Warning: not my randomness

[lunapolaris17]

In English class I am learning about theory. What I have just read as homework goes something like this: words do no relate to what the represent. the word could essentially represent anything. ball does not indicate a round object. ball is simply the word that due to social culture we associate with a round object. other theoretical languages have tried to create words that do systematically symbolize what they mean. for instance letters would be more like the biological animal classification system thingy (adding thingy cause i forget the word). So if I wrote "asndi", a would indicate the most general of characteristics while s-i would represnet description of the characteristics so to use letters to represent discriptions and therefore create a word that does associate with what it represents.

so in this interesting evaluation of words, i found a wonderful passage:

"a certain Chinese encyclopedia entiteld "celestial emporium of benevolent knoweledge." On these remote pages it is written that animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are not included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumberable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance."