<html>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">sorry, I still wanted to make a
comments owards one old message of Fabian cncerning peceaving a
language.I see the topic as vey important.<br>
<br>
"also native speakers are faced with the fact that much of the
meanings which they are accustomed to being communicated in ordinary
speech are lost in people the further away they are socially
geographically and linguistically"<br>
.<br>
</font>replying to it, I can only say not matter which language we choose
as a communication language we need to deal with its oppression history
except maybe few of those nations who did not make any harm to neibourgs.
For me as an Ukrainian is definitely Russian and Polish with which I can
in principle have a problem. But also I know that my beautiful Ukrainian
language is associate for many with a blood. So better concentrate just
on communication itself. From another side we need come closer to
semantic early or later if we want understand each other above the
historical aspects. I don't know if we shall start speak about
structuralism or some other aspects of semantic, linguistical effects? I
am more expert in biosemantic according to my current professional
interest, but if someone can develop/present interesting information
about new East-West semantical boundaries, it could be great. For me
personally, the language was always the frame in which I am looking for
common meaning and it works on subconscious level. BuT maybe Fabian is
right: we cannot avoid here speak about hermeneutic and other
philosophical aspects of the "understanding" problems.<br>
<br>
regards, Olga </html>