Do you have a conception of 'thought' that is not based on language? All you have offered so far is "conception is another word for thought". This is equivocation.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am Thought existed before language ever did because it is more primitive and less complex
You know when I said you are making the circle bigger? This is exactly it! Illusion.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am To then say that conception of language is based on language itself is demonstrably false
Conception is another word for thought so to initially conceive of a language does not imply actual language
So I am going to short-circuit your argument like this: You have no conception of conception.
Therefore you have no conception of thought. Therefore you have no conception of language that is not linguistic.
Logocentrism
Yes. That is how language is USED! Not how language is CREATED.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am Language is either written or spoken but conception or thought is neither of these because it is much simpler
You can't conceive how language is created until you can conceive conception.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:52 am You can conceive the beginning of a new language in your mind without actually writing it down or saying it out loud
This is awesome! Langage is circular (which is not news to me)
But the question of how do you 'conceptualise conception' leads to.... creation