Tony

I'm in late on this, please forgive.

You state:

When two
> > different signifiers belonging to two different semiotic systems (i.e.
> > languages) are used to signify one and the same referent, I would argue
> > that, to a certain extent, the relationship of language to reality-its
> > truthfulness or reliability-is made, if not stable and decidable, then
at
> > least more so.

Maybe so, but why?  Why should the combination of two systems, related only
by subject, give rise to a common system that is more precise than its
makers?  Why should the fuzz surrounding the individual systems be
eliminated in an act of recombination and result in another system with even
less fuzz.

This would seem to be arguing along Bradley's and Eliot's lines that
experience is multilayered and that the more layers the closer to reality
the experience is.

Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM