🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous posting, Dave Taylor writes:

> It is my understanding that us humans are the only creatures on this 
> planet that have a written form of communication.  Am I wrong?

If we call the noises that animals use to send signals to each other 
'language' (which is fine by me) then more or less permanent scent 
markings (deliberately laid down by excretion) indicating the limits of
an animals territory could reasonably be compared to the graffiti of street
gangs. This also serves to indicate 'turf'.

Tho, methinks 'language' should be used to describe communication based on
signals with structure, that is, discernable, reusable 'parts'. In addition,
in the conversation there should be distinguishable

	'locutionary act'	(the act of moving your lips, or typing.)
	'illocutionary act'	(the act of making your point, or posting
				 a followup.)
	'perlocutionary act'	(the act of winning over, or alienating your
				 fellow poster)

This from classical semantics (I may have the last two of them switched).
If not all of these make sense about a system of communication, then it isn't
(probably) language. For example, a bird squacking fearfully when attacked
probably isn't performing a perlocutionary act, because it squacks regardless
of the presence of it's fellows, the presumed targets of the signal.

	Max

[we're going a bit far afield here, but I thought Max raised a sufficiently
 interesting distinction to make it worth including this message.  -- Dave]