Concepts and Symbols *quack*

It seems that I'm going to have to disagree with you on many points, Eric. To start, I think that it is really pointless trying to compare the situations of having to describe an unknown color and of having to explain a concept. Describing a completely new color would be impossible. You cannot describe something you have never seen, but trying to describe a concept is completely different. In describing a concept, there are many more tools that can be used.

For example, let's say I was trying to describe the concept of love to a child. Even by using simple emotions like happiness and sadness and the experiences that the child already had with which these emotions were involved, I would be able to get the child to understand. It wouldn't be possible to do this with something like a new color because it doesn't really involve any sort of emotion or experience. In the end, it goes back to what Emily said in the first post about how it's up to the person to be persistent enough to keep trying to explain the concept until the other person understands. Therefore, if Winston was persistent enough, he could explain what he learned to pretty much anyone he wanted.

Also, I can see how the book could be portrayed as a map, but not so much as a symbol. I would appreciate it if someone could expand on that.

Moving on to symbols....
I'm going to have to stick to what Hayakawa has said about symbols. Let's continue with patriotism as the example. Basically, I think no one can come up with an exact definition of patriotism because it is really different to everyone. It is true that many people prize the symbol over the symbolized, but that does not mean that the two become one. For instance, many people consider wearing red, white, and blue a symbol for patriotism. However, the person may have just worn such colors coincidentally, and therefore, may not be the least bit patriotic. Basically, it is society that makes it seem that such symbols are one with what they are 'supposed to symbolize,' and once again, it is not that such a concept is hard to explain, but that people aren't persistent enough to try.

Moving on to the duck...
First of all I don't quite understand Eric's statement. "All right, so the word is not the symbol as the different versions of "quack" in different languages show. But then what is the sound of a duck? In this case, the symbol practically is what is being symbolized. Is it?"
If I am interpreting this correctly, I believe that Eric is stating that the 'quack' that we use is a symbol of the sound the duck makes. If so, then there are two points I have to make.
1) If the noise is actually being made, such as "A duck goes *quack*" then it is not a symbol, but the actual noise itself as it is heard.
2) If the word is just being said as it is, then it is a symbol, but it is still separate. To clarify, if the word 'quack' were to be read out loud, the actual sound of a duck wouldn't be heard. The word itself is a symbol that is commonly known in English to convey the likeness of the sound that is heard in reality. In this case, it is not surprising that the sound of the duck is symbolized differently in different languages, seeing as the sound of letter combinations is different in each language.

And I would like to add how I'm in awe that you are knowledgeable of so many duck sounds, Eric

(Mary Quien)