fraser Gupta, Re: 7.720, Disc: Languages in dreams, Typology, Millennium
2. JudiLabathaol.com, Re: 7.729, Disc: Language in dreams
3. John Konopak, Re: 7.732, Disc: Millennium

Message 1: Re: 7.720, Disc: Languages in dreams, Typology, Millennium

>Bart Diels
>B.Dielsstudent.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 *

Message 2: 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?

Message 3: 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
|__/ _|_ _|_ _\_	
	jkonopakuoknor.edu\\Ph: 405-325-1498//FX: 405-325-4061